What’s so Special about Buggery?


Note: A question worth asking is why organisations like Christian Voice always make a fuss about the texts in Leviticus and 1 Corinthians. Perhaps homosexuals are Hell-bound sinners. But what about the gigantic tax-gathering state that pulls millions of women out to work to maintain family living standards? What about the systematic denial of our divinely-sanctioned freedom to choose how we live? What about the evil social workers who take children away and sell them to childless couples? What about the morality, in Augustinian terms, of our current wars? What is it that makes buggery so uniquely mportant? SIG

Christian Voice E-Alert – 2nd October 2012

Dear Dr Gabb,

Soldiers of Christ stir up Brighton Gay Pride

On Saturday 1st August, members of Soldiers of Christ attended the ‘gay pride’ event in Brighton to hold a witness and outreach for the people of Brighton and the homosexual community. ‘As we started giving out tracts to people along the parade route, we were met with mixed reactions…’

Read more at:

Soldiers of Christ is an exciting new UK-based faith-building initiative for young people, combining witness and evangelism. Pastors, youth pastors and individual young people can join here free:

Psalm 18:29 For by thee I have run through a troop; and by my God have I leaped over a wall.

Yours in the mighty name of Jesus.

Stephen Green,

National Director, Christian Voice.

About these ads

16 responses to “What’s so Special about Buggery?

  1. Peter W Watson

    Sin is sin all have sinned so why make a big issue out of buggery? Because the buggers who like it do and are trying their damndest to rewrite biology morality and history and theology and have declared war on the Church. If you consider the filth they have enacted towards Jesus Christ had been directed to Mohammad there would not be a confessing homosexual alive today. (I refer to the vile Richard Kirker and the poem The Love That Dares To Speak It’s Name).

    http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/southw.htm

    God did not destroy Sodom and Gommorah because they were inhospitable. He destroyed them because the people there loved doing that which was evil.

  2. Yes, but heavy taxation is more evil, because it destroys families by the million. It should be a matter of perspective.

    Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

  3. Because in Puritan ideology, there has to be some “Greatest SIn” at the end of the road of perdition. For the First Wave, it was being a Catholic. For the Second Wave, it was being a sodomite. For the current Third Wave, it’s being a paedophile.

    The basic conceptual model they use is that the pleasure in sinning is sinning itself; you try one sin, and then you want something more sinful afterwards, and so your sins become more and more depraved. The pleasure taken in a sinful activitiy is thus not the sensual or hedonist pleasure of it, itself, but its degree of depravity. To illustrate; it is like saying a Jew who sins by eating a ham sandwich does not do it to enjoy the pleasure of the taste of the ham; his enjoyment is derived from the sinfulness of it.

    It thus follows that there must be some greatest sin of all at the end of the road to perdition. Second Wavers decided this was buggery. Third Wavers have replaced this with paedophilia.

    This also leads us into our understanding that the two great sides in the America culture war which dominates all of Western society are two post-Puritan formations; the “Christian Right” are the remnant Second Wave; the “Liberal Left” are the new Third Wave. Us lot, the “Real Liberals”, are in that sense the remnant of the anti-Puritan period between the First and Second waves, of the 18th century. The second “intermediate period” was of course filled not by a revival by us, but by the Marxists. Sadly.

  4. Will Wolverhampton

    Yes, but heavy taxation is more evil, because it destroys families by the million. It should be a matter of perspective.

    Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

    It is illogical for you to condemn them, precisely because it IS logical for you to condemn them. Your premises differ wildly from theirs. You are not a Christian; more particularly, not their kind of Christian. When you believe in their kind of Christianity, buggery, which harms the soul and our relationship with God, is infinitely more important than taxation, which does neither. Tax matters temporally and temporarily; sodomy signifies in saecula saeculorum.

    • Will – I disagree. I could argue that no rule laid down in Leviticus and Deuteronomy is binding on Christians unless it is repeated in one of the canonic books of the New Testament, or is confirmed by natural reason. This being so, the Lev 18:11 prohibition is made one with the prohibitions of eating pork or wearing clothes of mixed fibre. It is something for Jews to argue over, not Christians. Even accepting that the word arsenokoites in 1 Cor does mean homosexual, Paul uses it in a context that condemns all forms of non-procreative sex out of wedlock: homosexuality is no worse than adultery and masturbation. Oh, and it is never mentioned in the Gospels.

      This was the opinion of the primitive and mediaeval church. The old penitentials take a harsher view of debauching married women than of buggering other males. In terms of Scripture, or the practice of the early Church, there is no foundation for regarding homosexuality as uniquely sinful. It may be sinful. It may be a grave sin. But it is not the gravest sin. It is not a sin condemnation of which deserves to be made the unifying bond of any Christian sect.

      As for the sinfulness of the modern British State, this does destroy families. Its welfare policies encourage procreation out of wedlock. Its taxes force both parties in most marriages out to work, and this puts a strain on marriage that has much to do with the high divorce rate. It enables and even encourages abortion. The social workers it employs are stealing children from families – sometimes from Christian families. It immiserises. It oppresses. Its wars in the Islamic world are plainly sinful. It has also come close in practice to establishing the Islamic faith in this country – a faith that any devout Christian should regard as plainly blasphemous in its rejection of the divine status of Christ.

      I’m not suggesting that Christians should give up any traditional reading of Scripture, or should set aside two thousand years of general tradition. I certainly don’t suggest that the Churches should start celebrating the “gay” lifestyle. In Christian terms, homosexuality is a sin, and Christian churches should have the same right to expel and shun homosexuals as a golf club has to kick out members who are caught slipping crooked balls to their opponents. They should also be at perfect liberty to preach against homosexuality and to call homosexuals to repentance.

      At the same time, when we are surrounded by structures of sinful conduct, for which we are made to pay, and in which we often find ourselves completely enmeshed, I do suggest that an extreme emphasis on private sexual conduct between consenting adults is misplaced.

  5. What’s so Special about Buggery?

    Pace Mr Wolverhampton, who makes a perfectly fair point above about different premises, there’s nothing special about it – it’s just another unpleasant and unhealthy kind of hedonistic behaviour. So long as it is generally recognised as such, and people are allowed to treat its practitioners and advocates appropriately, it’s no big deal.

    The problem is that as a society we have allowed things to move too far, following the arguably correct decision to end state prohibition of it, to a posint where its practitioners are not only positively encouraged, but even allowed to – incredibly – criminalise those who disapprove of it.

    That is something that needs to be addressed, for a healthy society. The right to discriminate would probably be sufficient, if properly recognised.

    One of the problems for libertarianism on this kind of topic is that a lot of hedonists of various kinds are understandably drawn to libertarianism, and such people tend to want to go beyond tolerance of their particular bad habits to enforced approval.

  6. I have no problem with people being gay.

    I do however find it disturbing that the way certain parts of the homosexual community try to gain acceptance in society by dressing in leather and waving rubber willys around.

    Also, can we have a white/male/european/patriot pride day?

  7. JFen: “I do however find it disturbing that the way certain parts of the homosexual community try to gain acceptance in society by dressing in leather and waving rubber willys around.

    It’s natural for people to want society to approve of their behaviour, I suppose. That’s why the ending of state prohibition of bad habits needs to be balanced by protection of people’s liberty to discriminate against those who engage in them.

    I have no problem with people being gay.

    Personally I think it’s more productive to reject altogether the notion of “being gay” and talk about people either engaging in homosexual activity or not doing so.

    After all, a person who is tempted to smoke cannabis is not a dope smoker, nor is a person who is tempted to commit adultery an adulterer.

    That way you avoid being drawn into the issues of discrimination against groups of supposed victims who are assumed to have no personal responsibility for their situation.

  8. One of the problems for libertarianism on this kind of topic is that a lot of hedonists of various kinds are understandably drawn to libertarianism, and such people tend to want to go beyond tolerance of their particular bad habits to enforced approval.

    No libertarian wants “enforced approval”. That’s a Progressivist thing, not a libertarian thing. But some of us wonder at the wisdom of basing one’s moral values on the particular values of an obscure tribe in the Bronze Age Middle East.

  9. No libertarian wants “enforced approval”. That’s a Progressivist thing, not a libertarian thing.

    Perhaps nobody you would admit to being a libertarian. But there are plenty of people who think of themselves as libertarian who want exactly that, in the guise of “attacking discrimination”.

    This, mutatis mutandis, applies to issues around race as well as sexual behaviour.

  10. Nope, Libertarians just don’t want the State imposing attitudes, full stop, under the guise of “attacking discrimination” or anything else. The Libertarian Movement is opposed to all such thought policing. It’s the Lefties and the Conservatives who do the “trying to make everyone the same as us” thing.

  11. The libertarian position on homosexual acts is clear enough.

    People must be allowed to engage in these acts – if they are voluntary. However, people must also be allowed to “discriminate” against those who engage in homosexual acts (or stamp collecting, or train spotting or …..) if that is what they want to do.

    As for religion.

    Well (although I am not a Roman Catholic) the only Protestant programme I watch is the Huckabee show – normally homosexual stuff is not a matter that is covered (although there was a increase interest when the weird campaign Chick-Fil-A was on – but that was because the Mayors of Boston, Chicago and so on had taken it upon themselves to try and destroy a private business because they did not like the opinions of the owner).

    As for EWTN (the Catholic network) – people there seem to have little interest in homosexual stuff (apart from occassional references to how there was too much “tolerance” in the Church for priests who did not keep their vows – and how this led to……, it is one of the ironies of history that the great liberal attack on the Roman Catholic Church over child abuse has led to the great strengthening of Catholic conservatives).

    However, there is indeed a great interest in single mothers on welfare – and on the breakdown of the family generally (vastly more than there is on homosexual stuff).

    “But the Church of England – the Church of England”.

    Well I am not sure what Rowen Williams thinks about these matters.

    Does anyone know?

  12. Does anyone in their right mind care what that silly old fool thinks?

  13. It is a sin because the Bible says so. no amount of logic has any bearing on the matter. By the same token, it is a Crime because the Law says so. when the Law changes, it is no longer a Crime.
    Don’t try to change DEFINED attributes.

  14. Will Wolverhampton

    Pace Mr Wolverhampton, who makes a perfectly fair point above about different premises, there’s nothing special about it…

    There isn’t to a non-their-kind-of-Christian. You don’t agree with their premises, so to you, there’s nothing special about it.

    Will – I disagree. I could argue that no rule laid down in Leviticus and Deuteronomy is binding on Christians unless it is repeated in one of the canonic books of the New Testament, or is confirmed by natural reason. This being so, the Lev 18:11 prohibition is made one with the prohibitions of eating pork or wearing clothes of mixed fibre. It is something for Jews to argue over, not Christians.

    And Christians can argue that the dietary rules were explicitly overturned in the NT. I’m not a Christian, but I can understand why they think and act the way they do. Or rather, why the v. many kinds of Christian think and act in their v. many different ways.

    Oh, and it is never mentioned in the Gospels.

    But Sodom is. Remember Private Eye’s line on William Rees-Mogg? If WRM prophesied a drought, expect a flood, and vice versa. The best guide for Christians, I suggest, is the Guardian. If the Guardian supports something, it’s bound to be bad for Christianity. So: no to women priests and gay-friendly theology.

    The Guardian is a useful guide elsewhere, too.

  15. One doctrine that a Christian must reject is the positivist one – that something is wrong just because the Bible says it is wrong.

    Remember most of the Bible is not the word of God – it is the word of men (men who may be inspired by God – but still the words of men).

    If something can not be shown, by a process of moral reasoning, that something is wrong – then the rule against it is contentless (from a moral point of view) as the rule against eating shell fish in the Old Testament.

    Of course Christian conservatives think they can make such an argument against homosexual acts – but they should be judged on their arguments (not on “the Bible says…..”)

    As the Schoolmen were fond of pointing out – if a Christian relies on “the Bible says” that Christian is no better than a Muslim saying “the Koran says”.

    “Voluntarism” (not political voluntarism – theological voluntarism) that “good” and “evil” are just whatever God says they are (becasue the definition of “good” is whatever God orders, and the defintion of “evil” is whatever God forbids) is just vile.

    It gives us no place to stand to judge people in the Bible.

    For example, was Joshua right (in moral terms) to wipe out whole towns – down to the babies?

    If someone says “yes” then I am not interested in anything else they say – whether they call themselves a Christian or not.

    Someone who says “whatever God orders is right – because God orders it” is no better than a Satanist.