What is the best way to claim that God is eternal?

This paper will discuss the best way to understand the claim that God is eternal in a variety of different ways. It will explain the different understandings of the word eternal, such as ‘everlastingness’ and ‘atemporality’. The paper will then move forward into analysing timelessness and everlastingness by looking at the perfection and change argument, followed by the free will argument, the teleological argument in terms of perfection, and a view of an omniscient God. This will then be continued by looking into the knowledge and change arguments, and an omnitemporal God. The paper will then summarise and conclude the main arguments.

The claim ‘God is eternal’ could have many meanings or understandings, the Oxford Dictionary definition of eternal is something that is ‘existing or lasting forever without change’ (Dictionary, 2016). This then leads into an everlastingness, which essentially means that God is temporal, but exists forever. Temporal can mean either a secular view, or can be used in relation to or denoting time. (Dictionary, 2016). The final view point is atemporality, this means that God is not a temporal being and exists outside of all time. All three of these terms offer a different understand of how the word ‘eternal’ can be interpreted.

According to Augustine and Boethius, God exists apart from time, or outside of time. He possesses life all at once, but the terminology ‘all at once’ is not used to describe a moment of time, but the absence of a temporal sequence. So it is not as though God has always existed in time, for as long as time has existed and always will, but rather that God does not exist in time at all. (Helm, 2014). This idea is important as it claims that God has never existed within the social construct we know to be time. It claims that He has always been outside of time, which allows him to be eternal with no boundaries linking him to the corporeal world, and He is a separate and higher being, able to communicate and exist in a separate realm which is unexplainable to humankind.

In the argument for timelessness and against everlastingness, it is important to include the perfection and change argument. The perfection argument consists of three main premises. Premise one is that a degree of perfection is given to all beings. Premise two is that there is a causal being which gives the perfection to the finite beings. The final premise concludes that there must be a ‘best’ being who is able to create these things, and that being must be God. This is important because it allows for God to be the creator of all and also be the most perfect being. It allows him to exist within timelessness because He could exist outside of time but also always be present. It is also backed up with the idea that God is a perfect being, and a perfect being cannot undergo change at any point. For a perfect being to be located in time means that they are always subject to change, and therefore God cannot exist within time. (Kreeft, 1994)

Within the argument for timelessness, and also linking to the perfection and change argument it is plausible to include the idea of influenced evolution. This is possible because it still places God at the beginning of time as we know it, and also gives space for evolution to bring change and developments to the earth. It is said that both science and religion can co-exist in terms of creation as many people of faith will claim that the bible should not be taken literally, it is open to all kinds of interpretation. (Evolution and Religion can Co-exist, Scientists Say., 1996) This is an important explanation as it gives light to the issues of God being timelessness as it allows him to have organised and created the earth as we know it, but without having to have a physical entity to do so. It gives the ideas that He created the earth but then placed evolution where necessary to ensure that the earth will gravitate and grow to what He had planned for it to do.

To add to the argument for perfection, it is plausible to include the teleological argument, and more specifically, William Paley’s watch analogy. This argument is based around an idea written by William Paley about a blind watchmaker. The main text of the argument is as follows: “Suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for  astone that happened to be lying on the ground?… For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.” (Paley, 1867, p. 1). This raises the claim that if he had found a watch upon the ground, what is to say it had not been there forever, like a stone. It is not due to a persons’ loss that it has been found there, and it may have existed on that specific piece of ground since the beginning of time, just like a stone may. Paley’s claim then continues, and talks about how the intricacies of making a watch are similar to creating the world, for if a watch is not made with the correct materials placed in the correct places, the watch would not work. This relates to the creation of the world, for if it had not been created with the exact materials placed in the exact places they were required then it could not have come into existence, therefore explaining the need for an intelligent designer, or as a religious person would view it, a God. (Himma)

The watch analogy is useful to add to the idea of perfection and change because if the world had been created slightly differently, it would not work, and that is similar to the universe. A watch requires a watch maker, so in respect, a world requires a world maker, more commonly known as an intelligent designer. This adds to the idea that God must exist outside of time as he could not exist within a corporeal timeframe to be able to create something on such a huge scale, whilst also being inside of time.

To continue this argument, it is important to think about everlastingness, and the problems that it causes. For example, if God exists in time, and he is omniscient then he must now know what we will do in the future. If God is omniscient and therefore all knowing, then humans cannot be truly free because all actions; past, present and future, are then known by God, and in that case humans do not have free will, and that means that they inevitably cannot be free agents. The free will defence takes away the idea that everything is pre-determined by God and allows human choice, which takes away God’s ability to be omniscient.

God is traditionally viewed as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and eternal. It is important to think of an omnipotent God at the same time as looking into an eternal God as the two often coincide with one another. For God to be omnipotent, He then has the power to do anything and He is also able to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever, this causes issues as he is only able to do things that are logically possible. This brings forth the paradox of the stone. Premise one, is that either God can create a stone He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone he cannot lift. The second premise is that if he can create such a stone, then there is something he cannot do. I.E lift the stone. Premise three is that if He cannot create such a stone there is something He cannot do. Either way, there is something He cannot do. The final premise to this argument is that God, therefore cannot be omnipotent. This is important as it provides evidence of God being unable to do something, which links to the ideas that He can or cannot exist within or outside of time, to make him eternal. It is down to interpretation of the reader to decide which force they wish to believe. (Pearce, 2012)

On the contrary, within the argument for everlastingness, the knowledge argument arises. The knowledge argument bases itself on the idea that if God is not temporal then He couldn’t know temporal facts. But God is omniscient, so He must know all facts. Therefore, God is temporal. This argument raises concerns in the idea that God must know everything there is to know about the world, whether it is good or bad, but He chooses to do nothing to counteract those things. This idea places God in a construct of time which inevitably reduces him from being able to be timeless, and therefore perfect. Using the idea of a temporal God reduces Him from the ability to be omniscient and omnibenevolent as He cannot be these things whilst also being within time.

Another argument which is part of the argument for everlastingness is the change argument. This argument bases itself of the idea that God can only change if He is temporal, but He needs to be able to change in order to answer prayers, show forgiveness and also show compassion. This is vital, because in all major religions it is known that people will use prayer to ask God for these things, and if He is not able to change himself to provide what they require then He is evidently not able to be everlasting, or non-temporal. However, the idea that time could pass without a change happening is a controversial idea, and it is known that for something to change it requires a passage of time to do so. (Mortenson, 2015) For example, a person cannot age without time passing by. It is important for God to have the ability of change as many religious followers will go to Him daily through prayer and seek His help or forgiveness. This is a founding factor of many religions. It is such an important factor that most religions have to go to prayer several times a day. If God is unable to change for them, it could cause a lack of faith for his followers.

In an argument for the timelessness of God, it is easy to believe that God is omnitemporal, meaning that He is always outside of time and that he never began to exist, or will ever cease to exist. This raises the question, did God exist before creation, or is He timeless without creation? Many will claim that time may have begun at the moment of creation, with time coming into existence with the universe. Any time before the universe began would then lack any intrinsic stability. Or, it is possible to believe that prior to existence there are literally no intervals of time, and this would entirely disappear at the moment that time began. (Craig, 2000) This leads people to thinking that if time did not begin before creation, and God is the creator then he must exist within time, because otherwise He had existed in a periodical timeframe which ended at the first moment of creation, therefore meaning that God would have disappeared in it, also. This explains that God must not exist timelessly and He has to exist within time.

To conclude this paper, to look at both sides of the argument for timelessness and everlastingness, to prove that God is eternal, it is clear that neither side is stronger than its opposition. They have both got good evidence and support for themselves and it is evident that different people will have different opinions on which they believe to be true. From a religious perspective, people of faith will believe that God is timeless and exists in a world outside of time, existing before creation. On the otherhand, on the side of science and it is more likely to claim that they would believe that God exists, if they do believe in a God, in time as it is an easier concept to understand than if he exists non-temporally. Drawing on the ideas of perfection and change, but also knowledge and omnitemporality, it is evident that both of sides of the argument can interlink if required to allow God to be eternal both inside and outside of time, just like a theist or deist could view God as actively being inside and outside of His creation.

 

 

Bibliography

Craig, W. L. (2000). Timelessness and Omnitemporality. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from Leaderu: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/omnitemporality.html

Dictionary, O. (2016). Oxford Dictionary. Retrieved 12 9, 2016, from Eternal : https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/eternal

Evolution and Religion can Co-exist, Scientists Say. (1996). Retrieved 12 9, 2016, from National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion_2.html

Helm, P. (2014, March 21). Eternity. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/#EteVie

Himma, K. E. (n.d.). Design Arguments for the Existence of God. . Retrieved December 11, 2016, from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.: http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/#SH1c

Kreeft, P. (1994). Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God. Retrieved 12 9, 2016, from http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#3

Mortenson, C. (2015, December 21). Change and Inconsistency. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/change/

Paley, W. (1867). Natural Theology: Or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearences of Nature. Boston: Gould and Lincoln.

Pearce, K. L. (2012). Omnipotence. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.: http://www.iep.utm.edu/omnipote/

 

 

Is Female Genital Mutilation a religious or cultural practise?

This paper will be focused on female genital mutilation and the discussion on whether it is a cultural or religious practice. It will look at what female genital mutilation or female circumcision is and how it is performed, alongside a delve into the consequences it can have, with a deeper look into the cultural and religious aspects and meanings behind why it is practiced, where it originates from and if it is still relevant in a post modern society, before finally focusing on whether female genital mutilation is a cultural or religious practice.

Female Genital Mutilation is a procedure involving partial or total removal of the female sexual genitalia, or causing injury to the female genital organs (Organisation, 2007). It can happen to a female from age 0 up to age 15. Female genital mutilation can be practiced in a multitude of different ways, all categorized into types; type 1 is also known as clitoridectomy, and consists of partial or total removal of the clitoris. Type 2 is known as excision, where the clitoris and labia minora are partially or totally removed, with or without the excision of the labia majora. Type 3 is the most severe form, known as infibulation. Type 3 consists of narrowing the vaginal opening by creating a seal through cutting and repositioning the labia minora and the labia majora, with or without the removal of the clitoris. The seal is not fully covering, as a gap is left for urinal and menstruation purposes, and it should only be broken or opened through either penetrative sex or surgery. Type 4 is the final type of female genital mutilation and consists of all other types of damage to the genitalia for non-medicinal purposes such as cutting, pricking, piercing, incising and scraping. (Organisation, 2007) It is thought by many that female genital mutilation was originally practised on female slaves to prevent sexual intercourse and avoid pregnancy. Female genital mutilation is performed by an elder woman, who has undergone the practise themselves and it can also be incredibly unsanitary due to the tools that are used to perform this procedure (Andro, 2016).

The consequences of female genital mutilation are incredibly damaging to the person who has it performed on them. The effects are not only immediate but also can have long term damage too. The immediate consequences of female genital mutilation include severe pain and bleeding, which can ultimately lead to haemorrhaging, difficulty passing urine, infection and sometimes, death. It is known that almost all women who have undergone the procedure experience pain and bleeding, and it can also cause psychological damage as the girl is held down during the experience. There is research which suggests that female genital mutilation can lead to septicaemia due to the tools used to carry out the procedure being unclean and sanitary. There is a greater risk of haemorrhaging and death with infibulations, but can also happen as a side effect of any type of female genital mutilation. (Organisation, 2007)

The long term effects of female genital mutilation are chronic pain, development of cysts, abscesses and ulcers in the pelvic region, problems with the reproductive system, and post traumatic stress disorder. It also causes problems during child birth as the scar tissue may tear or the opening may need to be cut to allow for it to stretch so they are able to birth the child more easily, but this may also lead to the mother haemorrhaging which could then cause for the new-born baby and the mother to go into distress (Organisation, 2007). Due to the effects of female genital mutilation it is common for females to lose their sexual libido and to try and refrain from having penetrative sex as it causes them too much pain and they receive very little or no sexual stimulation from this.

The practise of female genital mutilation is thought to have originated in the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula, and is thought to date back at least 2000 years and can be traced back to Ancient Egypt. The reason for this thought is that when looking at the bodies of Ancient Egyptian mummies, there are marks of excision and infibulation. It is now known that Female Genital Mutilation is practised on 28 different African countries, and has also been documented in both central and south America, and also the UK. It is known that female genital mutilation has been performed in the western world, by the Early Romans via use of ‘Chastity Belts’; a form of mechanical infibulation. It is also said that female genital mutilation was used in the western world as a way of eradicating female masturbation as it would aid them in finding a way to restrain their sexual feelings. This type was used mainly in Europe (Andro, 2016). A lot of people believe that it began and evolved from the earliest communities due to people wanting to have power over the females’ sexual organs. For example, the Romans performed an act of putting gold rings through a woman’s labia to stop them from becoming pregnant, as they believed that penetrative sex would be painful with these rings in place. (FGM, 2015)

Culturally, Female Genital Mutilation is supported by traditional beliefs and values that a woman should uphold in order for her to be seen as pure and ready to be taken as a wife. It is viewed as a rite of passage to womanhood. In some African communities it is believed that a daughter would not be taken as a wife unless they were circumcised. (FGM, 2015). Many intellectuals who have researched into female genital mutilation will say that it is practised in communities all over the world, and it cannot be traced down and pinned onto one specific religion. It is done as more of a cultural ideology which has been passed down through thousands of generations and it is done as part of a patriarchal practise for men. The idea of a male patriarchy sets a precedent that women are the lesser valued sex and that in order to prove themselves as being ‘worthy’ of marriage, they should be cut and maimed in a way to make them more sexually appeasing for a man. Therefore, the practise of female genital mutilation in most African countries is done for this reason. There is also a view within the African cultures that a girl cannot move forward into adulthood without having this procedure, meaning it is viewed as a rite of passage. A lot of African mothers hold this view and will force their child to go through with the act as they believe it will bring them luck and a wealthy husband, when she marries (Unknown, 2015).

Around the world, female genital mutilation is performed in communities as a social norm, it is something that has become so normal within their culture that when a female reaches a certain age, they undergo this procedure. It is also done as a means of acceptance by the community, and many girls who have not had the procedure will often choose to have it, as they fear being rejected by their peers and the community they live in. It is believed in many cultures that female genital mutilation will reduce a woman’s sexual libido and that is used as a reason for it to be performed so a woman will be pure when she marries, and will be a virgin until she has intercourse with her husband, which is seen as honourable for a female. In most of the places where female genital mutilation is carried out, it is considered as being a cultural aspect of that place, and that is then used as a reason for continuation of this procedure. (WHO, 2016).

However, a lot of people claim that female genital mutilation is a religious practise, that is performed in several different religions. This claim could either link all religions together or it could identify another important factor. It is known that in the Middle East and in Africa, both Muslims and Christians practise female genital mutilation. Both of these religions are under the umbrella term of the ‘Abrahamic religions’, which could identify a link between them. It is thought that female genital mutilation is potentially religious because of the wide range of religions it is known to be practised in. it is known that religious leaders will take a standpoint in the argument of female genital mutilation, each one of them varying from promoting it, to contributing to its elimination. (WHO, 2016).

In Muslim countries where female genital mutilation is practised, it is justified by something Prophet Muhammad said “Do not cut too severely as it is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband”. (Robinson, 2015). Although, as much as this statement is giving ‘permission’ for female genital mutilation to happen, it does not state that it is enforced and is mandatory to happen in the religion, there are passages in the Qur’an which oppose the idea of female genital mutilation, such as the idea of the clitoris being created for the sole purpose of receiving and creating pleasure for a woman, and it does not state anywhere that it should be damaged, or made smaller anywhere. (Robinson, 2015). To counteract this, it is known that in the Islamic society, a woman should still be a virgin and her hymen should not be broken until she is married as a sign of loyalty and purity and obedience to her religion and to her husband and family. This is often used as a way of justifying female genital mutilation and a way to link it to the religion. (Robinson, 2015)

Female genital mutilation is commonly seen throughout Christianity, as well as Islam, as a way of proving that the females are just as worthy as the males in proving their covenant to god. However, female genital mutilation is not solely linked to any religion, it is just a characteristic of many different religions. It is seen in Islam, Christianity, Judaism and many native religions too (Unknown, Q&A on Female Genital Mutilation, 2010).

This leads to the question, is female genital mutilation still relevant in a post-modern society? Is it still something that is required culturally, but maybe not religiously. It seems clear that the post-modern world is becoming more aware now of what female genital mutilation is and how it is performed, but nobody is addressing the important issues as to finding out deeply why it is done. Many people will say that in terms of a culture continuing to exist they are required to keep practising their traditions as they always have done, and with female genital mutilation being a founding factor in many cultures, it will therefore continue, however it is not addressing the safety of the girls that it is being performed on, and the after effects are not being thought of.

It is now illegal to perform female genital mutilation in the United Kingdom and has been since 2003, however it is still prevalent. It is happening more secretly now than it used to, as people are having to travel away for it to happen. This usually happens during the summer holidays to allow for it to heal before returning home. This is a clear indicator that female genital mutilation is not a cultural ideology and it is evident that it is being practised somewhat religiously, as it is not part of the culture in the United Kingdom (gov.uk, 2016). It is clear from this, that female genital mutilation is not relevant in this society, as it is classed as child-abuse and is illegal to be performed in the United Kingdom. However, it is potentially still relevant in African countries as their societies and cultures have not progressed as much as others. This is damaging as it means girls between the ages of 0-15 are still at risk of having this procedure performed on them.

In comparison, it is easy to say that female genital mutilation is both cultural and religious, as it is performed in certain societies for cultural reasons such as tradition that has been passed down for centuries, but also religious as it is common for girls to be seen as unclean and dirty if they are not virgins upon marriage, and that then makes them less likely to be taken as a wife, so many people of faith would force their daughters to have this procedure so that they are more likely to be taken as a wife so they can bring wealth to their families. This is also common in many African cultures.

To conclude, female genital mutilation is forced upon young girls, many of whom are not given a choice. It can happen as young as birth and it is likely to have long term side effects such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and problems with menstruation and child birth. The immediate side effects can lead to death if the procedure goes wrong, the tools used are not clean and sanitary, as it can lead to infection and septicaemia, or the girl haemorrhages severely. It is evident that there is not a lot of evidence linking female genital mutilation to a religious practise, which allows the belief that it is a cultural practise and is performed under the precipice of traditions which have been carried out for centuries. It is right to say that from the evidence gathered in this paper, that female genital mutilation is a cultural practise, rather than a religious one, although the two can be easily confused as it is seen from a more of a religious perspective in terms of it being performed within Islam.

 

 

Bibliography

Andro, A. (2016). Female Genital Mutilation. Overview and Current Knowledge. , 219.

FGM, N. (2015). Historical and Cultural. Retrieved January 2, 2017, from fgmnationalgroup: http://www.fgmnationalgroup.org/historical_and_cultural.htm

gov.uk. (2016). Female Genital Mutilation facts. Retrieved January 2, 2017, from gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/482799/6_1587_HO_MT_Updates_to_the_FGM_The_Facts_WEB.pdf

Organisation, W. H. (2007). What is FGM. Retrieved 1 2, 2017, from endfgm: http://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/what-is-fgm/

Robinson, B. (2015, April 11). Female Genital Mutilation. Retrieved January 2, 2017, from religious tolerance. : http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

Unknown. (2010). Q&A on Female Genital Mutilation. Retrieved January 2, 2017, from Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/16/qa-female-genital-mutilation

Unknown. (2015). Religion or Culture? Retrieved January 2, 2017, from stopfgmmideast: http://www.stopfgmmideast.org/background/islam-or-culture/

WHO. (2016). Female Genital Mutilation. Retrieved January 2, 2017, from World Health Organisation: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

 

 

Homosexuality within the Christian and Judaic faiths.

This paper will focus on the view of the lesbian, gay and bisexual community as seen by religion, with a strong focus on Christianity. It will focus directly on the changing views of the Christian Church, how the Christian Church views same-sex marriage and also how the bible has been interpreted to give people ideas of how homosexuality should be viewed.  The research will be backed up using quotes from the Bible and also quotes from Pope Francis.

Homosexuality is defined in the Oxford dictionary as a person who is attracted to a person of the same sex. (Dictionary, 2016) The view of same-sex relationships within religion is that it should be shunned upon as it is written in many sacred texts as being wrong and shameful. For example, in Leviticus 18:22 it says “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable”. (Tools, 2016) Homosexuality is something that is rather controversial when thinking of its origin, as many people think of it as being a choice, and others think that it is an attribute that you are born with.

In both Christian and Judaic faith, religions homosexuality is thought of as being sinful and a rejection of the laws given by God for his people to follow. It is viewed as something that is chosen and caused by temptation and to treat homosexuality, a person should resist temptation or if they are unable to do so, experience conversion therapy (Moon, 2014). Conversion therapy is a form of treatment used by many followers of both Christians and Jews that is trying to change a homosexual’s brain patterns to ensure that they no longer have an attraction to a person of the same sex as themselves. There are no professional standards into how it should be performed as it is not a mainstream psychological treatment, and it is usually done by sending electrodes through a persons’ body to attempt to change their brain patterns. There are other methods of conversion therapy that are less harmful to the body, such as psychoanalysis or talking therapy. In this type of therapy, a person is forced to talk about how they feel and what makes them attracted to a person of the same sex and they are then influenced into self-hatred and taught to hate themselves for feeling the way they do. This is done as a form of conditioning, so that whenever people have thoughts or feelings about another person of the same sex they are reminded that it is wrong and they should have negative feelings about it, to try and persuade them not to pursue the feelings.  However, many psychologists would say that conversion therapy does not actually work for various different reasons. The strongest argument they put forward is that homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder, so treating it in the same way a person with depression, anxiety, psychosis and similar mental disorders will not work (Pappas, 2012).

In Judaism, homosexuality is thought of in the same way as in Christianity. Homosexuals are excommunicated from their faith and synagogues’ and are thought to be demons and as devilish creatures. It is common for homosexual’s who belong to both of these faiths to commit suicide both after coming out as being attracted to a person of the same gender, or before people are able to find out to escape from the shame. Around 30% of successful youth suicides are performed by homosexuals aged fifteen to twenty-four. Due to homosexuality being viewed as such a sin, the two main reasons that are most commonly known are because of shame, due to their lifestyle being considered to be a mental disorder, addiction or mental illness. This causes them to feel depressed and causes suicidal ideation. The other main attributing factor is due to despair when they are told that they will be trapped in the homosexual lifestyle forever (Robinson, 2008).

Within the Christian Church, it is thought that homosexuality is wrong, and this idea is formed by teachings in the Bible, such as when God created Adam, he created Eve after as he believed that he should have a companion in order to populate the earth. He did not create another Eve. This idea has lead Christians to believe that a relationship between man and man or woman and woman is wrong as it is not what God has intended for us (Edmiston, 2002). The Bible also states that “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Leviticus 20:13) (20:13, 2016). This quotation also backs up the idea that homosexuality is wrong. It is common for the Bible to be misinterpreted by many people, more commonly believers that read the Bible as a literal truth and as the exact word of God. These people do not allow for interpretation and are also very strict and adhere to their faith in the exact way they believe the Bible tells them to. However, it has recently been thought that the Bible only stands as a literal truth if you are living in the context that it was written, it is now thought to have hidden wisdoms and teachings behind what it is saying. For example, the quote “if a man is to lay with a man as he would a woman, both should be stoned” is not a literal statement and does not mean that a homosexual person should be killed for essentially laying with another man. It could mean, that two men should not engage in a commitment to one another such as a friendship as it could be seen as being a sin to their God.

In other places of the Bible, it is claimed that the Wedding at Cana (John 2) is Jesus marrying his disciples. Therefore, Jesus was a male, who married twelve other males. In this instance, it cannot be thought of homosexuality to be a sin, as the Son of God was able to have engage in a same sex relationship, with another man. This evidence is can also be backed up by the writings of Paul, who says that Jesus was married, but does not claim whom his marriage was with. It is a common belief that it is a metaphorical marriage to the Church, but with the Wedding at Cana happening before Paul’s writings, it is difficult to comprehend which may be true.

In more recent times, these ideas have changed. In 2014, churches in the UK changed their stance on same sex marriage and allowed for two people of the same gender to marry, in a Church, if they wished to. Although people in same sex relationships were able to have civil partnerships, which are not legally recognized by law and does not give the person the same rights as they have in a marriage, it was still illegal until the 29^th March 2014 for a person to legally be married to their partner, giving them the same rights as a heterosexual couple (News, 2014). The Bishop of Norwich, Reverened Graham James said “the Church of England believes marriage is between one man and one woman for life .. it is untidy for the law to have two definitions, but I think we can live with untidiness” (News, 2014). However, although the Church has legally changed its stance on same sex marriages, a lot of religious followers still hold the same view, that marriage is only sacred between a man and a woman.

To add to the idea of a changing church, in 2016 Pope Francis delivered a speech saying that he believes the church should apologise to gay people for the way they have been treated in the past and should, from now on show them respect. He said, “I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they (homosexuals) should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally”. Although he has reaffirmed that homosexual acts are sinful, he claims that homosexual orientation is not. This is seen as a breakthrough within the Christian and Catholic churches as it teaches that the person at the highest point of their religion is willing to change his views on homosexuality, and he also encourages others to do the same. (News, Pope Francis says Church should apologise to Gay People, 2016)

To conclude, homosexuality in religion has always been viewed as being sinful, disrespectful to God and that view has always stayed truthful. It is uncommon for people to think of homosexuality in the church as being accepted, and that has in no way change, even with the church allowing same sex marriages in the church. Many churches will still refuse to ordain a marriage to a couple of the same sex and a lot of people, will refuse to befriend a person due to their sexual orientation. In Judaism the view of homosexuality has not changed a significant amount, but with Pope Francis recently releasing his statement about sexual orientation being okay and guided people back into the Catholic church, in years to come a more noticeable change may occur. Within the Christian Church a huge change has been noticed, homosexuals are being welcomed into the church and less and less people are being excommunicated and cut off from their family and friends. The rates of youth suicide has dropped significantly lower all over the world and homosexuality is mostly now seen as being equal to heterosexuality within the Christian Church.

Bibliography

20:13, L. (2016). Leviticus 20:13. Retrieved November 13, 2016, from biblehub: http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm

Dictionary, O. (2016). Homosexual. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from Online Oxford Dictionary: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homosexual

Edmiston, J. (2002). What does the bible say about Same Sex Marriage? Retrieved November 13, 2016, from christiananswers: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html

Moon, D. (2014). Beyond the Dichtomy: Six Religious Views of Homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality .

News, B. (2016). Pope Francis says Church should apologise to Gay People. Retrieved November 13, 2016, from BBC.co.uk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36636845

News, B. (2014, March 29). Same-sex marriage now legal as first couples wed. Retrieved November 13, 2016, from bbc.co.uk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26793127

Pappas, S. (2012, November 27). 5 facts to know about conversion therapy. Retrieved November 13, 2016, from livescience: http://www.livescience.com/25082-gay-conversion-therapy-facts.html

Robinson, B. A. (2008, August 1). Suicides among gay and lesbian youth. Retrieved November 13, 2016, from religioustolerance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_suic.htm

Tools, B. S. (2016). 25 Bible Verses about Homosexuality. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from Bible Study Tools: http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-homosexuality/