Church of Scotland to allow same-sex marriages

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

@Bradskii made a valid point...no need to accuse them of being "pedantic". It's a valid observation with regards to the differences between the different sects of Christianity.

It's a fair question, which denomination of Christianity gets to have the final say on what the "Christian position" is?

An example of a person actually being "pedantic" would be, for instance, if someone where to say "Okay, well, according to the Baptist faith and their rules the Catholics are going to hell, and the Catholics think the Baptists are going to hell, so why don't you guys go in a room, hash it out, and when you figure out which one is right, then come back and talk to me" (accompanied by a diatribe insulting each by pointing out examples of things they respectively practice and rules they enforce that aren't mentioned in original texts anywhere)

That's just an example, I'm not personally saying those things for the record, as I'm not trying to be insulting or pedantic.

It is pedantic and unserious. He has not seriously dealt with the actual question about what marriage is in Christianity historically and instead focused on a side issue of how Homosexuality has been treated in different Christian states. This doesn't disprove my claim that homosexuality was not approved of. My original point has remained uncontested, that Homosexuality has not been accepted and that the Church has had a consistent idea about what marriage is for two thousand years. Even if the treatment of homosexuals within secular contests has changed from one time to another.

Besides, that doesn't excuse his horrendous butchering of the Apostle.

Denominationalism doesn't pose a problem to my statement since as far as I can tell it's universal. Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. From their inception these Churches had a consistent idea of marriage and when homosexuality was discussed it was always as if it was bad. You have more clear denunciations in someone like Peter Damian, but then you have as the best evidence the lives Christians lived and were encouraged. The basic assumptions people had concerning marriage, that if you were a husband you had a wife and likely children.

 

[FireDragon76]

The church does not determine truth. The scripture does. And what scripture says has not changed. What has changed in modern days is the rejection of what scripture says.

The Scriptures don't "say" anything. Humans interpret them, and those interpertations are not infallible.

 

[FireDragon76]

There is nothing in the Gospels about homosexuality. It has all come from the Old Testament and Paul (who got his views there).

It is an enduring puzzle that many church organisations are utterly obsessed with sexual matters, hardly caring at all about much more serious matters. Gluttony, already mentioned; pride and avarice are currently central issues in American (and other Western) societies.

Who cares about them in the same way?

That's why I criticize the petty morality of conservative Christians. Sexual libertinism is overrated by most conservatives in terms of its importance. Greed is far more pressing a problem, and far more destructive.

 

[Bradskii]

My original point has remained uncontested, that Homosexuality has not been accepted and that the Church has had a consistent idea about what marriage is for two thousand years.

That's not what your original point was. You said the the Christian position on homosexuality from 2,000 years ago had remained unchanged. That has shown to be incorrect in that the punishment for it - and obviously therefore how bad the sin is seen to be, has drastically changed.

And you made no mention in your original point about marriage OR the Church. Or indeed any other specific denomination. Obviously because gay marriage is accepted by some churches and some denominations have little or no problem with homosexuality.

This is not and never has been a discussion about Catholicism.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That's not what your original point was. You said the the Christian position on homosexuality from 2,000 years ago had remained unchanged. That has shown to be incorrect in that the punishment for it - and obviously therefore how bad the sin is seen to be, has drastically changed.

My position is correct because it has always been regarded as a negative within Christianity. You have not demonstrated otherwise despite different secular treatments of homosexuals. There has always been a clear negative association throughout the whole of Christian history. Putting aside progressive movements that don't base their decision to accept homosexuality within Christianity on anything resembling good theology but secular ideology.

And you made no mention in your original point about marriage OR the Church. Or indeed any other specific denomination. Obviously because gay marriage is accepted by some churches and some denominations have little or no problem with homosexuality.

This is not and never has been a discussion about Catholicism.

Given that this is a conversation about the Church, I would have assumed you could read context. I guess not. This is a discussion about the Church of Scotland. I believe the Church of Scotland is going against a long established rule within Christianity by affirming homosexuality. How you think secular punishment is particularly relevent is beyond me since this is a Church issue. But let's discuss the issue like this then. Do you believe Homosexuality has been accepted and regarded as legitimate in Christianity throughout all of history?

You won't answer the question.

 

[FireDragon76]

My position is correct because it has always been regarded as a negative within Christianity. You have not demonstrated otherwise despite different secular treatments of homosexuals.



Given that his is a conversation about the Church, I would have assumed you could read context. I guess not. But let's discuss the issue like this then. Do you believe Homosexuality has been accepted and regarded as legitimate for most of Christian history?

You won't answer the question.

That's not relevant considering traditions of men are fallible. Appeal to antiquity is widely regarded as a fallacious argument, anyways.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That's not relevant considering traditions of men are fallible. Appeal to antiquity is widely regarded as a fallacious argument, anyways.

Fundamentalist interpretation about authority in the Church is a bad basis for theology. The Church is not merely yourself reading the bible at anyone time, it is the Christian witness over the centuries and we are not free from those who came before us.

You used to be some sort of dissident Lutheran, you should understand that not even Luther went in the direction of the Radical reformers in rejecting all tradition and everything that came before him.

 

[Bradskii]

My position is correct because it has always been regarded as a negative within Christianity.

Your position was that the Christian position regarding homosexuality from 2,000 years ago has remained unchanged. That is exactly what younsaid. And that is patently untrue. The position regarding the punishment of it has changed utterly. And therefore the idea as to how sinful it is.

That the majority of denominations (but not all) have considered it and still do consider it a sin isn't and has never been in question.

 

[FireDragon76]

Fundamentalist interpretation about authority in the Church is a bad basis for theology. The Church is not merely yourself reading the bible at anyone time, it is the Christian witness over the centuries and we are not free from those who came before us.

You used to be some sort of dissident Lutheran, you should understand that not even Luther went in the direction of the Radical reformers in rejecting all tradition and everything that came before him.

I never slavishly followed Luther as a new Pope.

You may have a problem with freedom, but not all of us do. We are free from those who came before us in the absolute sense. I am not bound to agree with anything my ancestors did.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I never slavishly followed Luther as a new Pope.

You may have a problem with freedom, but not all of us do. We are free from those who came before us in the absolute sense. I am not bound to agree with anything my ancestors did.

Complete freedom is not a Christian virtue and the ultimate end of Christianity is not the radical liberation of the individual from all constraint. When you get married you have obligations to your children and spouse. You are not free to abandon them without consequence.

Same is true in matters of the faith which is passed down. As an Apostate you can do whatever you want, but if you're claiming to say there is a correct view of Christianity and you're advocating the strongest Solo Scriptura position then you have to operate within that framework. Christianity as a religion, as a body, would fall apart on individualism, hence why I reject it and like being bound to the standards of my faith.

I know you don't like Fundamentalists, so why are you advocating their system of authority?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Your position was that the Christian position regarding homosexuality from 2,000 years ago has remained unchanged. That is exactly what younsaid. And that is patently untrue. The position regarding the punishment of it has changed utterly. And therefore the idea as to how sinful it is.

That the majority of denominations (but not all) have considered it and still do consider it a sin isn't and has never been in question.

It has remained unchanged. Homosexuality has been regarded as unacceptable throughout Christian history. Obviously progressive Churches are the exception but I won't pretend that they are operating on Christian pretenses in their judgement on this issue. They are operating on a different framework for accepting homosexuality, namely the framework of liberal secularism.

Who do you think is more authentically Christian in their position on homosexuality, the progressives or the traditionalists?

 

[tobyw]

This is what happens when you have a national church.

 

[FireDragon76]

Complete freedom is not a Christian virtue and the ultimate end of Christianity is not the radical liberation of the individual from all constraint. When you get married you have obligations to your children and spouse. You are not free to abandon them without consequence.

Same is true in matters of the faith which is passed down. As an Apostate you can do whatever you want, but if you're claiming to say there is a correct view of Christianity and you're advocating the strongest Solo Scriptura position then you have to operate within that framework. Christianity as a religion, as a body, would fall apart on individualism, hence why I reject it and like being bound to the standards of my faith.

This presumes Christianity is about believing only "correct" things. Whatever happened to following the carpenter from Nazareth?

I know you don't like Fundamentalists, so why are you advocating their system of authority?

I'm not. I disagree with fundamentalist about epistemology and hermeneutics. Fundamentalists are not merely a 20th century Protestant phenomenon.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This presumes Christianity is about believing only "correct" things. Whatever happened to following the carpenter from Nazareth?

The carpenter from Nazareth who asked Saint Paul why he was persecuting him and who taught his Apostles to be his followers and leaders of the Church after he left.

Christians exist as a body, not as atomized individuals interpreting the philosopher.

I'm not. I disagree with fundamentalist about epistemology and hermeneutics. Fundamentalists are not merely a 20th century Protestant phenomenon.

When you advocate for Solo Scriptura as a method and act as if tradition is totally invalid you are advocating for a Fundamentalist or Radical reformed view of authority. Of which there are many problems as I pointed out before. There is no fallacy in seeing a universal practice within a movement and saying that is the belief of the movement. In the case of Christianity relating to this thread, that belief and practice is normal marriage between a man and woman.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It is pedantic and unserious. He has not seriously dealt with the actual question about what marriage is in Christianity historically and instead focused on a side issue of how Homosexuality has been treated in different Christian states. This doesn't disprove my claim that homosexuality was not approved of. My original point has remained uncontested, that Homosexuality has not been accepted and that the Church has had a consistent idea about what marriage is for two thousand years. Even if the treatment of homosexuals within secular contests has changed from one time to another.

Besides, that doesn't excuse his horrendous butchering of the Apostle.

Denominationalism doesn't pose a problem to my statement since as far as I can tell it's universal. Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. From their inception these Churches had a consistent idea of marriage and when homosexuality was discussed it was always as if it was bad. You have more clear denunciations in someone like Peter Damian, but then you have as the best evidence the lives Christians lived and were encouraged. The basic assumptions people had concerning marriage, that if you were a husband you had a wife and likely children.

But different sub-groups of Christianity have always had varying attitudes (in terms of strictness vs. leeway) on a number of things listed as extraneous sins in the Bible (again, "extraneous" meaning not listed in the 10 commandments, and not mentioned directly by Jesus according to the Bible).

I brought up drinking before. Clearly drinking is something that's touched on in the bible.

Many protestant denominations have had very strict rules on that matter, as to where the catholic church has had a much more lax view on it. The Catholic church has advocated for moderation, while the Baptist church I grew up in used to make us recite "don't smoke drink or chew, or run with those who do" when we were 5.

Catholics baptize babies, as to where protestant churches often advocate for baptism to be something that takes place when they're older and have a good understanding of what it signifies.

Another example would be women being in leadership positions. The bible is clear on that one as well. 1 Timothy Ch 2 suggests that women shouldn't be able to teach men in Church. Clearly not every denomination agrees with that one.

So this idea that a particular extraneous sin is "universally" treated the same way is false. Evidenced by the fact that some protestant churches already recognize same sex marriage.

The Church of Scotland making that choice is no different than
- The Catholic Church allowing people to drink
- The Methodist Church ordaining women
etc...

Sometimes the right answer is the simplest one...It would seem as if the correct solution is "If the Church of Scotland is being too lax on a particular sin that you want a stricter stance on, then stop going there and go somewhere else"

Much like the economy, "the free market" applies to churches. If I wanted to go to church, I could drive 5 minutes in any direction and find over a dozen churches with widely varying viewpoints on a number of issues.

If going to church is your thing, find one that matches your views and be happy you live in a country with so many options.

This idea that "churches can deviate on beliefs, but every church (even ones I don't go to) need to have the same viewpoint as me on the 1 or 2 hot button issues I happen to be all jazzed up about" is the recipe for one driving themselves crazy considering the vast number of options out there.

A person (who's not a member of the Church of Scotland) getting mad about them accepting gay marriage is basically the same as if an Evangelical were getting mad about the practice of confession taking place at the Catholic church down the street.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

But different sub-groups of Christianity have always had varying attitudes (in terms of strictness vs. leeway) on a number of things listed as extraneous sins in the Bible (again, "extraneous" meaning not listed in the 10 commandments, and not mentioned directly by Jesus according to the Bible).

I brought up drinking before. Clearly drinking is something that's touched on in the bible.

Many protestant denominations have had very strict rules on that matter, as to where the catholic church has had a much more lax view on it. The Catholic church has advocated for moderation, while the Baptist church I grew up in used to make us recite "don't smoke drink or chew, or run with those who do" when we were 5.

Catholics baptize babies, as to where protestant churches often advocate for baptism to be something that takes place when they're older and have a good understanding of what it signifies.

Another example would be women being in leadership positions. The bible is clear on that one as well. 1 Timothy Ch 2 suggests that women shouldn't be able to teach men in Church. Clearly not every denomination agrees with that one.

So this idea that a particular extraneous sin is "universally" treated the same way is false. Evidenced by the fact that some protestant churches already recognize same sex marriage.

The Church of Scotland making that choice is no different than
- The Catholic Church allowing people to drink
- The Methodist Church ordaining women
etc...

Sometimes the right answer is the simplest one...It would seem as if the correct solution is "If the Church of Scotland is being too lax on a particular sin that you want a stricter stance on, then stop going there and go somewhere else"

Much like the economy, "the free market" applies to churches. If I wanted to go to church, I could drive 5 minutes in any direction and find over a dozen churches with widely varying viewpoints on a number of issues.

If going to church is your thing, find one that matches your views and be happy you live in a country with so many options.

This idea that "churches can deviate on beliefs, but every church (even ones I don't go to) need to have the same viewpoint as me on the 1 or 2 hot button issues I happen to be all jazzed up about" is the recipe for one driving themselves crazy.

It's not driving anyone crazy, but we are allowed to criticize another Church for innovating and going against Christianity in their practice. You haven't said much concerning Homosexuality and it's prevalence, only that the Church of Scotland has decided to legitimize that. Obviously that is true. It is however an innovation, one not rooted in Christianity but principles you adhere to.

This is why I hope the COS members who ad adhering to Christianity do what is necessary to protect their Churches from the influence of other COS members who would seek to change that Christian perspective.

 

[Occams Barber]

This is what happens when you have a national church.

Perhaps this is a good thing.

A national church needs to cater to a wide segment of the national population therefore it will tend to be more tolerant and less inclined towards exclusion.

Tolerance is a commodity which appears to be in short supply in strict Christian circles.

OB

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Tolerance is a commodity which appears to be in short supply in strict Christian circles.

OB

Churches, like all groupings of people, have things they will tolerate and things they won't. Your values might tolerate degeneracy more than Christian values for instance, but it is necessary for the Church to have rules or positions against degenerate behavior. Especially if it wants to maintain itself.

If a Church becomes too tolerant, they cease to be an exclusively Christian organization, like many progressive Churches have become.

 

[Redac]

If you believe gluttony (overeating) is a sin, then there would be no position other than thinking it's a moral failing, correct?

People control whether or not they act on their desire to eat a bunch of unhealthy food, correct? (just as with the other topic being discussed...as the common rationale given is that "people may have certain urges that others don't, but it's ultimately up to them whether or not they act on them").

Usually you hear about how obesity is caused by systemic factors, poor access to proper nutrition, etc. Absolving people of much of the responsibility for it. It depends, but yes, there's frequently some lack of restraint or virtue when discussing obesity IMO. That whole discussion is kind of tangential to this thread, though.

Now, I know the follow-up rebuttal is usually "well, performing marriage ceremonies is different because it's not only tolerating something, but celebrating it"...well, but as noted the same could be said/applied to overeating as well.

Try This: Hold a July 4 Hot Dog Eating Contest

Here's a Christian Outreach magazine recommending that Churches hold a Hot Dog eating contest as a method of community outreach. Are they committing heresy or apostacy?

Heresy and apostasy have specific meanings. Heresy is the formal denial or doubt of some core doctrine of the faith. Apostasy is the deliberate rejection and abandonment of the faith. So no, having a hot dog eating contest, while not necessarily a good thing, is not heresy or apostasy.

If you're asking whether I'd approve of something like this, then no, I wouldn't. The difference is that the action itself here is eating, which is not inherently sinful. The celebration here would be of an excess, which yes, is not good. The problem with same-sex marriage, though, is that the thing itself is sinful; there is no circumstance or intent which could make it otherwise.

If hosting (and giving an award for) an event where the whole point is to give an award for the person who can jam pack the most amount of hot dogs in their gut without puking, that would seem like a celebration of gluttony.

I would generally agree. As I said, I don't particularly like eating contests and I would not advise a church to hold one as an outreach activity.

As would most Church bake sales where they encourage people to buy unhealthy food to support the church.

Intent matters. Selling food is not a sin.

ETA: There is some debate to be had about just how sinful an eating contest is, or participating in one. It's not really a cut-and-dry thing.

 

[rjs330]

The Scriptures don't "say" anything. Humans interpret them, and those interpertations are not infallible.

Actually they do and it's pretty clear. The scripture says a lot of things. Its only those who don't trust it that want to claim it's all about interpretation.

 

[rjs330]

Usually you hear about how obesity is caused by systemic factors, poor access to proper nutrition, etc. Absolving people of much of the responsibility for it. It depends, but yes, there's frequently some lack of restraint or virtue when discussing obesity IMO. That whole discussion is kind of tangential to this thread, though.


Heresy and apostasy have specific meanings. Heresy is the formal denial or doubt of some core doctrine of the faith. Apostasy is the deliberate rejection and abandonment of the faith. So no, having a hot dog eating contest, while not necessarily a good thing, is not heresy or apostasy.

If you're asking whether I'd approve of something like this, then no, I wouldn't. The difference is that the action itself here is eating, which is not inherently sinful. The celebration here would be of an excess, which yes, is not good. The problem with same-sex marriage, though, is that the thing itself is sinful; there is no circumstance or intent which could make it otherwise.


I would generally agree. As I said, I don't particularly like eating contests and I would not advise a church to hold one as an outreach activity.


Intent matters. Selling food is not a sin.

ETA: There is some debate to be had about just how sinful an eating contest is, or participating in one. It's not really a cut-and-dry thing.

Yeah I'm trying to find the scripture that forbids bake sales or eating cake.