Perfectly sensible answer

Asked by Campbell if gay sex was sinful, Welby said: “You know very well that is a question I can’t give a straight answer to. Sorry, badly phrased there. I should have thought that one through.”

Pressed on why he could not answer, the archbishop said: “Because I don’t do blanket condemnation and I haven’t got a good answer to the question. I’ll be really honest about that. I know I haven’t got a good answer to the question. Inherently, within myself, the things that seem to me to be absolutely central are around faithfulness, stability of relationships and loving relationships.”

In response to Campbell’s assertion that those could be characteristics of same-sex relationships, Welby said: “I know it could be. I am also aware – a view deeply held by tradition since long before Christianity, within the Jewish tradition – that marriage is understood invariably as being between a man and a woman. Or, in various times, a man and several women, if you go back to the Old Testament.

“I know that the church around the world is deeply divided on this in some places, including the Anglicans and other churches, not just us, and we are – the vast majority of the church is – deeply against gay sex.”

He added: “I am having to struggle to be faithful to the tradition, faithful to the scripture, to understand what the call and will of God is in the 21st century and to respond appropriately with an answer for all people – not condemning them, whether I agree with them or not – that covers both sides of the argument. And I haven’t got a good answer, and I am not doing that bit of work as well as I would like.”

Asked if he was trying to reconcile Anglican church leaders in places such as Uganda and more liberal churches principally in the UK and north America, Welby said: “It is irreconcilable.”

But, he added, homophobia was sinful “because you are hating individuals. I don’t think it is sinful to say that you disagree with gay sex. But to express that by way of hatred for people is absolutely wrong in the same way as misogyny or racism is wrong.”

Hate the sin, love the sinners.

Wonder how much stick he’s going to get for an absolutely bog standard theological view?

62 thoughts on “Perfectly sensible answer”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    The total lack of tolerance from the Left is on display. The Trad-Cons don’t want to punish people for being Gay any more. But the Gays sure as hell want to punish people for being Traditional.

    The solution is to rewind to where the Christians sold the pass. Forget hating the sin and loving the sinner. Hate the sin and stone the sinner to death. It works for Muslims. The Left loves those guys and excuse everything they do.

    I am not joking by much. The Alphabet Mafia wants to push this? Fine. They should remember there are a lot more of us than of them. And more of us know how to use a gun without worrying about damaging our fingernails.

  2. Welby is foolish, of course under their rules gay sex is sinful, but almost every pleasure is sinful under those rules… I wonder if one of his pleasures is trying to sit on a fence.

    The correct answer would be that ‘All sexual activity outside marriage is sinful” and sorry the founder said ‘marriage’ can only be between a man and woman.

  3. I do hope the anglicans learn something from all this.

    A system of beliefs doesn’t equal ‘just being nice a lot’.

    One of the best courses I ever went on was about saying ‘no’. They said it was the hardest part of management, and if it wasn’t hard, you weren’t doing it right. The church needs to remember its convictions and explain them, not dance about them, pretending that rules don’t exist

  4. He is going to get stick (or rather schtick) from the goonloons at the National Secular Society, and their placemen in Parliament (watch out for Lords a Weeping, and the likes of Mary Honeyball), and some wibbles in the Groan etc.

    Not sure about the lobbies in the Church – though they are more poisonous than anything that exists outside they may just put an extra stabbing tool in the bottom drawer for a time when it would have an effect on his position.

  5. I wonder if he thought he would get a pass because he is acceptably left-wing on lots of other issues?

    Mug.

  6. When Christians have sold all their goods and given the proceeds to the poor, I’ll start thinking they apply their standard theology to themselves.

  7. Always with the gay sex. There’s a list of absurd Biblical prohibitions as long as your arm but always the gay sex.

    Since everyone ignores all those other prohibitions I’m thinking we can ignore the gay sex one as well.

    It really is an all-or-nothing proposition.

  8. I don’t think its a sensible answer for the head of the Anglican Church.

    Kudos to the guy for being honest – even though he’s really just saying ‘I don’t have a smooth way to reconcile written scripture with 21st century cultural mores’ – but this isn’t a new issue here. Homosexuality and homosexual relationships have been around for longer than the church has.

    I mean, the church *used* to have an answer to this question. So I wonder what’s changed about the Bible and God that he doesn’t have one *now*.

  9. Its very easy, all he needs to say is that we are all sinners, and can only be saved by coming to God through Jesus Christ (I was brought up in an evangelical household so know the schtick). Which is true, Biblically speaking – all sin is equal, and gives an easy ‘out’ for any churchman asked to ‘condemn’ this that or the other.

  10. “When Christians have sold all their goods and given the proceeds to the poor, I’ll start thinking they apply their standard theology to themselves.”

    And when socialists all murder themselves you and I will be singing from the same hymn-sheet Biggie.

  11. Sensible answer?

    Not so fast, because Justin didn’t say “hate the sin not the sinner”. He said homophobia is sinful but he didn’t say gay sex was. All he said was “the vast majority of the church is – deeply against gay sex”

  12. Why the fuck did the dog-collared moron agree to an interview with red shite like Campbell for a shite-rag like GQ in the first place?

    “Nothing to say to you cunts” should be the standard CoE quote when approached by such scum.

    Time the CoE was purged of leftists.

  13. The Christian doctrine is: all and any sexual activity (including masturbation) which does not have the intention or possibility of creating life is forbidden and sinful… and it is forbidden and sinful to create life out of wedlock.

    So all bases are covered.

  14. John B–
    no it isn’t because someone just asked that question to the leader of umpteen million christians and he said ” i don’t have a good answer”

  15. @John B

    That’s the Catholic version anyway, are the Anglicans the same? Clearly not all of them are.

    To show how far things can tip…

    Discussed this once with a church-going German lass of the millenial generation. German Protestant (Lutheran) church youth movements often do stuff like going out on the streets and handing young people condoms and safe sex information leaflets. They had discussed relationship ethics in Sunday school but it basically amounted to “be honest and faithful and never cheat”, “don’t emotionally/physically abuse your partner or pressure them into things they don’t want to do”, “always have safe sex” (which they covered the ins and outs of). When I asked her how she squared this with the prohibition of pre-marital sex, she was confused – she was literally unaware of any such prohibition, that wasn’t at all what she had heard in church. Sex was a good thing and healthy and normal in a loving relationship, even for rather young teenagers so long as they felt ready. I think she knew that Catholic teaching was more conservative about sex but didn’t regard them as “Christian” or as representing correct or even traditional doctrine. The funny thing is that she didn’t seem aware her own church would have had a more conservative outlook a few generations back, she just took what she had heard as timeless truths.

    For comparison, some Protestant denominations apply dietary rules (eg Adventists) whereas most regard these as swept away and no longer relevant. While clearly not the mainstream Christian view from a thousand years back (though the odd few might have gone with it and been labelled heretics for their trouble) there are some large and mainstream Protestant denominations nowadays that have applied the “swept away” idea to sexual restrictions too. And within the “Honest to God” subsection of the Anglican church, that has been the view for decades – isn’t there a bit in Honest to God where the good reverend tells us of an engaged couple in his congregation who have moved in together but sleep separately and he instructs them for goodness sake, just forget about that and get on with the shagging?

  16. The ones most opposed to homosexuals are the more, er, vibrant parts of the CofE. The pasty-faced ones are generally in favour, some enthusiastically so.

    If the pasty-faced faction were the ultras it would be heaven for the Guardian, but the fact that they are not is a bit awkward. The Guardian gets around this by hardly mentioning this at all, just a veiled (and amusing, given Private Eye) reference to Uganda.

  17. Solid Steve 2: Squirrels of The Patriots

    Eh. Pace Timmy, I think it’s a terrible answer.

    Weak, vacillating, and defensive. Those are things you can’t afford to be on bread-and-butter moral issues when you’re in the Word of God business. No wonder Christians without chests keep losing.

    “You know very well that is a question I can’t give a straight answer to.”

    Why not? The Bible and 2,000 years of Christian theology is clear that bumming other blokes is a sin. The Pet Shop Boys even wrote a song about it.

    “to understand what the call and will of God is in the 21st century”

    There’s a word for people who think God’s will changes to suit man’s whims. It rhymes with “schmeretic”.

    “But, he added, homophobia was sinful”

    No it isn’t, homophobia isn’t even real. It’s a faux-medical term invented to pathologise opposition to the radical gay rights agenda.

    Don’t think kids should be taught about anal fisting? Homophobe!

    Not comfortable with burly homosexuals taking your pubescent son’s Scout troop camping? Homophobe!

    Think Ruth Davidson should lay off the shortbread? Homophobe!

    I do agree that being horrible to someone just because they’re a bit queer makes you a cunt. We have the best poofs in the world in Britain, and they deserve our love.

    Just not in that way. I’m not shaving my head and growing a moustache for anybody.

  18. I think its very indicative of just how pointless the CoE has become that Welbys answer is so pathetic and cowardly when compared to how Jacob Rees Mogg answered the same question.

    JRM answered with religious conviction, honesty and grace, Welby just prevaricates because the CoE is infested with political correctness..

  19. Since everyone ignores all those other prohibitions I’m thinking we can ignore the gay sex one as well.

    The Bible and 2,000 years of Christian theology is clear that bumming other blokes is a sin. The Pet Shop Boys even wrote a song about it.

    Apart from St Paul (who hated pretty much everybody, including himself at times) most of the gay bashing in the Bible is in the Old Testament.

    There is a significant theological question about what parts of the Jewish Law Christians inherit. Matthew 5:17 has:

    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Obviously, many of our USian brethren think that the 10 commandments are critical, very few of us insist on tassels on our shirts. If we object to shellfish, it isn’t normal on religious principle. (BTW, can I recommend “A year of living Biblically“?)

    The Orthodox Jewish “consensus”* view, for what it is worth, is that we inherit the seven Noachide Laws. Number 4 catches gay sex, within or without of marriage.

    * And we know, here, how little a declared ‘consensus’ is worth.

  20. SMFS,

    Most gays I know don’t care if you are traditional or not, so long as you let them get on with their lives (so basically like most of us to be honest). You can’t really label the gays as a group since they are a resonable proportion of the population, and generally vary as much as the rest of us do.

  21. A few commentators here need to remember the Bible is not God’s word but a book put together around 330 AD (and still not firmly established – Maccabees anyone) by a bunch of politicised clergy. And the churches know this, so don’t interpret it literally generally (that and the fact it is impossible to do so because the books are contradictory, and Revalations is just silly) but through various theological filters. Hence the difficulty here.

    Although I do agree it is wierd that the prohibition on sodomy (I don’t think there’s a prohibition on lesbianism off the top of my head) has basically been the consistent point of almost every Christian church which disagree about everything else.

  22. If you read the Old Testament there was a lot of homosexual action going around, not always of a consensual nature. But Matthew 19:12 is about the only statement by Jesus on homosexuality. It seems to say that everyone ought to marry apart from men who are “eunuchs from birth” (homosexual s), those who have been castrated, and those who “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”. It seems quite neutral

  23. So Much For Subtlety

    Watchman – “Most gays I know don’t care if you are traditional or not, so long as you let them get on with their lives (so basically like most of us to be honest).”

    Gays have enthusiastically enrolled in the Culture Wars. If they did not like that, they should have objected at the time. A bit late now.

    “You can’t really label the gays as a group since they are a resonable proportion of the population, and generally vary as much as the rest of us do.”

    They are not a reasonable proportion of the population. To a first order approximation they do not exist at all. And they don’t vary all that much.

    Watchman – “A few commentators here need to remember the Bible is not God’s word but a book put together around 330 AD”

    That is a political statement not a religious one.

    “And the churches know this, so don’t interpret it literally generally”

    Depends on the Church. The literal word of the King James version has been very popular in the US these past 100 years or so.

    dearieme – “Let us all remember what Jesus is reported as saying about poofs and poofery. Which was …….?”

    He did not say stop taking them out the back and stoning them to death. Given that if any had turned up they would have been taken out the back and stoned to death fairly quickly it is not surprising people did not meet any of them. Jesus had the chance of object and did not.

    Diogenes – “If you read the Old Testament there was a lot of homosexual action going around, not always of a consensual nature.”

    Hardly a lot. All of it condemned. There are two references to homosexual rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22), three references to sexual intercourse between men (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:27), one references that may be to intercourse between women (Romans 1:26), one reference to prostitution and possibly pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) and one general objection (1 Timothy 1:8-10).

    “But Matthew 19:12 is about the only statement by Jesus on homosexuality.”

    But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Mark 10:6-9

    That does not leave an option for homosexuality.

  24. “Hate the sin, love the sinners.”

    Isn’t that Gandhi, not Jesus? Anyway, Welby should have stated quite clearly that, according to the Bible and 2000 years of Christian teaching, sodomy is a sin.

    Instead he chose to wibble. I bet he has no idea why the CofE is on it’s arse.

  25. Solid Steve 2: Squirrels of The Patriots

    No, Gandhi was the guy who said “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!”

  26. Mr Ecks,

    “Why the fuck did the dog-collared moron agree to an interview with red shite like Campbell for a shite-rag like GQ in the first place?

    “Nothing to say to you cunts” should be the standard CoE quote when approached by such scum.”

    But they are the red shite. The average churchgoer isn’t but the people in charge are pretty close to the likes of Blair and Campbell.

  27. “No, Gandhi was the guy who said “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!””

    He was a grate filosifer.

  28. Watchman,

    “A few commentators here need to remember the Bible is not God’s word but a book put together around 330 AD (and still not firmly established – Maccabees anyone) by a bunch of politicised clergy. And the churches know this, so don’t interpret it literally generally (that and the fact it is impossible to do so because the books are contradictory, and Revalations is just silly) but through various theological filters. Hence the difficulty here.”

    Which renders it pointless. It’s supposed to be the word of God. You either believe that, or you don’t. If you think a bunch of blokes wrote it, it isn’t the word of God, so you’re just making it up.

    And that’s the problem with the CofE. It has nothing beyond “be nice to other people” left. They’re destroyed everything. Priests can say they don’t believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection and remain in the job. You might as well be a member of the Tufty Club.

  29. Solid Steve 2: Squirrels of The Patriots

    Bloke on M4 – stop spitting on the Tufty Club, bigot. I bet you hate Alvin Stardust too. You must be out of your tiny mind!

  30. Smfs, those 2 Old Testament examples both have a man putting up male visitors for the night. The men of the village hear about it and knock on the door to ask the occupant to let them rape the visitors. In the first case, Sodom was destroyed. In the second case, the other tribes ganged up to destroy the Benjaminites. However, what intrigues me is that this seems to be how villages operated in that area. Your guests should expect to be gang-banged. Admittedly God did destroy Sodom but that place had more than just an attempted homosexual gangbang on its rap sheet. No priest condemns the Benjaminites. The bloke whose concubine got raped to death just managed to get the other tribes to back his call for retribution. It was a crime against justice not against God.

  31. Still, at least he isn’t an active supporter of Sharia, so a marginal improvement on the weirdo who held down the position before him.

  32. Bloke no Longer in Austria

    A bit late to this conversation, so a few observations.

    German Lutherans : I must admit to being bemused by them, they don’t seem to believe in anything fundamental these days and I often wonder what the point of being one is.

    Welby : A depressing JC Flannel ( or Spaceley-Trellis) answer to what should be a simple question. And WTF actually constitutes Homophobia in your book, AbC ? If I don’t like watching gay porn does that make me a homophobe ?

    I am minded of that episode in The Black Adder when Edmund become Archbishop. Brian Blessed bellows at him “And if you cross me, you’ll find out what God did to the Sodomites !”
    Later on Edmund asks Baldrick “What exactly did God do to the Sodomites ?”
    “Dunno my ord, but it can’t have been much worse than what they did to each other.”

  33. @BNLIA

    Cheers for reply on German Lutherans. Some of the milder Dutch Calvinists seem to have gone even further…

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14417362

    The Rev Klaas Hendrikse can offer his congregation little hope of life after death, and he’s not the sort of man to sugar the pill.

    An imposing figure in black robes and white clerical collar, Mr Hendrikse presides over the Sunday service at the Exodus Church in Gorinchem, central Holland. It is part of the mainstream Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN), and the service is conventional enough, with hymns, readings from the Bible, and the Lord’s Prayer. But the message from Mr Hendrikse’s sermon seems bleak – “Make the most of life on earth, because it will probably be the only one you get”.

    “Personally I have no talent for believing in life after death,” Mr Hendrikse says. “No, for me our life, our task, is before death.”

    Nor does Klaas Hendrikse believe that God exists at all as a supernatural thing.

    “When it happens, it happens down to earth, between you and me, between people, that’s where it can happen. God is not a being at all… it’s a word for experience, or human experience.”

    Mr Hendrikse describes the Bible’s account of Jesus’s life as a mythological story about a man who may never have existed, even if it is a valuable source of wisdom about how to lead a good life.

    His book Believing in a Non-Existent God led to calls from more traditionalist Christians for him to be removed. However, a special church meeting decided his views were too widely shared among church thinkers for him to be singled out.
    A study by the Free University of Amsterdam found that one-in-six clergy in the PKN and six other smaller denominations was either agnostic or atheist.

  34. “Go and sin no more” entirely begs the question.

    I think that, in a very real sense, Jesus had nowt to say about poofs and poofery, apart perhaps from the Matthew quotation cited by Diogenes.

    As for the OT, who in Christ’s name wants to follow that filthy collection of evil, often genocidal, advice? Let’s have a Canaanite Holocaust isn’t my idea of Christianity, and I’m surprised it’s anyone else’s.

  35. Calvinists have always been miserable bastards. It was only a matter of time before they denied even the theoretical future pleasure of heaven.

  36. Poor Germaine Greer. She insisted on starting the avalanche of leftwing insanity and now she wants to stop it. Too late now, dear.

  37. Philip Scott Thomas

    We have the best poofs in the world in Britain, and they deserve our love.

    Damn straight. Long live Milo.

  38. Bloke no Longer in Austria

    Rob,

    My late missus was brought up as a Swiss Reformer, but turned to Anglicanism: the music is nicer and her local church still used the Common Prayer Book and King James Bible, so she loved to listen to the poetry.

    She disapproved of female priests, but largely because of their universally terrible haircuts. Her usual (female) Swiss Pastor was a real looker, though.

    Another reason that she turned to the CofE was that she had a problem with pre-destination. As an angst-filled teenager she talked to her then pastor about this theological conundrum. She told me :-
    “He looked me straight in the eye and said ‘To be honest, I don’t give a bugger, I mean there’s not a lot any of us can do about it, is there ?’ It actually made me a feel a lot better, but I still didn’t believe in it. “

  39. @TJ, October 3, 2017 at 8:19 am

    Welby is foolish, …

    Agree

    The correct answer would be that ‘All sexual activity outside marriage is sinful” and sorry the founder said ‘marriage’ can only be between a man and woman.

  40. Most of the OT regulations got dropped in Acts 15.

    For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

    That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

    Acts 15:28-29

    The original Greek word that is being translated as “fornication” was “πορνείας” (“porneias”). It seems to have mainly been used at the time for prostitution (from the Greek “pernao” “to sell off”), but also adultery and incest. Interpret that as you will.

  41. It’s supposed to be the word of God.

    None of the mainstream Christian churches believe the Bible to be the literal word of God – divinely inspired, certainly, but not all incontestable holy writ. Which is just as well, given the number of times it contradicts itself.

    Mohammedans, OTOH, are required to acknowledge the Holy Quran as the direct word of God, dictated to his prophet by an angel. Which is where a lot of their problems stem from.

  42. From the original article:
    “an answer for all people – not condemning them, whether I agree with them or not … but, he added, homophobia was sinful”

    So we can’t condemn, we can’t decide whether things are sinful. But homophobia is sinful and we condemn that.

    So he can rule on whether things are sinful or not, and condemn them, but only some things?

  43. NiV said:
    “Most of the OT regulations got dropped in Acts 15. – For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things”

    Aren’t a lot of the Old Testament rules also dropped by St Peter’s Breakfast? I can’t remember exactly, but don’t a bunch of angels bring a bacon buttie down from heaven, and when St Peter refuses it they say it’s allowed now?

    I may be over-simplifying a complex theological narrative there.

  44. CM,

    Not sure what you mean by that. If you mean literal to be ignoring metaphors, wordplay and imagery then yes, nobody’s a literalist. The orthodox doctrine is inspiration – every word is there because God wanted it to be there, though it carries the flavour of the human author. That’s been held by most Christian churches throughout history.

    As you say, that’s in contrast to the Islamic idea of the Koran being dictated by Allah. So muslims have a hard time with the psalms, where God has given examples of people railing against God.

  45. I’m wondering whether we should still believe that secular commandment, “Clunk, click, every trip.”

    It was promulgated by Sir James Saville, whose name has been whitewashed out of broadcasting history

  46. So Much For Subtlety

    Diogenes – “However, what intrigues me is that this seems to be how villages operated in that area. Your guests should expect to be gang-banged.”

    In a thousand years of history two cases make it an expectation?

    “The bloke whose concubine got raped to death just managed to get the other tribes to back his call for retribution. It was a crime against justice not against God.”

    Well no homosexual rape took place. And the other tribes did all but destroy the Benjaminites for it. That does not suggest they approved.

  47. The trouble with the ABC is that as far as I can see, he doesn’t believe in anything at-all, other than the need to try and hold the Anglican communion together at all costs, despite the totally irreconcilable disagreements that are currently raging within it.

    I’m an Evangelical, from a very clear “marriage is a one man one woman” position (and it’s pretty clear that is what the N.T. teaches by any reasonable reading of its plain text), but I’d have more respect for Welby if he announced he no-longer believes the Bible (he clearly doesn’t), and told us evangelicals to sling our hook.
    He won’t, because we are the only part of the CofE that’s growing (so throwing us out has bad financial and numerical implications) , and because our African friends would be pretty swift to cede too.

  48. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “The original Greek word that is being translated as “fornication” was “πορνείας” (“porneias”). It seems to have mainly been used at the time for prostitution (from the Greek “pernao” “to sell off”), but also adultery and incest. Interpret that as you will.”

    More in the long line of “The Bible does not say what I want it to say, so I am going to overturn 2000 years of Biblical scholarship by very smart people who spent their lives studying these languages which they often actually spoke in order to claim it says something else”?

  49. @BiA

    I had in mind the fact that most Christian churches do not uphold many of the detailed prohibitions in the OT (such as dietary ones) and punishments for disobedience.

  50. “More in the long line of “The Bible does not say what I want it to say, so I am going to overturn 2000 years of Biblical scholarship by very smart people who spent their lives studying these languages which they often actually spoke in order to claim it says something else”?”

    No. More like the Bible doesn’t actually say what 2000 years of Biblical scholarship has claimed it says for their own bigoted reasons. Church people have always been rather inaccurate and frequently deceptive about scripture.

    Christians don’t follow the prescriptions of Genesis and Deuteronomy precisely because of doctrinal statements like Acts:15. The Gospels are chock full of parables about Jesus ignoring or rejecting various bits of Mosaic law, like associating with publicans, tax collectors, and harlots, or stoning a woman charged with adultery to death. The rigorous application of Mosaic law was dropped in favour of forgiveness and tolerance; loving the sinner while hating the sin.

    And on a lot of topics the Christians did – but not all. They still wanted to persecute homosexuals, and so dipped back into the OT to provide scriptural support for their continued bigotry and persecution, even though they were well aware that most of those rules had been abrogated in the NT. It fooled the ignorant, which was most people, and nobody much wanted to disagree anyway. They didn’t like homosexuals, either.

    Welby’s problem is that he knows very well that homophobia is a remnant of the same evil that saw thousands of innocent women and children being chopped to pieces for “tempting” men into “sin”. But he can’t say so, because for 2000 years the Church chose not to clean house, and has persistently been “economical with the truth” about what scripture says. People get trapped by their own lies – it’s become traditional, and tradition is all the justification they have for continuing, so they’re stuck with it.

    But then this is the same Church that started off with Henry VIII wanting to divorce or execute his various wives, rebelling against a Church that made Cesare Borgia (bastard child of Pope Alexander VI and his long-term mistress Vannozza dei Cattanei) a Cardinal! He ‘s the guy that Machiavelli was writing so admiringly about in ‘The Prince’. “Biblical scholarship” has always been able to be a bit “selective” about scriptural interpretation when it wants to be. I’m sure the modern church can be, too.

  51. That’s about approved methods of slaughtering animals for food. (i.e. kosher food rules.) You’re not supposed to eat meat from animals slaughtered with a strangling cord.

    “Blood” is the more interesting one. I often wonder if that means that black pudding is forbidden to Christians?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *