Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    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.
    I agree with that. I'm not an expert on the bible but am aware that views on homosexuality vary across the denominations. The decision on whether it is prohibited or not should be left for each individual church to decide for themselves as it is complex, clearly. However, i don't think it should get political as it has done or be influenced by non chrisitans on the outside of the church.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I was under the impression that Paul spoke out against buggery in the NT and said that it is an unclean act. I'm not too sure though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Arguable points, wrong method of argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Lol religion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjbristol)
    However, i don't think it should get political as it has done or be influenced by non chrisitans on the outside of the church.
    The problem with the Anglican church is that it's a state church, and it's members sit in the (legislative) House of Lords. For this reason the debate has attracted the attention of outsiders who feel that it's wrong for an established church to condone/practice discriminatory behaviour.

    I think that the Church should stick to it's belief and not forced to accept views that it's not comfortable with. However, if this is what they wish to do, the Church of England should be disestablished and Britain should become an officially secular country like France and Turkey.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Usar)
    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.
    Look at your own title, "Why are people like this alive"? If you think whoever challenges a bishop do not deserve to be alive, you would have much better luck trolling elsewhere.

    You asked the question "Why are people like this alive?" (and believe me, English is my secound language but I can see an awful grammatical mistake in there), so your preferred response from "respondents", is "No, he does not deserve to live"? And you think that is not vehement?

    (Original post by Usar)
    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.
    I do not think I am trying to stop the discussion and it is you who constantly asked me to shut up or **** off. You are hardly interested in any sort of discussion yourself other than being provocative.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Demokrat)
    You're correct, the 'abomination' part is OT. 1 Corinthians 6 (NT)however, mentions homosexuality explicitly and says that those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of God. Got mixed up there.

    To be honest, I really don't like hypocrisy. The guy is an idiot to believe that homosexuality is accepted in Christianity. That's why, in this sense, I kind of respect the religious fundamentalists more than the cherry pickers and the liberal Christians. At least the fundamentalists are remaining true to the word of the bible, and their beliefs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, though, and I wish people would just dump the bible altogether if they are not going to read what it has to say. All the better, dump Christianity.
    As I've said before, it's open to interpretation. As a secularist, I would like all organised religion to be dropped, but you should not dismiss the moderates for taking a more symbolical, allegorical approach to their understanding of the Bible (or the Quran). The fact is that if all the religious people around the world were hardliners, the world would be in a much worse state, so in my opinion this move towards moderation is welcome.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2026)
    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."
    I think the most up to date translation goes a little something like this (i'm not 100% though) :
    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
    However up in the air this is it's reaffirmed by Romans:
    Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

    My belief however is that it is more important somebody has a relationship with God than be turned away, because Jesus accepted everyone and it's not any mans job on earth to comment on behalf of others, however I don't really think it's acceptable that a practicing gay should be in the clergy.
    Corinthians 6:11 - "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i believe that man is epic fail
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    ......
    I agree 110%
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    to be fair if he wasnt a practicing homosexual then he would be a fine bishop, but i would argue that christianity and homosexuality are incompatible ideologies and as such a person practising sodomy should not be a bishop...

    just saying that as a christian, in society homosexuals should have each and every right available to everyone else, (cept marrige in the eyes of god ).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    I think the most up to date translation goes a little something like this (i'm not 100% though) :
    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
    However up in the air this is it's reaffirmed by Romans:
    Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

    My belief however is that it is more important somebody has a relationship with God than be turned away, because Jesus accepted everyone and it's not any mans job on earth to comment on behalf of others, however I don't really think it's acceptable that a practicing gay should be in the clergy.
    Corinthians 6:11 - "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
    You're right that read literally, the new Testament is not very tolerant of same-sex relations. However, as you've said [and I agree, even though I'm a secular] it should be more important for the Church to bring greater numbers of people to 'god', rather than rip itself apart on, let's be honest, a relatively insignificant issue. When you've got famine, global warming and etc, this is a bit boring.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Demokrat)
    The outcome of religious liberal interpretations is broadly more acceptable, yes. But that does not make interpretation itself a more respected act. I cannot tell you how frustrated I feel when one of my friends talks about her religion. She frequently takes drugs, drinks to excess and is a bit of a slapper to be honest and would open her legs at any opportunity. Now, I think she has every right to do that if she wants to be like that. So, when she claims to be a Catholic and I point out that all this is wrong in the eyes of the church, she comes out with 'yeah, but I still think abortion is wrong'. Most likely because she hasn't had the sheer misfortune to have fallen pregnant from one of her weekly shags. She would no doubt change her mind if she had to make such a difficult decision. Most people I know who apply liberal interpretation do it to suit them. It's selfish, and hypocritical. I disrespect it. I wish such people would leave their religion altogether and join the atheist club.
    I don't particularly like people claiming to be a member of a religion openly flouting it, the whole point of Christianity is that it isn't easy. Although the Catholic church would probably condemn drug use there is no where in the bible that really has any view point on the matter so it's up to each individual person to make up their own mind on the matter, as long as they aren't getting other people involved in drugs.

    Why would your rather people leave their religion? Does it upset you that people want to better themselves and help others? Certainly Atheists give less time and money to charity and have no moral code they aspire to attain.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curiouslyorange1989)
    to be fair if he wasnt a practicing homosexual then he would be a fine bishop, but i would argue that christianity and homosexuality are incompatible ideologies and as such a person practising sodomy should not be a bishop...

    just saying that as a christian, in society homosexuals should have each and every right available to everyone else, (cept marrige in the eyes of god ).
    hate to be a pedant, but homosexuality is not exactly an ideology - it's a part of the human condition. If it were an ideology, non-human animals must be far more intelligent than we give them credit for since homosexuality has been documented in hundreds of other animals including our closest cousins.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2026)
    You're right that read literally, the new Testament is not very tolerant of same-sex relations. However, as you've said [and I agree, even though I'm a secular] it should be more important for the Church to bring greater numbers of people to 'god', rather than rip itself apart on, let's be honest, a relatively insignificant issue. When you've got famine, global warming and etc, this is a bit boring.
    I can understand it over practicing gays because by having a clergy member of that persuasion the church can be seen to be saying that's ok, it's somewhat similar to having a bishop that goes down the boozer every friday and shags a different woman every week. The thing that really peeves me is that they're creating a split over females entering the church which is completely pointless, what kind of wrong message will that send? That the church is for equality. To be honest Bishops and Archbishops aren't legitimised by the bible so I fail to see how they get the message from the bible that it is wrong to have a woman in their made up position of power.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    Certainly Atheists give less time and money to charity and have no moral code they aspire to attain.
    Don't be ridiculous. Prove to us that atheists, per person, give less to charity than religious people. As for your 'no moral code' claim, that's flawed on so many levels. If you need a silly book, full of contradictions, to be moral than there's something seriously wrong with you.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    I can understand it over practicing gays because by having a clergy member of that persuasion the church can be seen to be saying that's ok, it's somewhat similar to having a bishop that goes down the boozer every friday and shags a different woman every week. The thing that really peeves me is that they're creating a split over females entering the church which is completely pointless, what kind of wrong message will that send? That the church is for equality. To be honest Bishops and Archbishops aren't legitimised by the bible so I fail to see how they get the message from the bible that it is wrong to have a woman in their made up position of power.
    You see what you're doing here? You're picking and choosing. Your obviously bigoted against gay people and you condone the Church's discriminatory stance against them, but reject their position with regard to women [which is as clearly set out in the Bible as homosexuality] because you dislike discrimination against women.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2026)
    hate to be a pedant, but homosexuality is not exactly an ideology - it's a part of the human condition. If it were an ideology, non-human animals must be far more intelligent than we give them credit for since homosexuality has been documented in hundreds of other animals including our closest cousins.
    lol well as an orientation it is completely innate, however i would argue that the acceptance of the liberal morality and engagment in homosexual activity could consititute its own ideology.

    im not into the whole "it unnatural" scene because at the end of the day i dont give a rats ass as to what is natural (too many hippies and animal rights activites whinge on about it ) however i would argue that my ideology conflicts with said homosexual ideology, which is why i personally would not be a practicing homosexual even if i was that way inclined. That is not to say that this view should be impressed on any other individual, and indeed i have many gay friends through amatuer dramatics and such, that is just a personal view.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2026)
    Don't be ridiculous. Prove to us that atheists, per person, give less to charity than religious people. As for your 'no moral code' claim, that's flawed on so many levels. If you need a silly book, full of contradictions, to be moral than there's something seriously wrong with you.
    Current studies indicate that people in like for like positions, with the only difference between people being that 1 is religious and the other atheist, that the religious person will give 25% extra time and money to charity. http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/3447051.html

    So 91% of religious people give in comparison to 66% of non-religious people in like for like scenarios:yep: .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2026)
    You see what you're doing here? You're picking and choosing. Your obviously bigoted against gay people and you condone the Church's discriminatory stance against them, but reject their position with regard to women [which is as clearly set out in the Bible as homosexuality] because you dislike discrimination against women.
    ahh but the whole woman issue is much more contestable, as is jesus' relationship with women as a whole...mary magdalene and all that shizzle.

    tis a tad more clear cut on the issue of homosexuality.
 
 
 
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.