iris robinson - without make up
our new mrs first minister said some things which people have some issue with.
it just saddens me that this ignorance is what we get from elected officials here, but it saddens me more that she uses the bible and her protestant faith to back these things up.
makes you wonder.
7 comments:
She's probably saddened that you use the bible to justify some of the liberal devilish nonsense you spout :)
Her views are controversial but in line with Leviticus 20... its just that you have back-slidden so badly from god's holy scripture in which every word is god breathed. It's nice that she has the grace to love and try to help them though... a very modern Christ like attitude... don;t think Jesus had any gay apostles did he?
:) just tuggin your beard
i think she's mental to live her life in line with an ancient text,just as its mad to blow yourself up and think you'll go to heaven. but this is the kinda thing that happens when you believe that morality is a once-for-all constant handed down from the big man in the sky rather than an organic human settlement.
(the big man of course being big ian)
She's looking good in the pic. Hot stuff from the castlereagh hills.....
I think Iris's statements (which made my mouth drop) open up a massive debate about the utility of concepts like right/wrong and good/bad.
I am of the opinion we are complex animals, yet we never apply right/wrong to the animal kingdom - we think of animal behaviour merely in terms of consequences. The lion who eats his rivals' cubs is not branded evil, his act is readily identified as a facet of nature with painful, deletrious consequences.
Likewise, I think its wholly unhelpful to apply right/wrong, abomination/godly, dichotomous thinking to humanity, just as it is senseless among animals. This doesn't mean we don't find child abuse, murder, rape and genocide abhorrent. Rather, we view these as acts with massively painful consequences and side-effects which are severely costly and therefore not tolerable in any society. Child abuse is not acceptable because it damages people, leaving indelible emotional scars and painful memories. However, for me it is enough to know that we need to punish, imprison or somehow control those who do it - we don't need any tag like 'evil' or 'wrong', or 'bad'. It's a behaviour with huge human costs - that is it. What other descriptors do we need?
Now apply this same principle to homosexuality... and we can find few negative consequences (maybe an increased exposure to sexual disease and reduced chances of procreation). When it is pursued in a consentual manner by adults then side-effects and negative consequences are hard to identify...., which is why liberal theologians don't really mind so much. There is no 'evil' or 'bad' about it...
I vote we need to drop these linguistic functions of good/evil which religions promote. I don't know what the best alternatives would be (costly vs productive, or beneficial vs harmful) but I don't think society has ever really benefited by using this polarised good/bad lens.
Moreover I spend my professional life encouraging people to view themselves in a less polarised way. People with depression for example generally conceptualise their worth as 'useless' or 'awful' or 'hateful' or some other 100%, grossly over-generalised concept. We think this way and it's not good...If it was less engrained as an acceptable cultural concept (e.g. 'see him there on Tv, he's evil he is') then maybe we would enjoy less distressed lives and greater well-being...
How good it would be if we could be more considered, explore consequences and, as QM has suggested, it could mean carefully re-considering the utility of ancient holy books.
Iris, I must hand it to you...you know how to create a stir...you evil cow.....(oops)....
BUT WHAT ABOUT SIN?... SIN ... SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN!!! its almost like you're saying that the bible isn't wholly relevant to the human day-to-day.
couldn't agree more. We need to end the idea of sin, its unhelpful and a bit nuts (IMHO)
Qmonkey you so polarised in your approaches to faith!
I tend to agree with rg's assessment of good / evil. A new language would be useful. I think we use the term evil to emphasise prohibition - if something is socially labelled as evil, our child like minds stay away from it. This makes sense for somethings, but problems emerge when we define what deserves / doesn't deserve prohibition. Often those in positions of social control get to play god. Hence women become witches, gays become perverts etc.
Its interesting to read some of the OT laws from this perspective. The people of Isreal are a transient people sure of their past, but certainly unsure of their future. Self-preservation is paramount to their identity, so its no surprise we see a narrative of prohibition. We learn a lot about them and ourselves from the laws they create.
I think there is a history within religion of clinging to prohibitive self-preservation during times of threat. The Islamic faith used to be a tolerant learned tradition, but the shift towards a global western culture seems to have led to a rigid legalist tradition. The rise of fundamentalism in the Christian faith was a response to the social gospel and perceived weakening of the faith. Maybe people like Iris create rules and prohibition because the world suddenly seems treatening and strange.
An interesting link from WIlliam Crawleys blog
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/06/have_you_committed_an_abominat.html
This one should work
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/06
/have_you_committed_an_abominat.html
so... what sin is, changes depending on circumstances and wider cultural opinion... is that what you're telling Iris? This is always the problem in discussions with christians... half of them think that the other half get it totally wrong anyway :) so you have to spend a few hours getting to the crux of what they actually believe before you start. (i might draw up a pro forma questionnaire)
I'm not polarized... I'm an agitator who thinks that truth matters, and that faith distorts truth and is an apologist for un-reason. (the funny thing being that nearly everyone agrees with that, as long as yer not talking about 'their' faith)
I think Rob is right to point out that the OT is perhaps more prescriptive when the people who are the focus of it all, i.e. the Jewish nation, are under juress and hardship - it's at those times that the strict orders and 'abomination' statements occur....Fathers are asked to slay sons, and people are killed or threatened or assaulted by plagues of locusts etc....
However, having established this process within the literature I can't understand why close, ongoing and ardent inspection of scripture is salutary, helpful or even vaguely beneficial...It is written in a broadly cryptic metaphorical way, about unproven entities, with many contradictions - why would anyone adopt this as their book of choice? ....Those, like Ms Robinson, who take it literally end up with polemic views on the world. Others, who read the bible in a non-literal way, seem feverishly inclined to remain devoted to its cryptic and, for me, confusing and minimally helpful instruction....
I can't think of good reasons to continue to assign to the bible the kudos it still receives - on one hand it has Iris-robinson type side effects which secular morality does not, in my view. Secular morality, in its sensible and non-despotic forms, never brandishes people groups as evil, ungodly or goats/chaff/swine etc.
Why bother with the bible as a basis for social morality....without it we might sooner abandon these black/white, good/bad notions....
Iris is evil tho', right...?
New joke genre:
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a homosexual?
answers on a postcard....
Post a Comment