The Bible in quotations

[Maguire01]

There has been an enormous shift in the way we have come to understand tolerance over recent years -- from defending the rights of those who hold different beliefs to affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct (except Christians! ) I tolerate your right to have another belief about religion, I tolerate gay people's right to have other beliefs about marriage but I don't accept them as valid or correct. Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.

I don't see how you can equate religious beliefs to demands for equality. Gay people don't have "beliefs" about marriage.

And I don't see the affirmation that all beliefs are equally valid and correct. In terms of religious beliefs, I consider them all to be ridiculous, but defend your right to practice them, to the extent that they do not impinge on the equality of others.

[The Iceman]

There has been an enormous shift in the way we have come to understand tolerance over recent years -- from defending the rights of those who hold different beliefs to affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct (except Christians! ) I tolerate your right to have another belief about religion, I tolerate gay people's right to have other beliefs about marriage but I don't accept them as valid or correct. Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.

I don't see how you can equate religious beliefs to demands for equality. Gay people don't have "beliefs" about marriage.

And I don't see the affirmation that all beliefs are equally valid and correct. In terms of religious beliefs, I consider them all to be ridiculous, but defend your right to practice them, to the extent that they do not impinge on the equality of others.

But that very statement hinges on what you understand equality to be surely? And where it applies?
And who's to say your belief is better than mine or John in strabane who wants to marry his girlfriend and stay married to his wife and all three are consenting to the arrangement. Or Brijesh in Afghanistan who is marrying his 14 year old bride to join his band of 5 wives he already has......

[Maguire01]

There has been an enormous shift in the way we have come to understand tolerance over recent years -- from defending the rights of those who hold different beliefs to affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct (except Christians! ) I tolerate your right to have another belief about religion, I tolerate gay people's right to have other beliefs about marriage but I don't accept them as valid or correct. Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.

I don't see how you can equate religious beliefs to demands for equality. Gay people don't have "beliefs" about marriage.

And I don't see the affirmation that all beliefs are equally valid and correct. In terms of religious beliefs, I consider them all to be ridiculous, but defend your right to practice them, to the extent that they do not impinge on the equality of others.

But that very statement hinges on what you understand equality to be surely? And where it applies?
And who's to say your belief is better than mine or John in strabane who wants to marry his girlfriend and stay married to his wife and all three are consenting to the arrangement. Or Brijesh in Afghanistan who is marrying his 14 year old bride to join his band of 5 wives he already has......

My position isn't based on a 2000 year old book and associated superstitions.

[The Iceman]

There has been an enormous shift in the way we have come to understand tolerance over recent years -- from defending the rights of those who hold different beliefs to affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct (except Christians! ) I tolerate your right to have another belief about religion, I tolerate gay people's right to have other beliefs about marriage but I don't accept them as valid or correct. Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.

I don't see how you can equate religious beliefs to demands for equality. Gay people don't have "beliefs" about marriage.

And I don't see the affirmation that all beliefs are equally valid and correct. In terms of religious beliefs, I consider them all to be ridiculous, but defend your right to practice them, to the extent that they do not impinge on the equality of others.

But that very statement hinges on what you understand equality to be surely? And where it applies?
And who's to say your belief is better than mine or John in strabane who wants to marry his girlfriend and stay married to his wife and all three are consenting to the arrangement. Or Brijesh in Afghanistan who is marrying his 14 year old bride to join his band of 5 wives he already has......

My position isn't based on a 2000 year old book and associated superstitions.

It's yours Maguire. And mine is mine. The point is they are different. Your whole point hinges on your own belief of what equality applies to. It's different for all of us. Is it survival of the fittest then? Whoever acts the toughest on the gaaboard wins? Lord of the flies?
I'll go with the 2000 year old book and the 2000 year old church - both have much more solid footings than anything you can present....

[Maguire01]

There has been an enormous shift in the way we have come to understand tolerance over recent years -- from defending the rights of those who hold different beliefs to affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct (except Christians! ) I tolerate your right to have another belief about religion, I tolerate gay people's right to have other beliefs about marriage but I don't accept them as valid or correct. Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.

I don't see how you can equate religious beliefs to demands for equality. Gay people don't have "beliefs" about marriage.

And I don't see the affirmation that all beliefs are equally valid and correct. In terms of religious beliefs, I consider them all to be ridiculous, but defend your right to practice them, to the extent that they do not impinge on the equality of others.

But that very statement hinges on what you understand equality to be surely? And where it applies?
And who's to say your belief is better than mine or John in strabane who wants to marry his girlfriend and stay married to his wife and all three are consenting to the arrangement. Or Brijesh in Afghanistan who is marrying his 14 year old bride to join his band of 5 wives he already has......

My position isn't based on a 2000 year old book and associated superstitions.

It's yours Maguire. And mine is mine. The point is they are different. Your whole point hinges on your own belief of what equality applies to. It's different for all of us. Is it survival of the fittest then? Whoever acts the toughest on the gaaboard wins? Lord of the flies?
I'll go with the 2000 year old book and the 2000 year old church - both have much more solid footings than anything you can present....

Where would women be in our society if we used the bible as the basis for equality? The reality is that even Christians recognise that it was written at a very different time, yet revert to it to defend positions that are otherwise indefensible.

[theskull1]

When I look around in the world I live in I'm constantly unimpressed by the generosity of spirit of those who'd like to be seen as devout. The vast majority go to mass and thats the end of their involvement in the community the spend their lives in. They play no meaningful role in fostering community adhesion. What does the bible tell us about that? Quotations anyone?

[haveaharp]

There has been an enormous shift in the way we have come to understand tolerance over recent years -- from defending the rights of those who hold different beliefs to affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct (except Christians! ) I tolerate your right to have another belief about religion, I tolerate gay people's right to have other beliefs about marriage but I don't accept them as valid or correct. Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.

I don't see how you can equate religious beliefs to demands for equality. Gay people don't have "beliefs" about marriage.

And I don't see the affirmation that all beliefs are equally valid and correct. In terms of religious beliefs, I consider them all to be ridiculous, but defend your right to practice them, to the extent that they do not impinge on the equality of others.

But that very statement hinges on what you understand equality to be surely? And where it applies?
And who's to say your belief is better than mine or John in strabane who wants to marry his girlfriend and stay married to his wife and all three are consenting to the arrangement. Or Brijesh in Afghanistan who is marrying his 14 year old bride to join his band of 5 wives he already has......

I'd say the Afghan example is a poor one as yer man is clearly a paedo as is every one that takes child brides.

[The Iceman]

There has been an enormous shift in the way we have come to understand tolerance over recent years -- from defending the rights of those who hold different beliefs to affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct (except Christians! ) I tolerate your right to have another belief about religion, I tolerate gay people's right to have other beliefs about marriage but I don't accept them as valid or correct. Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.

I don't see how you can equate religious beliefs to demands for equality. Gay people don't have "beliefs" about marriage.

And I don't see the affirmation that all beliefs are equally valid and correct. In terms of religious beliefs, I consider them all to be ridiculous, but defend your right to practice them, to the extent that they do not impinge on the equality of others.

But that very statement hinges on what you understand equality to be surely? And where it applies?
And who's to say your belief is better than mine or John in strabane who wants to marry his girlfriend and stay married to his wife and all three are consenting to the arrangement. Or Brijesh in Afghanistan who is marrying his 14 year old bride to join his band of 5 wives he already has......

My position isn't based on a 2000 year old book and associated superstitions.

It's yours Maguire. And mine is mine. The point is they are different. Your whole point hinges on your own belief of what equality applies to. It's different for all of us. Is it survival of the fittest then? Whoever acts the toughest on the gaaboard wins? Lord of the flies?
I'll go with the 2000 year old book and the 2000 year old church - both have much more solid footings than anything you can present....

Where would women be in our society if we used the bible as the basis for equality? The reality is that even Christians recognise that it was written at a very different time, yet revert to it to defend positions that are otherwise indefensible.

all deflections Maguire....

[Maguire01]

There has been an enormous shift in the way we have come to understand tolerance over recent years -- from defending the rights of those who hold different beliefs to affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct (except Christians! ) I tolerate your right to have another belief about religion, I tolerate gay people's right to have other beliefs about marriage but I don't accept them as valid or correct. Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.

I don't see how you can equate religious beliefs to demands for equality. Gay people don't have "beliefs" about marriage.

And I don't see the affirmation that all beliefs are equally valid and correct. In terms of religious beliefs, I consider them all to be ridiculous, but defend your right to practice them, to the extent that they do not impinge on the equality of others.

But that very statement hinges on what you understand equality to be surely? And where it applies?
And who's to say your belief is better than mine or John in strabane who wants to marry his girlfriend and stay married to his wife and all three are consenting to the arrangement. Or Brijesh in Afghanistan who is marrying his 14 year old bride to join his band of 5 wives he already has......

My position isn't based on a 2000 year old book and associated superstitions.

It's yours Maguire. And mine is mine. The point is they are different. Your whole point hinges on your own belief of what equality applies to. It's different for all of us. Is it survival of the fittest then? Whoever acts the toughest on the gaaboard wins? Lord of the flies?
I'll go with the 2000 year old book and the 2000 year old church - both have much more solid footings than anything you can present....

Where would women be in our society if we used the bible as the basis for equality? The reality is that even Christians recognise that it was written at a very different time, yet revert to it to defend positions that are otherwise indefensible.

all deflections Maguire....

How? If the bible is the basis for equality, why would we pick and choose?

[The Iceman]

Because you are answering my question with questions.

This was my challenge:

But that very statement hinges on what you understand equality to be surely? And where it applies?
And who's to say your belief is better than mine or John in strabane who wants to marry his girlfriend and stay married to his wife and all three are consenting to the arrangement. Or Brijesh in Afghanistan who is marrying his 14 year old bride to join his band of 5 wives he already has......

You have not yet given me an answer - simply questions or off the cuff comments about me....

[Maguire01]

Because you are answering my question with questions.

This was my challenge:

But that very statement hinges on what you understand equality to be surely? And where it applies?
And who's to say your belief is better than mine or John in strabane who wants to marry his girlfriend and stay married to his wife and all three are consenting to the arrangement. Or Brijesh in Afghanistan who is marrying his 14 year old bride to join his band of 5 wives he already has......

You have not yet given me an answer - simply questions or off the cuff comments about me....

Equality isn't about letting everyone do what they want, it's about not treating groups of people differently. In this part of the world, no one is allowed to marry more than one person. John in Strabane has the same rights as anyone else.

[The Iceman]

You sound like you're discriminating John. Denying his love. his right to be with both women. they are all consenting adults.
You're a poligamy-phobe!!!

[easytiger95]

With regard to Jesus' attitude towards sin - yourself Iceman, and other posters have made the point that homosexuality has been proscribed in Scripture - a statement which, by its very nature, is an exercise in literalism. So, given that you can only go by the written word of the Gospels as to what Jesus thought was a sin, we can only point out that Jesus never pronounced on homosexuality, therefore we do not know whether he thought it a sin or not. Given the incendiary nature of his interpretations of the Old Testament, there is no guarantee that he did.

So we know for a fact that the texts state he disapproved of prostitution and adultery. He also disliked usury and financial dealings, though he did recommend obeying the tax laws, rather than the direct action of non payment. Given the complete absence in the texts of him addressing homosexuality, I'm going to assume that he had no problem with it. He sounds like an ancient, Middle Eastern, Irish Times/guardian reader. (This may be a bit of a debating trick, but it was you who brought this to the level of textual criticism)

I think this rather uncharacteristic of you - your arguments have had solid footing up until now but I've heard this from much younger people. "If it isn't in the Bible then how do we know Jesus thought it was a sin?" He doesn't mention child rape, adult rape, abortion, euthanasia etc etc but we know He disapproved. Remember there was no Bible as we know if for a few hundred years after Christ. How did the Christian world survive? Teachings were passed on by word of mouth. Some were written down and taught. But mostly passed on through the early church. The Bible itself says that everything that Jesus said was not written down - are you so naive as to suggest that the 3 years of his active ministry could be contained in every detail in one book or 4 versions of that one book?

With regard to my point about married priests, surely the fact that the church has made an exception for Anglican priests proves my point about the fluid nature of the sacrament - once, the disciples and evangelists were allowed marry, than they were banned by the church from doing so, and now the church makes exceptions for Anglican converts.

This is not some immutable and unchanging sacrament, its governance (as you have helpfully proved for me) is a human construct and is changed according to the needs of the church. To argue its unchanging nature is simply not factual and will not hold up as a reason to withhold state marriage from homosexual couples.

No it doesn't. There is no law within the doctrine on marriage that says a Priest cannot be married. Priests take vows of celibacy. Those are two different things. Surely you can see that? Priests through their vows make that choice. If they didn't take the vows they would be free to marry and where throughout the history of the church until the vow was brought in.

By the way, I don't think it is possible to use the words "acceptance and tolerance" too loosely - I think there is a huge need for them - the more of them the better. Also, I never mentioned a united Ireland - but because i mentioned the Republic, you chose to bring it up as one of my motivations. Another debating trick, but it is easy enough to call. I said republicanism with a small r, by which i mean the ethos that inspired the American and French revolutions, and in Ireland people like Wolfe Tone - which in its best expressions throughout the centuries means an inclusive, secular democracy, with no established religion. I was making no connection with our own particular political situation on the island of Ireland. Indeed, this referendum only applies to the 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland. Fair dues to you for trying to stir the pot though.

You used the words acceptance and tolerance too loosely together. Acceptance and tolerance are two different things (we've been down this road before). There has been an enormous shift in the way we have come to understand tolerance over recent years -- from defending the rights of those who hold different beliefs to affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct (except Christians! ) I tolerate your right to have another belief about religion, I tolerate gay people's right to have other beliefs about marriage but I don't accept them as valid or correct. Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.

You are perfectly entitled to hold fast to the Holy Spirit - however, you are talking as if the vote has already been held. It hasn't, the argument is still alive, and until it is decided, by the people of this state, then your Holy Spirit better be ready for a fairly robust time of it against my secular humanism - we're down to it now and we're about to turn the river card. But please don't sulk before the game is lost. This is either something we both feel strongly about and should be allowed feel strongly about, or else it's not worth it. I do think it is worth it, whatever way the vote goes and whichever law we have to uphold as democrats in a Republic.

I think the vote is a done deal. It will pass with a resounding YES and I stated already what my reaction will be....... circles here...

Iceman, characteristically of you, unfortunately, you have ignored the meaning of my post. It as you who first brought up Scripture as a source of the prohibition against gay marriage, thus making this into a textual discussion. You have been asked to provide quotes from relevant passages - you sourced the Catechism and St. Paul - both written a long time after the death of Christ. So you are the one not on a solid ground, having made a statement which you cannot back up. As for my being naive, no i don't think that all of Jesus' life and words could be contained in the Gospels - unlike you however, I dd not let my naivety stop me from researching the provenance of the gospels - I suggest you read "In the Shadow of the Sword" by Tom holland from page 181 onwards for a precis of the organisation of the Church from Nicea to Chalcadon - it was based on the politics of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire, the Gospels as we know them became the canon in 367 AD after a bishop called Athanasius sent a letter defining the 27 Books of the New Testament, and all other Gospels and documents contrary to the canon were rooted out and destroyed.

So, we cannot say for certain what Jesus approved of or disapproved of, unless we accept the extant Gospels, as, well, Gospel. And if we do, then we do not see any evidence of Jesus disapproving of homosexuality. We can certainly posit his opposition to child rape through passages such as "Suffer the little children to come unto me";his disapproval of euthanasia, as he had advised his disciples to follow the ten commandments, whilst adding his own two commandments to the list; perhaps his disapproval of abortion on those grounds, though he was undoubtedly liberal in his forgiveness of prostitutes. However he says nothing, absolutely nothing, about homosexuality, unless he expressed it in a long destroyed Gnostic text. And given how rigidly the Church was enforcing the prejudices of the time (the 4th century), it was certainly not beyond them to delete any tacit approval or even tolerance from the rapidly forming religio. 

And to close this particular circle, it was you who brought up Scripture as the bedrock of your belief. I even told you it was a debating trick above, but you are the one standing on sand, not me.

What really amazes me sometimes about the devout is their refusal to marvel at the ambiguity and fascination that lies in the historical figure of Jesus. you have this person, who we know existed, whose presence in the historical record is fleeting but there and he is probably the single most important man in the history of the world, whether you believe in his divinity or not. His creed has exalted and destroyed nations and forever changed our planet for good and ill, but the basics of his tenets are so simple as to resonate with us today, through the religion, but also through culture, music, the arts. And yet, for a presence so allusive and all pervading, you are simply able to say "We know he disapproved".  Was Jesus' message not that God was judgment, but that God was love? How is it possible to miss the point so spectacularly?

As for the point about married priests, again you prove my point - non converts are made to take a vow of celibacy, it is a discipline rather than a doctrine, but none who refuse to take it are allowed continue to priesthood. The earliest mentions of priestly celibacy are from the 4th century AD, the councils of Levi and Carthage. However, the ordination of converted Anglican ministers could not have happened, by definition until after the Reformation in the 16th century. So exceptions are made by the Church, the Sacrament of marriage can be accessed by those who, by tradition it is usually denied, thus the immutable nature of your argument is nullified.

As for your final point re acceptance and tolerance, and my apparent disinclination to tolerate or accept Christian views. As far as I am concerned all Christians are free to follow their beliefs and I respect them. But when their beliefs stray into the secular realm, and impinge on the laws of our country then they must be subjected to the same rigorous argument as any other beliefs in the political arena. As I stated before, this is a secular referendum to give a civil right to a minority to access a secular service of the Republic. If you insist on setting your opposition on Scripture and Faith, you can expect to have them examined as any other protagonist would. This does not invalidate your right to hold them, or my tolerance of that right - but remember, you are the one extending your personal beliefs as a plank in a political struggle. Don't be surprised if you find you have brought a knife to a gun fight.

[The Iceman]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

[muppet]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

This is absurd. John in Strabane does have equal rights. He could go to any of those 50 countries, get married again, and come back and get the same benefits.