Sad our church turned its back on dd

[TeenLifeMum]

Dd has been to church all her life. At one point we moved to a different church that suited us more but we made lovely friends etc and dd was attending youth group until she was 15. Suddenly she was less keen but focusing on GCSEs so we didn’t push it. With clubs etc for the other dc, regular attendance dropped a bit but we were fairly relaxed.

I believe in god but have always had issues with “the church”, but put that aside to be with people of faith.

I recently learned why dd stopped going to youth - they did a full session on how they should pray for gay people in the hope of healing them. How they are so angry about people loving each other is beyond me.

dd is gay. Her girlfriend is loving, kind, polite, and caring. I want all my dc to have loving healthy relationships so have no issue and naively thought others wouldn’t care. Turns out they do. Two of her closest friends stepped away due to her being gay (parents we’d met through church) and now she understandably doesn’t want to go to church, and neither do I.

I’m angry. I hope they’re really proud of themselves from their high horses. On the off chance they’re on here - no, you’re not good Christians.

Thanks for humouring my rant.

I would assume a Christian can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe. It's either God's word or not, which we believe is of utmost importance.

Speak for yourself and your denomination only.

Not having a belief is, in itself, a belief. You're right that no one truly knows for certain, but I base my convictions on my subjective experience as a Bible-believing Christian. Furthermore, In my opinion, being without belief requires a significant leap of faith as well. If I'm wrong and the Bible isn't true, then I've lost nothing; however, for an unbeliever, the stakes are higher.

I'm sorry if I don't seem genuine, but I'm truly curious about which denominations of Christianity selectively choose beliefs from the Bible. It's mind-blowing.

In my experience "a Christian can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe " is ALWAYS selective and means in fact "so long as they pick the same bits that I do".

Hence my comment about plaiting your hair, which St Paul is absolutely clear Christian women must not do. (In 1 Peter 3:3, 1 Timothy 2:9-10, for those who can't be bothered to check their faith.) The same passages are pretty down on any adornment whatever, but particularly gold and pearls: no more wedding rings, girls! And see also 1 Corinthians 11:6, in which you find that if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. And of course 1 Corinthians 11:14: if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him.

And as for women speaking in church! Coo-er, not acceptable at all! And yet the Church of England has both female priests and female bishops, and I gather they are allowed to speak when they conduct a service.

I have already conceded that not believing is also belief. However, in terms of the stakes being high - that depends. If you believe in a vengeful and sociopathic deity who will punish people for not believing no matter that they may have lived their lives in full accordance with his every diktat to his people then yes - the stakes are high. If you believe in a deity who is made of love, things may not turn out the way you think for us unbelievers. I'm willing to take the chance.

As for 'selective' in approaches to the Bible - all Christian denominations are selective in some way.

Isn't the OT preserved in the original Hebrew?

How do we know that's the original? And let's face it, the OT is full of horrific misogyny that has no place in a civilised world.

How preserved the bible is, is probably a whole field of academic study. I feel there might be transcription errors, but the message is the same

The original Hebrew, koine (common Greek), and Aramaic.

Short answer: no. None of the original manuscripts has survived. Copies of some of them are available, but the actual words Moses wrote when he came down from the mountain are no longer available.

As a Mediaevalist I do assure you that no copy is ever true to any Ur-text. You only have to look at Piers Plowman! The moment you have more than one copy produced by hand, you have more than one text, even if the differences are small. They magnify over time, as each new copyist adds a few. I wish we did have the original of (say) Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, but we don't, and in Gawain's case we have only one early copy and lucky to have that at all. And that is only one thousand years old, not between two and three thousand.

The message is interpreted in many different ways across many different branches of Christianity, none of whom can demonstrate that they are objectively correct.

This. See every American sect and cult if not believing yours truly.

The Bible isn’t the word of God, though. We know it was written by men, and the version we read in English has been translated. Even in Medieval times it was read in different ways, and not always understood literally by everyone (apart from people it suited the powers that be to keep ignorant).

What the Bible is and isn't is a very large area of academic study. Much of what is in the Old Testament was rediscovered, written, rewritten, edited etc during the period of the Babylonian exile (around 500-550ish years before Jesus was born.) John Drane wrote a really good book which most libraries have - 'Introducing the Old Testament' which is a really good place to start.

The question isn't whether the Bible is the Word of God; rather, if you identify as a Christian, it is reasonable to assume that you believe it is. The overarching theme of the Bible indicates that God is its author, and it is considered a God-breathed book. For those who are not Christians, this belief might be challenging to accept, but for Christians, it should serve as a foundational truth. I assume that most people commenting initially on this matter regarding same-sex attraction are Christians, so I wanted to clarify whether those who identify as Christians believe that the Bible is indeed God's Word and that it is infallible.

The priests I know do not believe that the Bible is God’s word and certainly not that it is infallible. Much of it doesn’t even pretend to be God’s word — the Gospels have named authors, and they don’t all say the same thing, St Paul’s letters were written by St Paul, etc. The Old Testament is presented as history.

Whoiam, you really ought to start your posts with the words "It seems to me that". Except as opinion, they are full of male bovine end-product.

Thank you for sharing your experience. I am quite shocked, but I understand now why the responses reflect a general perception of the Bible as merely a man-written book.

It brought to mind the verse from 2 Timothy: "I believe that all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." However, I suppose that those with the worldview you mentioned will see Timothy as just an ordinary man, rather than someone inspired by God to write what he did.

Do you (or any females in your family, if you’re male) leave the family home when on your period, @Whoiam?

If not, I’d respectfully suggest you also selectively choose what bits of the Bible to follow?

(And before you throw ‘new covenant’ at me, I’m assuming you do believe in the laws of the OT, because Jesus himself is shockingly quiet on the subject of homosexuality. Almost as though he didn’t object to it half as much as those who now claim to follow him.)

Dear Elle,

I recall my previous post, which stated that the entire premise of the Old Testament laws was fulfilled with the coming of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Praise His name. While Jesus didn’t explicitly address same-sex attraction, He did warn us to flee from sexual immorality. I would categorise same-sex attraction alongside adultery in this context. The Bible clearly outlines its stance on these matters, as seen in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, 1 Timothy 1:9–10, and Jude 1:7.

However, if you believe that the Bible is not God-breathed and that it is merely a book written by humans, allowing you to pick and choose which parts to accept, then you have nothing to worry about, and my point would be settled.

@Whoiam as you say, Jesus didn’t address homosexuality.

As I’m sure has already been pointed out, the other texts you specify are subject to some debate (remember, you are reading them in translation). And as for the writings of, for instance, St Paul, whether or not one believes they were ‘god-breathed’, the decisions on what writings were and were not included in the Bible were made in a series of semi-political Councils.

So, as a follower of Jesus myself, I’d prefer to go with his teachings. Which do not include being homophobic.

Sorry, and just to check @Whoiam, if you’re basing your attitudes on First Corinthians, you/the women in your family, wear head coverings to pray, right?

Presumably all the time in fact, seeing as you are praying without ceasing?

Oh, Elle, I appreciate your perspective, but I feel that we might be going in circles on some of these points. If we struggle to trust St. Paul, it raises questions about our belief in other figures in the Bible as well. The Ten Commandments could lose their significance if we doubt Moses's role as chosen by God. If we don't believe the Bible is the word of God, we might as well say that Jesus isn't the Son of God. That would lead us to an entirely different religion.

So if Jesus didn't explicitly mention homosexuality, then it's only the interpretation of his followers that puts it under the category of sexual immorality. You said it yourself - 'in my opinion '. There's a but in the Bible about not judging lest you be judged, isn't there?

So you trust St Paul, fine.

Do you cover your head to pray (or if you’re male, require that the women in your household do so)? And in fact are you praying without ceasing (so therefore covering your/the women in your household’s head the entire time)?

Because if not, can you not see you’re ’selectively choos[ing] beliefs from the Bible’? In which case I’d respectfully direct you to Matthew 7 v3.

(And the use of the word ‘require’ in my last post was deliberate. Because the same chapter, First Corinthians 11, also states the head of the woman is man. Under his eye.)