Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StotheL)
    People do them all the time, the media just doesn't care. They only want the juicy scandalous stories slapped across the front page, 'man gives $1 million to a church in Africa' doesn't sound like a great headliner for any national newspaper, instead they want rubbish like 'Angelina's twins in £10m bidding war' - do we give a *******s? I know I don't, at least the man doing good for God story would maybe make us think our world is a little bit better as opposed to reading about Angelina Jolie being knocked up.
    Yes the media focuses on negativity rather than positive stories I guess but my point is really:

    People feel they can just use 'act of god' or 'doing it for their religion' as a reason to force feed their opinions on other people. Its no defence or excuse for essentially them to do what the hell they want, ie in this case the man is interupting the service.

    I find religion to be a lot more hassle than good really. All this conflict and arguement, being all innocent and not really having much fun (acts of sin and all that bs). At the end of the day they can live their own life how they want but they have no right to tell me or anyone else what to do whether it is in their ******ing religion or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Holty-Dave)
    People feel they can just use 'act of god' or 'doing it for their religion' as a reason to force feed their opinions on other people. Its no defence or excuse for essentially them to do what the hell they want, ie in this case the man is interupting the service.

    I find religion to be a lot more hassle than good really. All this conflict and arguement, being all innocent and not really having much fun (acts of sin and all that bs). At the end of the day they can live their own life how they want but they have no right to tell me or anyone else what to do whether it is in their ******ing religion or not.
    Well I don't agree with you on the first point, people do what they do for their religion because its FOR their religion. However this man was a bit of an asswipe, I'll give you that much, there was no need to interrupt the service, but perhaps he was an idiot and thought that such a controversial act would 'restore' the anglican church, now of course it brought publicity but its only started huge arguments.

    As for religion being more hassle than good, that's your own opinion I guess, religion isn't something you must follow, we decide whether to follow it or not. I however do agree with you on the last bit, I for one cannot stand people who shove religion down your throat, if someone is committed to their religion then great that's nice to see, but idiots who constantly start rows and debates over religion are irritating and they are the ones who make religion look bad in the first place. Religion is a choice, and the religious people who decide to take it to another level, as if its marketing for a new car 'ohh come join this' are idiots, its only turning the majority away.

    (Original post by ~|Shock|~)
    I have one question for you instead

    Why are you trolling?
    For me? If so, hilarious.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For me? If so, hilarious.
    Yes it is hilarious, because clearly the OP is trolling
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StotheL)
    people do what they do for their religion because its FOR their religion.
    Muslim suicide bombing was said to come under that. My point is that people cover things up over the blanket of their religion as a defence for their sickening behaviour, either through actions or by imposing their views. Definately not a good thing really which is why I don't really have time for religion because in my opinion I find it at times to be hypocritical.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~|Shock|~)
    Yes it is hilarious, because clearly the OP is trolling
    Please explain how I am doing this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Holty-Dave)
    Muslim suicide bombing was said to come under that. My point is that people cover things up over the blanket of their religion as a defence for their sickening behaviour, either through actions or by imposing their views. Definately not a good thing really which is why I don't really have time for religion because in my opinion I find it at times to be hypocritical.
    That's what saddens me about the world, I mean, this guy and Muslim bombers and people of ANY religion that do wrong and blame it on their religion are turning people away from religion. When the day comes that the world deems religion is 'wrong', and bans it, then that will be the downfall of the world..

    I can see where you are coming from, you do make a point, but then again everything has negative connotations, it seems as if we can't do anything without someone viewing it as wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StotheL)
    That's what saddens me about the world, I mean, this guy and Muslim bombers and people of ANY religion that do wrong and blame it on their religion are turning people away from religion. When the day comes that the world deems religion is 'wrong', and bans it, then that will be the downfall of the world..

    I can see where you are coming from, you do make a point, but then again everything has negative connotations, it seems as if we can't do anything without someone viewing it as wrong.
    noone is being turned away from religion. they are just being turned away from organised religion. homosexuals are welcome to go off and start a church which accepts their life choices inspite of the teachings of the bible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Usar)
    Please explain how I am doing this.
    Because you are putting on deliberately inflammatory persona in order to provoke a vehement response from other users.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~|Shock|~)
    Because you are putting on deliberately inflammatory persona in order to provoke a vehement response from other users.
    Yeah there sure has been a "vehement" response from the users of this forum. You don't know me. Get the **** out of my thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Usar)
    Yeah there sure has been a "vehement" response from the users of this forum. You don't know me. Get the **** out of my thread.
    I see, you want to start an argument.

    There has been little "vehement" response from other users simply because they are smart enough not to feed a troll.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ddonnyy)
    noone is being turned away from religion. they are just being turned away from organised religion. homosexuals are welcome to go off and start a church which accepts their life choices inspite of the teachings of the bible.
    If you actually thin that homosexuality is some sort of choice, then there's really no point in arguing with you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not a homophobe, my brother is gay and i love him, and i am not a christian.

    However, homosexuality is against christian teachings and it seems utterly absurd to have a ''church'' which is incoherent with christianity. You may as well appoint a buddhist as a bishop. I am actually an atheist, and in this country i am free to be which is why this country is great. By the same logic i think all churches, mosques, gurdwaras should be free to appoint someone who follows their own religion to represent them, that is their freedom of choice just as it is the freedom of my brother to express himself. You can't pick and choose who's freedom is the most important, the freedom of homosexuals, churches, mosques and atheists should be equal if we are to be called a true democracy. If the church don't want a gay bishop because it is prohibited, then that is fair enough.

    That is my opinion
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~|Shock|~)
    I see, you want to start an argument.

    There has been little "vehement" response from other users simply because they are smart enough not to feed a troll.
    You came into my thread and called me a troll you insolent sheep. Can you explain to me why I would hunt news sites looking for stories, and choose such a story, and explain to me what pleasure I am gaining from the "little" vehement responses I have been given.

    Go ask the respondents of this thread if I am trolling. You could have just shut up, and not posted, and let the discussion that's happening continue.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Wait a minute, why is this guy a bishop? I thought Christianity prohibits gaiety. I mean you don't see any rabbis who eat pork.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjbristol)
    I'm not a homophobe, my brother is gay and i love him, and i am not a christian.

    However, homosexuality is against christian teachings and it seems utterly absurd to have a ''church'' which is incoherent with christianity. You may as well appoint a buddhist as a bishop. I am actually an atheist, and in this country i am free to be which is why this country is great. By the same logic i think all churches, mosques, gurdwaras should be free to appoint someone who follows their own religion to represent them, that is their freedom of choice just as it is the freedom of my brother to express himself. You can't pick and choose who's freedom is the most important, the freedom of homosexuals, churches, mosques and atheists should be equal if we are to be called a true democracy. If the church don't want a gay bishop because it is prohibited, then that is fair enough.

    That is my opinion
    Well clearly a lot of members of the church do want gay bishops. My biggest problem with this is the way the guy embarrassed the bishop in his ceremony in a non-native country. I really don't think that's a very Christian thing to do, and I can't believe anyone'd think God would have been pleased with that kind of behavior.

    And also, as far as I'm aware, there is no mention of homosexuality as sinful in the NT.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gangsta316)
    Wait a minute, why is this guy a bishop? I thought Christianity prohibits gaiety. I mean you don't see any rabbis who eat pork.
    No, it does not permit homosexuality, which is simply a part of the human condition. However, it is true that certain Christian denominations condemn homosexual practice - but not all.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Usar)
    Well clearly a lot of members of the church do want gay bishops. My biggest problem with this is the way the guy embarrassed the bishop in his ceremony in a non-native country. I really don't think that's a very Christian thing to do, and I can't believe anyone'd think God would have been pleased with that kind of behavior.
    The guy is a prick and religiously motivated so he's not going to let good manners get in his way.

    (Original post by Usar)
    And also, as far as I'm aware, there is no mention of homosexuality as sinful in the NT.
    I'm not sure about that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    spreading the will of god innit
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Corinthians 6:9: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

    Conservative Christians use this passage to defend their views. However, it's open to interpretation and not clear cut. Most liberals believe that if Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste."
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Demokrat)
    You're wrong. It plainly says in the NT that homosexuality is an abomination.
    No, that's Leviticus.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.