Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The Queen - Inconsistent? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Does a celibate gay priest count as homosexual? Similarly, do R.C. priests count as heterosexual, or should "celibate" be an entirely separate category? Yes, there are the temptations to stop being celibate, but those who resist them successfully seem to me to fall into neither the "homo" box nor the "hetero" one, because the "-sexual" half of the word appears not to be fulfilled.

    "Different roles" is a reasonable enough line to take on its own, if for the moment we forget St. Paul and just think about a society in which it's impossible for everyone to do everything, but I don't think his demand "she must be silent" counts as a legitimate role. And the "I do not permit a woman to be in authority over a man" line of 1 Timothy 2:12 sounds more like "inferior" than "different".
    Yes, a celibate gay priest does couint as homosexual, because the definition of homosexual is to be sexually attraced to a member of the same sex. Whether you act o those sexual urges isn't relevent to the notion of being homosexual. But it might be relevent when considering a homosexual priest's worthiness to preach n stuff. Because the bible (which is a pile of ****( well, stories that could have been true that were over-exaggerated)) syas the acts are the sins. So shagging a guy would be a sin. But being sexually attracted to one? Another story alogether.

    The sexual part is fulfilled! All you need to be gay is to feel a sexual attraction. You do NOT have to act o it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    I read recently that the Queen supports gay priests but opposes women priests. Now, I ask you: Where's the logic in that? It seems a terribly inconsistent position to hold.

    Answers on a postcard.
    who cares what the Queen says? AND there shouldn't be a Queen anyway. There should not be a Royal family. There should not be Class inequality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    You have to remember that the queen is surrounded by 'gay' flunkies.

    All the royal palaces are renowned for being hotbeds of homosexuality, therefore it is quite natural to her, whereas women priests holding positions of authority (such as herself - and she didn't like Margaret Thatcher either!) aren't.
    Haha! Another great big steaming heap of bull**** i'm afraid. I don't know what you're smoking but you're certainly getting your moneys worth.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by judi_lover)
    who cares what the Queen says? AND there shouldn't be a Queen anyway. There should not be a Royal family. There should not be Class inequality.
    Thank you Comrade Stalin. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by judi_lover)
    who cares what the Queen says? AND there shouldn't be a Queen anyway. There should not be a Royal family. There should not be Class inequality.
    Inequality occurs because people are different. Liberal social and economic policy are part of the same libertarian intellectual tradition for a reason. Because we believe in allowing people to be who they are. This means that inequalities are permissable because people make diffrent life choices in a liberal society.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by judi_lover)
    who cares what the Queen says? AND there shouldn't be a Queen anyway. There should not be a Royal family. There should not be Class inequality.
    Not the thread for this sort of stuff. But I will take the time to insult you:

    You're a knob.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Herein you raise an interesting point viz under what authority does St Paul minister? For those of us of the "catholic" tradition (note use of lower case "c" to distingish from Roman Catholic") St Paul was commissioned by God himself and therefore speaks authoritatively for the church. This I understand is difficult for our protestant brothers to accept.

    Further, from an Orthodox perspective, the Bible is divinely inspired, meaning that the various authors including St Paul, have written down the will of God.
    If that's the case, then why does St. Paul say "I do not permit", rather than telling us straight that it is God who is doing the forbidding? Anyway, simply being commissioned by God doesn't automatically confer divine authority on every word out of someone's mouth. I doubt anyone would claim that Papal Encyclicals carry the same authority as the Bible; yet Popes, we are told, are chosen by God just as Paul was.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    I read recently that the Queen supports gay priests but opposes women priests. Now, I ask you: Where's the logic in that? It seems a terribly inconsistent position to hold.

    Answers on a postcard.


    Organised Religion and the monarchy. TWO things that should be abolished.

    what are you doing paying attention to either the royal family or religious leaders for anyway?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by El Scotto)

    Organised Religion and the monarchy. TWO things that should be abolished.
    Two things that should be strengthened.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Two things that should be strengthened.

    Why exactly?

    Monarchy and religion are two enemies of democracy, not to mention the definition of legitfying prejudice and inequality.

    Nepal recently had their monarchy strengthened and look whats happened there.

    Religions being strengthed is also the last thing that should happen. Their powers should be reduced.

    The easter speech by the arch bishop made me laugh... he was condemming the da vinci code, telling people to watch out for conspiracies....

    ....all this coming from a person subscribed to one of the longest running conspiracies. lol
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by El Scotto)

    Why exactly?

    Monarchy and religion are two enemies of democracy, not to mention the definition of legitfying prejudice and inequality.

    Nepal recently had their monarchy strengthened and look whats happened there.

    Religions being strengthed is also the last thing that should happen. Their powers should be reduced.

    The easter speech by the arch bishop made me laugh... he was condemming the da vinci code, telling people to watch out for conspiracies....

    ....all this coming from a person subscribed to one of the longest running conspiracies. lol
    I didn't hear the Easter speech by Canterbury but given the amount of drivel that is spoken on the D&D religion forum by a number of people who have apparently taken DaVinci as actual history he makes a fair point from an educational standpoint.

    I don't think religion is anti-democracy either. In fact, European democracy owes much to Christianity, the seeds sown during the Reformation leading nicely to the Enlightement and the growth of democratic and liberal thought. Bear in mind also that the Church led the way in the provision of universities where such things as civil law and scientific thought evolved. It is a fact that there were more university students in 13th century Europe than there are today (per head of population)
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by El Scotto)

    Organised Religion and the monarchy. TWO things that should be abolished.

    what are you doing paying attention to either the royal family or religious leaders for anyway?
    Surely it takes an awful lot of self-righteous arrogence to suppose that you know better than the people who have supported these institutions for centuries and and millenia.

    The monarchy is a glorious tradition, representing the fine and dignified transition of our country from Monarchy to Parliamentary government. A democratic model which has been exported around the world.

    There is absolutely no reason for abolition, and in a liberal society organised religion only serves to provide intellectual coherence to religion - where many are arrogently presuming that they can know better than institutions which have studied religious texts for centuries.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by El Scotto)
    Monarchy and religion are two enemies of democracy, not to mention the definition of legitfying prejudice and inequality.
    What's so good about democracy? You make it sound like an end in itself.

    I don't see how prejudices are endorsed by organised religion - after all, a number of moral standpoints are taken by religious bodies, although I will readily admit that they do fail to address others.

    Nepal recently had their monarchy strengthened and look whats happened there.
    Their monarchy simply removed the government because they believed it corrupt. What happened then was a result of the fact that bloody Maoists control half the country.

    Religions being strengthed is also the last thing that should happen. Their powers should be reduced.
    Well, I don't think they should have 'powers' at all as such.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    If that's the case, then why does St. Paul say "I do not permit", rather than telling us straight that it is God who is doing the forbidding?
    I may be wrong on the context here, but my impression was that it was supposed to be a letter instructing another group of people how to run their churches. The inclination would be to say 'I do not permit' - although I imagine he did not allow such things as he thought it was against God's will rather than due to some personal whim.

    Anyway, simply being commissioned by God doesn't automatically confer divine authority on every word out of someone's mouth. I doubt anyone would claim that Papal Encyclicals carry the same authority as the Bible; yet Popes, we are told, are chosen by God just as Paul was.
    You may have a point here. After all, correct me if I'm wrong (being brought up a Prebyterian and all) but Papal Encyclicals are not considered infalliable...

    I suppose the same could easily be said of St Paul's letter. However it's certainly persuasive to the point.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know if they are considered infallible or not. I don't buy into the whole "Papal Infallibility" thing, anyway. As far as I'm concerned God, and God alone, is infallible.

    Regarding the first half of your post - there's a big difference between "I, Saint Paul, think that X is what God wants" and "I, God, want X".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"
    According to the bible women should not be involved in:

    1) Education most teachers are women, e.g. in scotland 93% of primary and 59% percent of secondary teachers are women

    2) Politics men dominate politics however there are female polititians and there are constant calls for more
    etc.

    May the Lord forgive the government of this country for not rectifying this situation. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nefarious)
    According to the bible women should not be involved in:

    1) Education most teachers are women, e.g. in scotland 93% of primary and 59% percent of secondary teachers are women

    2) Politics men dominate politics however there are female polititians and there are constant calls for more
    etc.

    May the Lord forgive the government of this country for not rectifying this situation. :rolleyes:
    St.Paul is referring to the place of women in Church, not their place as schoolteachers.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    St.Paul is referring to the place of women in Church, not their place as schoolteachers.
    And even then, I wouldn't count children as 'men'.

    If the point being replied to was not contextualised then I imagine mothers would find themselves with some problems too...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    All the royal palaces are renowned for being hotbeds of homosexuality
    O rly? ^o)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    St.Paul is referring to the place of women in Church, not their place as schoolteachers.

    1 Timothy 2 does indeed start out talking about worship in church but seems to move away from this and start talking about women in general from verse 9 onwards. Talking about the way they should dress, how they should be modest. etc. in addition to not being allowed to teach (unqualified)


    The reason paul gives is that the woman was decieved in the garden of eden not Adam.

    Since the garden of eden never existed this seems to be a little weak to base the exclusion of women on. (Oh look we are back to the evolution thing again. )
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.