Anti-Gay Bishop appointed to School of Divinity

[macgamer]

Well. No. You only get 1.

I propose you take that up with His Lordship when he arrives, I'm sure that is within his 'pay-grade' so to speak.

[jollytiddlywink]

... I can't help but feel that I'm going to see less war and a longer life expectancy than in previous centuries and that this is good. Will we ever be in a position to make a utilitarian analysis of how well off an average citizen is in a feudal kingdom rather than an even slightly representative republic? If so I'd like to know.

I'm not sure we can promise less war than previous centuries (the 20th C was a wholesale bloodbath from start to finish), but if we assume less war then your life expectancy certainly will be markedly higher than even 100 years ago, which was higher than 200 years ago, which was higher than 300 years ago.

Utilitarian analysis depends on if you want to consider the intangibles; are you content? Do you feel fulfilled in your work and your relationships, etc? This hits the problem that almost everyone who, in history, lived in a feudal kingdom would have no understanding of the mindset which could produce such questions. They would not lift their heads so high. They would be concerned about the state of the harvest, hoping that their kingdom remained at peace, hoping that disease did not strike, possibly hoping that their marriage would prove emotionally as well as economically or agriculturally compatible.
Asking a tanner, who has married a tanner, is training his sons as tanners, as his father trained him, and his father before him, if he is satisfied with his career, and if he is pleased with the prospects for advancement, if he and his family have a good relationship founded on mutual respect, love and communication, would meet with blank stares and probably some sort of hostility.
If you want to consider only things that statistics could tell us, then the answer is probably still 'no.' The paucity of statistical information, even in literate western European societies before roughly 1800 is enough to reduce statisticians to tears.

[Haunted]

See what happens when you're afk for a week?

It’s fallacious and lazy to presume to do away a position because another party has used the same argument and been wrong (see Glen Beck on social justice if you need a self parody).

Yes, ho ho, but that's not the point I was making. Many a travesty has been committed under the pretense of "free debate". "Free debate" is a very good thing to have when done properly but (as I'm sure you are aware) it is very susceptible to rhetoric and corruption from those who have an agenda to push e.g. cretinist vs. someone who isn't a complete idiot.

The question we’re asking is not who is right or wrong; if we were, then sure, I disagree with creationism; but we’re talking about the right to own a view.

No we weren't. The dicussion initially started with comments about the appropriateness of the university employing someone who had made public his attitude to a certain group of people. Then we moved onto how people end up having such views on homosexuality and then whether or not they should express them publicy and expect everyone to treat them nice. If you had bothered to read my reply to Lonelyprilgrim you would have noticed that I explicitly said I was not condemning anyone's right to hold a view.

Your standpoint is so Orwellian that the only reason I’m not writing a paragraph on it is that I want to avoid being too pretentious. If you want to objectify worldview then send every student home with a well-proofed set of books – you don’t need to get yourself into debt from student loan if all you want is to become an intellectual zombie.

Yes if only all knowledge were in book form. Assuming the student was sufficiently self disciplined then 'reading books' would indeed by an excellent way to learn a great deal about science, but unfortunately, learning also involves problem solving and (in the sciences) practical experiments. Though perhaps though there are some worthless subjects out there that can be completely condensed into print.

Either that or maybe allow someone who disagrees with the general consensus to speak up every now and again – It’s how Hitler inspired a nation, it’s how Martin Luther King inspired a nation – so there’s a couple of contradictory parallels to stick on your genetic fallacy shelf next to creationism.

I'm getting the feeling I'm going to be repeating myself a lot here. I never said people cannot speak up. Indeed I welcome anyone wishing to stand up and challenge the status quo. If they have no evidence and an obvious agenda, then I welcome them to speak up so that they can be ridiculed and berated by everyone else. The point I was trying make earlier (perhaps too subtly) was that calling something a "free debate" or "exchange of ideas" doesn't necessarily make it so. There are numerous examples of interested parties co-opting the format of an academic debate in order to further some faulty reasoning or downright idiotic viewpoint. People can have free debates all they want, but an authority (such as the university) has a duty to protect it's name from being associated with quackery, idiocy and bullshit. This was why the Nick Griffon debate was cancelled. Of course he has a right to hold, air and discuss his views, but that doesn't make them worthy of debate. It's clear he would have been demolished (as he was on question time) but he didn't go in expecting to win, he wanted to be associated with the University of St Andrews. He could then go around the nation to wherever it is you find bnp minded people and preach tabout his glorious debate at the instituition. He'd probably also lie about the outcome as his type usually do about these things. This is also why the university also doesn't host cretinists (with the hideous exception of the recently templeton funded lectures on "faith and science").

I'm afraid that you'll learn that it's not just those who are 'right' who cry out for free speech - so yes, I am sure that Creationists do use a similar argument to mine - that is, one must not muzzle people purely on the basis that we disagree with them. There is no small amount of irony in your call to mute those who you believe suppress other people's freedom from having a public voice - on a par with the genius who suggested that the BNP should not be allowed to stand for parliament because they were fascist. Be careful not to become what you claim to be fighting.

Ho ho, you've got me again. Except no. I never suggested individuals should be muted. Indeed if people genuinely hold, say, racist views then all the more reason for them to air them; so us reasonable folk know not to associate ourselves with them. If after airing such views the person is then fired or denied employment, do they have a right to complain? No, not always. A biology teacher could be an excellent first-class teacher of biology, but the head of science would be within his or her rights to deny said teacher employment if they believed that biology was just made up to deny jesus (or whatever). You wouldn't hire a history teacher who denied the holocaust yet you would not deny him the right to hold that view either.

I confess myself to be utterly bemused, anyway, as to why you would want less of a public forum of discussion over a subject which you clearly have very specific and eloquent views on, and which you have in fact started a public online discussion on.

Yes, your train wreck attempt to manoeuvre me into my own net would indeed by bemusing if it were not a construction of your inability to read the words in my posts.

However, though I find such hypocrisy odd, I shall acknowledge your right to pursue it. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I suggest you offer N.T. Wright the same courtesy.

And always end on a zinger.

[Haunted]

May I hazard a potential explanation: Haunted has a certain insecurity of one form or another and feels threatened by any argumentation contrary to the prevailing cultural orthodoxy on this matter. Therefore Haunted promotes restriction of debate on this matter so that the 'heterodox' may be a source of trouble no longer.

Bullshit. Why is it so hard for people to understand that us scientists love being proved wrong. Yes wrong. It is a genuinely enjoyable feeling when someone can correct me. As such, I yearn for someone to challenge me. Even if they turn out to be a complete idiot. I am sometimes sad that no real creationists come here because it would be an utter delight to tear them to pieces with their own words. There is no restriction on debate, but don't think you can therefore say anything you like without consequences such as people thinking you are an idiot or a bigot. The price of free speech is that other people can hear you.

[malcolm166]

The dicussion initially started with comments about the appropriateness of the university employing someone who had made public his attitude to a certain group of people. Then we moved onto how people end up having such views on homosexuality and then whether or not they should express them publicy and expect everyone to treat them nice.......

and the only problem after that was that we've engaged in 60 odd posts that don't actually address the issue.
He's been held up - exposed!! - as an anti-gay Bishop but all I can find is that about 5 years ago at a meeting of The General Synod or similar, he argued that right then was perhaps not the best time to force through a vote on gay clergy being installed. No mention was made on his views on homosexuality per se, we know nothing of his views on the subject because he hasn't made any of them public but because the Church of England is a global church with representations in South America, the Far East, Africa and elsewhere with differing views on homosexuality, the "politics" of the Church were in danger of pulling it apart back then if a decision to vote was forced on them then.

After that, some zealot who opposes the guy blows it into the open for personal reasons of animosity, calls him "anti-Gay" and off some of us all went, accepting that opinion without demur and passing opinions on his suitability to be employed by the University.

Not much different from village pump gossip to be honest!!!!

[jollytiddlywink]

I invoke 'pot calls kettle'.

May I hazard a potential explanation: Haunted has a certain insecurity of one form or another and feels threatened by any argumentation contrary to the prevailing cultural orthodoxy on this matter. Therefore Haunted promotes restriction of debate on this matter so that the 'heterodox' may be a source of trouble no longer.

If macgamer is going to accuse others of discomfort with attacks on orthodoxy... well... something about the beam out of your own eye comes to mind. Macgamer seems to spend most of his/her time on the sinner defending the orthodoxy of the catholic church. Especially the indefensible parts.
And as for promoting restrictions so that anything out of the norm can be safely hidden from view, I offer this for thought:
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News ... lem_Pride/

And as for people being entitled to hold and express views, I don't see why the rest of us cannot hold and express the view that such views are a load of utter rubbish, especially when that is demonstrably the case. Its one thing to argue all day about whether Lady Gaga is better than Madonna or not; for all the passion the subject might engender, it is a point of opinion. But some views can be credited or discredited by reference to facts.
Here's an example: The chief man in a funny hat of Jerusalem says that the organisers of the march and the government that allowed it to take place "care nothing for families?" Really? Its not as if all those gays sprang fully-formed and leather-clad from the earth (or from Zeus' forehead) one day. They've all got families.

[Archie]

Well. No. You only get 1.

I propose you take that up with His Lordship when he arrives, I'm sure that is within his 'pay-grade' so to speak.

Every time I see this post I read that as 'gay-parade'

[malcolm166]

And as for people being entitled to hold and express views, I don't see why the rest of us cannot hold and express the view that such views are a load of utter rubbish, especially when that is demonstrably the case......

fair enough statement in itself and there's no doubt that many things are a matter of opinion.
You cite the case that the Pope (presumably) is of the opinion that gays "care nothing for families" and then go on to apparently to your own satisfaction put that to the sword of being a "load of utter rubbish" with the biologically accurate statement that they too have mothers and fathers. And how on that basis is it "demonstrably the case"?

What in terms of "night following day" proves or implies precisely what?

Incidentally, what precise connection is there between the leader of the Roman Church and Jerusalem? Given the accumulated history of the past 2,000 years, most observers would have come to the conclusion of absolutely nothing constructive.

[Al]

...all I can find is that about 5 years ago at a meeting of The General Synod or similar, he argued that right then was perhaps not the best time to force through a vote on gay clergy being installed. No mention was made on his views on homosexuality per se, we know nothing of his views on the subject because he hasn't made any of them public

Really? I wonder how hard you were looking. I found, in a matter of seconds, many reports of his publically made views on homosexuality.

How about this one from an interview with the National Catholic Reporter.

So a Christian morality faithful to scripture cannot approve of homosexual conduct?
Correct. That is consonant with what I've said and written elsewhere.

[malcolm166]

So a Christian morality faithful to scripture cannot approve of homosexual conduct?
Correct. That is consonant with what I've said and written elsewhere.

yes you are absolutely right AI - and ignoring the artfully arched eyebrows and inherent sarcasm - it is true to say that he was asked whether a "Christian morality faithful to scripture cannot approve of homosexual conduct? and his reply was that this was a true take on Christian morality if it were to follow scripture and something he had previously acknowledged and pointed out.

But if you were to read the rest of the article, you would see where he discusses the fact that homosexuality has had no real clear definition made of it over the past two or three thousand years going right the way back to Plato and that even in Paul's time, there were differing opinions on it and it was being discussed then. And that it is still being discussed even now in the various Churches.

There is a huge difference between not "approving" of homosexual conduct and being a raging homophobe intent on rooting it out of whatever institution you happen to belong to. Most people will disapprove of at least one thing in their lifetime but that is waaay different from embarking on some kind of campaign against it. He passes no opinion on his views but merely agrees that the scriptures according to Paul don't approve of it.

He is also at pains to point out to the interviewer that the Anglican Church is not the same monolithic top down structure that the Roman Church is. That every Anglican local Church in the United States reserves for itself the right to vote or have an opinion on any matter. And not be dictated to from above. Which in the context and time of the article is the over riding issue if you read it all. His view is that the subject is up for discussion and that views are going to be coming in from everywhere and that it will be difficult within the structure to be absolutely sure who is speaking for whom.

Which is my point entirely. The induction of gay Bishops is a completely different matter from whether or not one approves of the lifestyle but was something then which was proving an immensely controversial issue within the Anglican global community. And like I said, from what I remember was that, including this Eames Committee that he talks about, then was perhaps not the time for that community to force the issue and perhaps invoke some sort of a schism.

[macgamer]

Macgamer seems to spend most of his/her time on the sinner defending the orthodoxy of the catholic church. Especially the indefensible parts.

Slightly contradictory, the mere fact that I am able and willing to defend the Church's position on various matters which you hold an opposing view, means that there are defensible, albeit still rejected by you. Your arguments and those of wider society has neither convinced me or that of the Church. So I'd say we're doing a fairly good job at defending something you consider indefensible.

Here's an example: The chief man in a funny hat of Jerusalem says that the organisers of the march and the government that allowed it to take place "care nothing for families?" Really? Its not as if all those gays sprang fully-formed and leather-clad from the earth (or from Zeus' forehead) one day. They've all got families.

Again I don't see you logic. Naturally homosexuals are the product of a family, which you have just acknowledged and affirmed is composed of a man and woman being father and mother to said individuals. The difference is that these individuals chose a to practice a lifestyle that is an avert rejection of the model of the family which created them. In that sense they 'care nothing for (that model of) families' as the Latin (i.e. in Communion with Rome) Patriarch said.

[macgamer]

[...]it is a point of opinion. But some views can be credited or discredited by reference to facts.

Indeed, I'd say my position and that of the Church stands up to reason, natural law and scripture - 'facts'.

I invoke 'pot calls kettle'.

Opinion, truth, crock o'****, it's for our own intellect and conscience to decide between them.

The words of Pilate: 'Quid est veritas?' echo down the centuries.

[macgamer]

Every time I see this post I read that as 'gay-parade'

Hmm, yes almost a full spoonerism.

[Al]

It's a safe presumption to make that a bishop would be guided in all aspects of his life by his interpretation of the Bible in light of what he terms "Christian morality". Given that it's equally safe to assume that he would, therefore, be opposed to "homosexual conduct" in students just as much as he would oppose it in any other section of society. That's the point people are making. No one is suggesting that he cannot hold certain views - although a little more emphasis on Jesus' teachings and less on those of Paul would be a grand thing - but are questioning whether it is right that a person with such beliefs should be given a job in a university where, undoubtedly, he will encounter gay students.

[macgamer]

[...] but are questioning whether it is right that a person with such beliefs should be given a job in a university where, undoubtedly, he will encounter gay students.

The University Chaplains are Christians and they definitely encounter gay students, by your logic the University should dismiss them all.

[Haunted]

The University Chaplains are Christians and they definitely encounter gay students, by your logic the University should dismiss them all.

And?

[RedCelt69]

I wrote this for somewhere else, but as it applies to the above...

Christianity vs Homosexuality

Back when I first started using the internet, it was a very different looking creature than it is today. Web sites were relatively sparse compared to their modern counterparts, with many companies having no net exposure whatsoever. One of the more dominant areas of the internet was something called usenet (more popularly known as News Groups).

Each News Group was dedicated to certain subjects, within which many people asserted their views. Some were sparsely populated with few contributors. Others were positively heaving with content. Whilst searching for a subject which held some interest to me, a newsgroup called alt.atheism caught my attention and became a group which I regularly read and contributed to.

It was populated, unsurprisingly, by atheists talking about all sorts of aspects of an atheistic life – mainly the problems involved living within a religious family and a religious community... as, mostly, the posters were American.

As well as atheists, there were a number of non-atheists; nearly all of whom were Christians. The reason for their attendance can easily be given. Time and again, a new Christian would appear, preaching and proselytising to the un-saved, purveying a kindly, “thoughtful” Christian representation of the strengths of relinquishing the atheistic mindset. Every single one of them quickly became less friendly when their repeated points were repeatedly disputed.

Mostly, American atheists are born-again, having rejected long-ingrained Christian tutelage. As such, they’re often well-versed in Biblical chapters and verses and able to counter any nonsense put their way... and the same nonsense was repeated often – and disputed just as quickly. Christians would then take one of two paths; they’d give up entirely, or they’d hang around, bordering on the edges of their sanity as they repeatedly made claims that even they knew were crap. Poor things.

I always wondered why someone would participate in a News Group which was contrary to their own beliefs. I mean, I despise brussel sprouts (along with several other vegetable... just ask any of my family) yet couldn’t see any reason to search out BrusselSproutsLovers in order to tell them just how ridiculously wrong they were and to preach to them about the evils of their favourite vegetable.

Curious to try reversing this experience, I sought out a News Group populated by British Christians. I didn’t go to preach the atheistic mindset or to disavow Christianity. I was very open from the outset that I was an atheist with an interest in religion and its influence on British society. I also made it clear from the outset that I would at no point try and convert anyone there if they allowed me the same courtesy. The vast majority (with, I think, 1 or 2 exceptions) accepted this and civil conversation was had by all. So civil that, come the New Year, during their self-asserted head-nod to the Queen’s New Year appointments, I was awarded a mention for “Services to atheism”. Which was sweet.

Anyway, during their many conversations, the subject that came up far more often than any other (I had imagined would be covered) was the subject of homosexuality. Some were severely dismissive and judgemental of homosexuality and homosexuals. Others were far more open to the idea of embracing all people into Christianity – regardless of their involvement in same-sex relationships. 2000 years after the life and death of their lord and saviour, who never mentioned homosexuality, I was more than a little confused about why it should be such a contentious issue.

This confusion returned recently after a couple of notable news stories hit the headlines.

Christian loses sex therapy case - Monday, 30th November 2009

A relationship counsellor who refused to offer sex therapy to gay couples has lost his unfair dismissal appeal.
Gary MacFarlane, 47, from Bristol, was sacked by marriage guidance service Relate after he said he could not do anything to promote gay sex.
He alleged Relate had refused to accommodate his Christian beliefs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8386120.stm


Gay couple turned away from B&B in Cookham - Sunday, 21st March 2010

A gay couple were turned away from a Berkshire guest house by the owner who said it was "against her convictions" for two men to share a bed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8578787.stm

Susanne and Francis Wilkinson would not allow a gay couple to stay together in one of their rooms 'because it was against their Christian beliefs'
Her husband Francis... said it was a question of living by their faith. 'We live according to our values and our Christian beliefs. We are not homophobic,' he said. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0lv8OccCi

Why highlight the above recent examples of homosexuality conflicting with Christian beliefs? Well, as I said above, Jesus Christ – Christianity’s base, home and avower of everything it means to be a Christian – said not a single word about homosexuality. Not once... ever... even in passing.

So where does homophobia get a Biblical mention? In the Old Testament. The OT, to clarify, was the grounds of a pre-Jesus Jewish world which gave birth to the Jewish prophet. Jesus was said to have given his followers a new covenant... which is given in the New Testament. The NT gives no mention of homosexuality on the grounds of Jesus’s words, beliefs or teachings. The closest the NT gets towards such a position come in a few brief letters from Saul of Tarsus (later known as St Paul) amongst some of which were included the word “sodomites” in a category of bad people.

The original word used (in Greek) wasn’t the known word for homosexuals. It was a reference to the un-godly inhabitants of the city of Sodom – and the perversities they followed... which consisted of a lot more than anal sex, which the word is associated with in modernity. Even so, St Paul was a follower of Jesus who never met Jesus, so it would be contentious (to say the least) to say that St Paul knew Jesus’s beliefs better than Jesus did. And Jesus had no (known) views on homosexuality.

If modern Christians are to claim that homosexuality is contrary to their Christian beliefs, I would suggest that they learn their beliefs a good deal better than they currently have. If they disavow homosexuals, they are either (Orthodox) Jews or Paulians. They sure as hell aren’t Christians. As with many other obtuse bigotories which are backed up by religious claims, religion is merely being used to lay claim to non-religious, pre-existing bigotry. Such bigotry should have no protection under the name of religion... especially when that religion doesn’t back up that bigotry.

Bad non-Christians claiming to be Christians.

B&B owner Susanne Wilkinson deserves to be sued for illegally refusing to accept a gay couple as guests and Gary MacFarlane fully deserved to be sacked. Having an occupation which involves dealing with the public doesn’t allow you to pick and choose which public you deal with.

Bad non-Christians.

If you’re curious about the OT references to homosexuality, here’s the primary reference from the King James Version of the bible:-

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. - Leviticus 18:22

This reference comes from Leviticus chapter 18. Leviticus (in the biblical OT) forms a part of the Jewish Torah. Its purpose was to purport the civil expectations of the Jewish people as they settled in Palestine following the exodus from Egypt. A large section is dedicated to the foods which can and cannot be eaten (kosher and non-kosher). A section which, most interestingly, Christians ignore. Later, a full section (chapter 18) covers the sexual proclivities of a good Jew.

No men are allowed to see their kin naked: their father, mother, step-mother, sister, step-sister, grand-daughter, step-sister (again), paternal aunt, maternal aunt, paternal uncle, paternal aunt (by marriage), daughter-in-law and sister-in-law.

Family aside, the author explores his sexual imagination to find other taboos. They include; no menage a trois with a mother and daughter combo. No menage a trois with a woman and her granddaughter. No menage a trois with your wife and her sister. And no getting jiggy with a menstruating woman.

All of these (somewhat interesting) combinations are rounded-off with a clear statement that having sex with your neighbour's wife is strictly verboten. How many sexually non-perverse Christians (having refrained from incest and freaky threesomes) have found themselves scuppered by that last little zinger? All as bad as each other, apparently. Yahweh said so.

The next reference is more than a little obscure; none of your seed should pass through the fire to Molech. I'd like to see how many Hail Marys that would produce… and how many priests would know what the hell had just been confessed.

The next command returns us to more familiar grounds (and is much more familiar to Catholic priests)... sex with men is an abomination. As is the last sexual demand; bestiality is forbidden to both men and women. It isn’t an abomination, though... it is merely a “confusion”. Confusing to the poor beast, certainly.

In biblical terms, the word “abomination” is an interesting one. In the OT, it appears a somewhat magnificent 146 times, with Leviticus (16 times), Deuteronomy (17 times), Proverbs (21 times) and Ezekiel (46 times) taking the lion’s share for its appearance. The NT mentions it a mere 6 times... 3 of which are in the fire ‘n’ brimstone of Revelations. None of those appearances relate to homosexuality. It seems that the God of Jesus is much less judgemental than the Yahweh of pre-Jesus Judaism.

Christians (and non-Christians) take note.

And (for a final emphasis) shut the fuck up about homosexuality contravening your Christian beliefs, you lying fuckwads.

Amen.

P.S. If it really, really contravenes your Christian views (despite all of the above) then you are utterly false in those views if you don’t execute the required prosecution for homosexual activity:-

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. – Leviticus 20:13

So you can’t make the complaint about gay people if you don’t also kill them.

P.P.S. None of any of the above applies to women. It seems like God would like to watch. Which, if nothing else, proves that God is male.

[malcolm166]

It's a safe presumption to make that a bishop would be guided in all aspects of his life by his interpretation of the Bible in light of what he terms "Christian morality". Given that it's equally safe to assume that he would, therefore, be opposed to "homosexual conduct" in students just as much as he would oppose it in any other section of society. ..............

but that's the whole point AI. It is NOT "safe to assume" that he upholds this Scripture view of "Christian morality" and would be guided by it. Or that he would be opposed to homosexual conduct.

If you gut the interview, he agrees that Paul's Scriptures are opposed to homosexual conduct, points out that there have been varying definitions of what that actually is for the past two thousand years, explains that the entire Anglican community was then in the process of discussing their views on it - right down to grass roots level - and that it would be inappropriate to make his view known because he was on the committee that was receiving views and arguments. Just because he concedes that the Pauline view was against does not in any way imply that he went along with that view. In that sense, it's not a Divine "Biblical handed down by God" view - it's the view from two thousand years ago made by one man which is now under review, is presumably therefore adjustable, by the men and women who belong to the Church now.

What it is safe to assume, however, is that neither you nor I belong to any Church whatsoever so it doesn't affect me one way or the other. But it is at least heartening to know that one Church at least has been trying to drag its views into the 21st century.

[malcolm166]

Family aside, the author explores his sexual imagination to find other taboos. They include; no menage a trois with a mother and daughter combo. No menage a trois with a woman and her granddaughter. No menage a trois with your wife and her sister. And no getting jiggy with a menstruating woman.........................All of these (somewhat interesting) combinations are rounded-off with a clear statement that having sex with your neighbour's wife is strictly verboten. .

I reckon they are not so much taboos but fall into line with what you said earlier about settling down in Palestine after the Exodus. And you're right - it is interesting how the part about diet is just plain ignored by "Christians" - the major injunction that I know about is that to follow Jesus, you should be vegetarian, for instance. And that part of the Bible also goes through all the elements of hygiene and food prep as well. In itself quite an amazing collection of survival tactics all laid out for said settling down.

Thing is - if you look at all these so-called taboos - they all refer to that process of settling down - and basically populating the land. And you can't do that safely with blood relatives because genetics will eventually turn round and bit your arse. And they knew it. So that's forbidden.

You can't/shouldn't do it with relatives in law and also with neighbours wives for slightly different reasons. Basically do that and you confuse the crap out of inheritance law and the rest if you have a bunch of new found relatives turning up out the woodwork and making a claim on the deceased's "estate". So there is an injunction on that.

And there is also an injunction on "lying with men" and lying with animals" because life style choice tho it may be, it's utterly unproductive and what they needed to do was produce as much of a growing healthy population as they could to keep their stake on the land. Which ties in with the hygiene and dietary rules laid out earlier.

In that way, I'm not even entirely sure it was a list of taboos as such. Just plain damn common sense and part of a plan for a successful future. It's only later, with the advent of zealots all round - including those who claim to be Christians but sure as hell aren't, that we run into this grotesque social moralising that has torn up so many people ever since.

[RedCelt69]

What I find most interesting is the clear distinction between Christians and Paulians.

Let's take a blind leap and assume, for the sake of argument, that I am completely wrong about the following:-

1. The universe was created by a deity.
2. That deity (struggling not to giggle whilst writing this) is the Abrahamic version.
3. There is a heaven, a hell and a Satanesque figure in charge of the latter.

Paulians would have it that Jesus - son of God (or, to the more confused, God himself) was so bad at conveying his message that, after his death, he needed Saul of Tarsus to make things a whole lot clearer.

Now. Supposing I was Satan, and the Christ-figure I'm so opposed to has recently expired. What would be my best way of confusing and scuppering his followers? I think that the best way would have been to hang around the road to Damascus waiting to trick some idiot into believing that the message I gave him was from God.

Every avowal, commitment and statement of "fact" he then committed to paper would be taken by his followers to be the wording, beliefs and intention of Christ.

Now, I hope you're still following this as I know that it is ridiculous to believe that such people would follow the word of a non-son-of-God over the word of a son-of-God, and that the course of history could not possibly have been populated by such stupid people.

But, alas, the world is a very stupid place.

Belief in a creator deity and that he sired a child to deliver a message is stupid enough.

Belief that the child (Son Of The Mighty Thor... sorry, God!) was so bad at communication that someone else needed to elaborate that message... well, stupid-is-as-stupid-does as one philosopher once said on celluloid.