GB News

ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Taught Religious Studies for 26 years (though for me it was just an academic subject) and knowing a reasonable amount about scripture and Theology without being Christian, I regard Robinson as a complete and utter fucking ****.

Just last week he was saying how much he would like to have Tommy Robinson on his Common Sense Crusade but his GB News bosses would never let him.

Before that he was at the Gafcon conference in Rwanda. Gafcon are basically an international association of scrofulous, homophobic twats who have broken away from the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Church of Uganda is closely aligned with them, a place where being gay has recently become a capital crime. Robinson, of course, is against Christian same-sex marriage ceremonies being introduced here.

Think he is also against female ordination and wants to make abortion illegal and exceptionless.

This infuriates me because it really isn’t all that difficult to deploy the Bible and Theology to take him apart on every last one of his ‘common sense’ stances.

For example, won’t go into detail, but all the passages that appear to condemn homosexuality in the Bible are based on mistranslations or misreadings of the original Hebrew and Greek terminology and misinterpretations of passages like the one in Genesis about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Plus, though this isn’t well known, as Alan Bray has written in his book The Friend,
"[f]or a very long period, formal amatory unions, conjugal, elective and indissoluble, between two members of the same sex were made in Europe, publicly recognised and consecrated in churches through Christian ritual."

So a very robust case can be made for reintroducing a same-sex marriage liturgy into the CofE. In other words, to do so wouldn’t be an indication of the church caving in to wokeness as Robinson has asserted.

So why the fuck hasn’t someone within that organisation responded to all the bollocks and shit he keeps geysering about this? All it would need is for someone to write an article for The Church Times.

Okay, rant over. Maybe I shouldn’t get annoyed as I have no connection of any kind with the Anglican Church and am not a God-botherer but he shouldn’t be getting away with all the crap he comes out with.
Click to expand...
Plus, though this isn’t well known, as Alan Bray has written in his book The Friend,
"[f]or a very long period, formal amatory unions, conjugal, elective and indissoluble, between two members of the same sex were made in Europe, publicly recognised and consecrated in churches through Christian ritual."

That sounded unlikely. It may not be well known as it appears to be a gloss by someone else in a review of Bray's book which is largely about 'sworn friendship'.

www.lrb.co.uk

James Davidson · Mr and Mr and Mrs and Mrs: Why would a guy want to marry a guy?

www.lrb.co.uk www.lrb.co.uk

I'm not sure the Church of England's current problems over the issue are helped by trying to reinterpret the "anti-gay" bits of the Bible, rather than simply arguing that lots of the stuff in the Bible might need a more subtle response than just "the Bible says". Is it still a bit "colonial" to say the majority view of the Anglican Church worldwide (and other faiths) is just wrong when the doctrine that marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman was universally accepted until relatively recently? But Jimmy McGovern's script for the film Priest (1994) cut through the theology with his question whether in a world of war, starvation and poverty "do you think God cares what men do with their dicks?"
 
Vic said:
Plus, though this isn’t well known, as Alan Bray has written in his book The Friend,
"[f]or a very long period, formal amatory unions, conjugal, elective and indissoluble, between two members of the same sex were made in Europe, publicly recognised and consecrated in churches through Christian ritual."

That sounded unlikely. It may not be well known as it appears to be a gloss by someone else in a review of Bray's book which is largely about 'sworn friendship'.

www.lrb.co.uk

James Davidson · Mr and Mr and Mrs and Mrs: Why would a guy want to marry a guy?

www.lrb.co.uk www.lrb.co.uk

I'm not sure the Church of England's current problems over the issue are helped by trying to reinterpret the "anti-gay" bits of the Bible, rather than simply arguing that lots of the stuff in the Bible might need a more subtle response than just "the Bible says". Is it still a bit "colonial" to say the majority view of the Anglican Church worldwide (and other faiths) is just wrong when the doctrine that marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman was universally accepted until relatively recently? But Jimmy McGovern's script for the film Priest (1994) cut through the theology with his question whether in a world of war, starvation and poverty "do you think God cares what men do with their dicks?"
Click to expand...
Got to fess up: I haven’t read Bray but I have read John Boswell’s book where he explores the relevant Biblical teachings in depth.

Boswell was a gay Catholic and an extraordinary linguist. It may well be that he was motivated to come up with alternate readings of the passages that traditionally form the basis for the notion that homosexuality is sinful but I was impressed with his analysis and he was surely alive to the possibility that his preconceptions may have shaped his conclusions.

Unfortunately, I don’t know Hebrew or koine Greek and so am unable to tell whether his research looks convincing to someone who does. However, his book was well-received as far as I know.

This may very well bore a lot of people but - for the record - here is my attempt to summarise what he wrote.

Genesis 19v1-8 tells the story of the destruction of the town of Sodom. Part of that story involves an incident where it appears that the men of the town wished to rape some male visitors. For this reason it has often been interpreted as highlighting the evil of homosexual sex. However, Boswell argues (convincingly in my view) that the inhabitants were destroyed for failing to honour the important duty (in Biblical times) of showing hospitality to travellers. So homosexuality is arguably not being directly condemned here.

The term ‘sodomite’, which appears twice in the King James version of the Old Testament (Deut. 23v17, 1 Kings 14v24) is simply, Boswell contends, a mistranslation of the Hebrew ‘kadash’ [plural ‘kadeshim’] which describes prostitutes who served in pagan temples, and as there is little evidence about the practices of that time, it cannot be inferred that these prostitutes serviced persons of their own sex.

The book of Leviticus also appears to describe homosexuality as ‘an abomination’ (18v22, 20v13). However, according to Boswell, the Hebrew word ‘toevah’ does not, when it is deployed, usually describe actions that are intrinsically evil, like rape or theft, but rather those that are ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation. Most Christians have, of course. long since dispensed with these and other specific laws concerning diet, behaviour, dress etc. mentioned elsewhere in Leviticus. As Boswell puts it, ‘the irrelevance of [such] verses was further emphasised by the teaching of Jesus and Paul that under the new dispensation it was not the physical violation of Levitical precepts which constituted ‘abomination’ but the interior infidelity of the soul’ [e.g. see Luke 16v15, Rom. 2v22, Titus 1v10-16].

Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality, but St Paul appears to condemn this type of behaviour in 1 Corinthians 6v9 and 1 Timothy 1v10, and writes critically of ‘men committing shameless acts with men’ in his letter to the Romans. Many Christians therefore regard St Paul as denouncing a homosexual lifestyle because it undermines the natural order represented by heterosexual family life. However, the translation of the two Greek words used by Paul in 1 Corinthians has been questioned and might instead refer to those who engage in ‘loose living’ (malakoi) and male prostitutes (arsenokoitai) who serviced both sexes, rather than homosexuals.

Finally, Paul’s reference to homosexual behaviour in Romans 1v26-27 may also have been misunderstood, as a close reading of this passage reveals that those who Paul is condemning are not homosexuals, but rather heterosexuals who have committed homosexual acts. Paul’s intent here is to criticise those who have rejected their true calling and abandoned the path that they were once following, or as Boswell puts it:

‘Paul believed that the Gentiles knew the truth of God but rejected it and likewise rejected their true ‘nature’ as regarded their sexual appetites, going beyond what was ‘natural’ for them and what was approved for the Jews. It cannot be inferred from this that Paul considered mere homoerotic attraction or practice morally reprehensible, since the passage strongly implies that he was not discussing persons who were by inclination gay and since he carefully observed, in regard to both the women and the men, that they changed or abandoned the ‘natural use’ to engage in homosexual activities.’

Boswell continues :

‘In sum, there is only one place in the writings which eventually became the Christian Bible where homosexual relations per se are clearly prohibited – Leviticus – and the context in which this prohibition occurred rendered it inapplicable to the Christian community, at least as moral law.’

In closing, I should also mention the former Bishop of Edinburgh Richard Holloway. He has now left the CofE but while he was still in his former role, he wrote a book called Godless Morality: Keeping Religion out of Ethics, partly as a response to the homophobia that he saw on display at the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

He just takes the line that we should just disregard any Bible passages that are out of step with the times, past their sell-by date in other words (if they ever had one to begin with).

Holloway also performed his first clandestine gay marriage ceremony in his Edinburgh church back in 1972.

Am mentioning him because he is such a brilliant author, one who is very much admired by atheists like Alain de Botton, Mary Warnock, and Philip Pullman. Nowadays he self-identifies as agnostic.

There is one other thing he wrote that is worth a mention: he reckons that as St Paul got the date of the Second Coming spectacularly wrong (he expected Jesus to return in his own lifetime), there are no good reasons to take his moral teachings any more seriously.

So there you go.

Should just add that Calvin Robinson blocked me on Twitter ages ago. However, when others retweet the crap he comes out with, I have enjoyed using some of the stuff I have mentioned above to put their noses out of joint.
 
Last edited:
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Got to fess up: I haven’t read Bray but I have read John Boswell’s book where he explores the relevant Biblical teachings in depth.

Boswell was a gay Catholic and an extraordinary linguist. It may well be that he was motivated to come up with alternate readings of the passages that traditionally form the basis for the notion that homosexuality is sinful but I was impressed with his analysis and he was surely alive to the possibility that his preconceptions may have shaped his conclusions.

Unfortunately, I don’t know Hebrew or koine Greek and so am unable to tell whether his research looks convincing to someone who does. However, his book was well-received as far as I know.

This may very well bore a lot of people but - for the record - here is my attempt to summarise what he wrote.

Genesis 19v1-8 tells the story of the destruction of the town of Sodom. Part of that story involves an incident where it appears that the men of the town wished to rape some male visitors. For this reason it has often been interpreted as highlighting the evil of homosexual sex. However, Boswell argues (convincingly in my view) that the inhabitants were destroyed for failing to honour the important duty (in Biblical times) of showing hospitality to travellers. So homosexuality is arguably not being directly condemned here.

The term ‘sodomite’, which appears twice in the King James version of the Old Testament (Deut. 23v17, 1 Kings 14v24) is simply, Boswell contends, a mistranslation of the Hebrew ‘kadash’ [plural ‘kadeshim’] which describes prostitutes who served in pagan temples, and as there is little evidence about the practices of that time, it cannot be inferred that these prostitutes serviced persons of their own sex.

The book of Leviticus also appears to describe homosexuality as ‘an abomination’ (18v22, 20v13). However, according to Boswell, the Hebrew word ‘toevah’ does not, when it is deployed, usually describe actions that are intrinsically evil, like rape or theft, but rather those that are ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation. Most Christians have, of course. long since dispensed with these and other specific laws concerning diet, behaviour, dress etc. mentioned elsewhere in Leviticus. As Boswell puts it, ‘the irrelevance of [such] verses was further emphasised by the teaching of Jesus and Paul that under the new dispensation it was not the physical violation of Levitical precepts which constituted ‘abomination’ but the interior infidelity of the soul’ [e.g. see Luke 16v15, Rom. 2v22, Titus 1v10-16].

Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality, but St Paul appears to condemn this type of behaviour in 1 Corinthians 6v9 and 1 Timothy 1v10, and writes critically of ‘men committing shameless acts with men’ in his letter to the Romans. Many Christians therefore regard St Paul as denouncing a homosexual lifestyle because it undermines the natural order represented by heterosexual family life. However, the translation of the two Greek words used by Paul in 1 Corinthians has been questioned and might instead refer to those who engage in ‘loose living’ (malakoi) and male prostitutes (arsenokoitai) who serviced both sexes, rather than homosexuals.

Finally, Paul’s reference to homosexual behaviour in Romans 1v26-27 may also have been misunderstood, as a close reading of this passage reveals that those who Paul is condemning are not homosexuals, but rather heterosexuals who have committed homosexual acts. Paul’s intent here is to criticise those who have rejected their true calling and abandoned the path that they were once following, or as Boswell puts it:

‘Paul believed that the Gentiles knew the truth of God but rejected it and likewise rejected their true ‘nature’ as regarded their sexual appetites, going beyond what was ‘natural’ for them and what was approved for the Jews. It cannot be inferred from this that Paul considered mere homoerotic attraction or practice morally reprehensible, since the passage strongly implies that he was not discussing persons who were by inclination gay and since he carefully observed, in regard to both the women and the men, that they changed or abandoned the ‘natural use’ to engage in homosexual activities.’

Boswell continues :

‘In sum, there is only one place in the writings which eventually became the Christian Bible where homosexual relations per se are clearly prohibited – Leviticus – and the context in which this prohibition occurred rendered it inapplicable to the Christian community, at least as moral law.’

In closing, I should also mention the former Bishop of Edinburgh Richard Holloway. He has now left the CofE but while he was still in his former role, he wrote a book called Godless Morality: Keeping Religion out of Ethics, partly as a response to the homophobia that he saw on display at the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

He just takes the line that we should just disregard any Bible passages that are out of step with the times, past their sell-by date in other words (if they ever had one to begin with).

Holloway also performed his first clandestine gay marriage ceremony in his Edinburgh church back in 1972.

Am mentioning him because he is such a brilliant author, one who is very much admired by atheists like Alain de Botton, Mary Warnock, and Philip Pullman. Nowadays he self-identifies as agnostic.

There is one other thing he wrote that is worth a mention: he reckons that as St Paul got the date of the Second Coming spectacularly wrong (he expected Jesus to return in his own lifetime), there are no good reasons to take his moral teachings any more seriously.

So there you go.

Should just add that Calvin Robinson blocked me on Twitter ages ago. However, when others retweet the crap he comes out with, I have enjoyed using some of the stuff I have mentioned above to put their noses out of joint.
Click to expand...
All that interpretation (or reinterpretation) of the texts has been well rehearsed over the years, which is how the Anglican Communion now has provinces that authorise same-sex marriage (and as a result has Gafcon in others) and the CofE bishops have come up with a policy here of not changing the rules to allow same-sex marriage but producing prayers of blessing for same-sex marriage. There is no easy way out of this - given the traditional (and maybe obvious) teaching that sex is for procreation (so heterosexual sex is the only "natural" sex) it really is a long ask to change doctrine just to fit modern attitudes. At its bleakest, the CofE feels out of touch to a modern UK generation yet desperately decadent to much of its worldwide constituency - including a risk to life in some contexts.

But for your future studies I commend Bishop John Colenso, 19th century Bishop of Natal who was one of those (post Darwin) challenging the literal truth of scripture. He decided that Zulu converts need not renounce existing polygamous marriages. That ended up in the Privy Council (South Africa was a British protectorate) and here we are 160 years later with the CofE still mired in controversy over Biblical interpretation and sexual ethics. Not well known about that story is that one of the bishops who testified against Colenso was later caught in a homosexual embrace and had to flee Pretoria dressed as a sailor.
 
bluethrunthru said:
But Ofcom said its not a news channel......

www.bbc.co.uk

GB News broke rules over Covid jab claims - Ofcom

The regulator said the channel did not do enough to protect viewers from potentially harmful content.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

It’s less true to facts than much of the output of the defunct English language version of RT.

At least they pretended to present both sides when they produced longer form content and invited experts and academics on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.