hypochondriac Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12442375 Absolute disgrace IMO. How on Earth can you use a church? And potentially bible readings??? What is the world coming to. I'm not against a civil partnership but this is crazy.
richie Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 I am christian and go to church. I know CofE and Catholic churchs will not let this happen even if the law is passed. You cannot force a priest/vicar to marry someone against the religious beliefs that he or she believes in. How can it be enforced? Are we going to be hauling the clergy into the dock because they wont allow it? You cant mess around with peoples religous beliefs even if you dont like them.
benjii Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 Surely if the priest is a batty-boy then he won't mind?
benjii Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12442375 Absolute disgrace IMO. How on Earth can you use a church? And potentially bible readings??? What is the world coming to. I'm not against a civil partnership but this is crazy. Why is it a disgrace?
Seaford Saint Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 I am christian and go to church. I know CofE and Catholic churchs will not let this happen even if the law is passed. You cannot force a priest/vicar to marry someone against the religious beliefs that he or she believes in. How can it be enforced? Are we going to be hauling the clergy into the dock because they wont allow it? You cant mess around with peoples religous beliefs even if you dont like them. Sadly, the church is being left out of more and more of what goes on in society....and they miss out on the revenue too. As a religious person not tied to a dogma I see this development as progress. Others like you wont.
SuperMikey Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 I'm a fervent Liberal, but i'm struggling to think of any mainstream religious institution which will accept gay marriages. It's a great idea in principle but it won't work in reality because religion has set values whereas society does not.
Seaford Saint Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 I'm a fervent Liberal, but i'm struggling to think of any mainstream religious institution which will accept gay marriages. It's a great idea in principle but it won't work in reality because religion has set values whereas society does not. Money talks.....its a good earner for the church - potentially.
Matthew Le God Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 The Bible is riddled with hundreds of contradictions. I don't see why a gay couple (or a straight couple) would want to put such an evil book like the Bible in their wedding. The book is sexist, racist, homophobic, says genocide, slavery, infanticide, rape, murder etc are all okay. Really it should be banned from publication.
solentstars Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 run for the hills the world is going to end:lol:
miserableoldgit Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 I am christian and go to church. I know CofE and Catholic churchs will not let this happen even if the law is passed. You cannot force a priest/vicar to marry someone against the religious beliefs that he or she believes in. How can it be enforced? Are we going to be hauling the clergy into the dock because they wont allow it? You cant mess around with peoples religous beliefs even if you dont like them.[/QUOTE] Apparently you can. It`s about "Human Rights". It doesn`t matter about what you actually feel or believe.
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 I am christian and go to church. I know CofE and Catholic churchs will not let this happen even if the law is passed. You cannot force a priest/vicar to marry someone against the religious beliefs that he or she believes in. How can it be enforced? Are we going to be hauling the clergy into the dock because they wont allow it? You cant mess around with peoples religous beliefs even if you dont like them. Yeah I've never known a 'Christian' country to mess around with an Islamic country... ...ah, oh dear.
Turkish Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 The Bible is riddled with hundreds of contradictions. I don't see why a gay couple (or a straight couple) would want to put such an evil book like the Bible in their wedding. The book is sexist, racist, homophobic, says genocide, slavery, infanticide, rape, murder etc are all okay. Really it should be banned from publication. really? These days it would be considered sexist and homophobic as society has "progressed", you're going to help me on the rape, murder, genocide, slavery etc though. Though shall not murder? Thou shall not commit adultery? and aren't some of the early book about Moses releasing the Israelites from Egyptian slavery? Hardly saying they are all okay.
Gingeletiss Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 I am christian and go to church. I know CofE and Catholic churchs will not let this happen even if the law is passed. You cannot force a priest/vicar to marry someone against the religious beliefs that he or she believes in. How can it be enforced? Are we going to be hauling the clergy into the dock because they wont allow it? You cant mess around with peoples religous beliefs even if you dont like them. It is wrong, but alas, those two who ran a B&B, were found to be wrong in the eyes of the 'law', even though it was against their religeous belief. This my friend, is what the country is coming to, a series of laws, supporting the few, and sod the majority, it is PC gone mad imo.
simo Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 It is wrong, but alas, those two who ran a B&B, were found to be wrong in the eyes of the 'law', even though it was against their religeous belief. This my friend, is what the country is coming to, a series of laws, supporting the few, and sod the majority, it is PC gone mad imo. A b and b in lyndhurst is in trouble for putting a sign out saying "pooftas welcome " lol !
solentstars Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 It is wrong, but alas, those two who ran a B&B, were found to be wrong in the eyes of the 'law', even though it was against their religeous belief. This my friend, is what the country is coming to, a series of laws, supporting the few, and sod the majority, it is PC gone mad imo. well they should not open it has business its got nothing to do with pc a term what alot of bigots hide under or do you want signs saying no blacks,no dogs,no irish as well.
Matthew Le God Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 (edited) really? These days it would be considered sexist and homophobic as society has "progressed" Surely the laws of God are timeless! If they can change to meet modern society then you didn't need them from God in the first place and society can make its own laws? you're going to help me on the rape, murder, genocide, slavery etc though. Plenty of examples I could use, here are a mere handfull. Look them up for yourself! The Bible condoning... Rape Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Judges 21:10-24 Numbers 31:7-18 Deuteronomy 20:10-14 Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Murder Judges 21:10-24 Numbers 31:7-18 Deuteronomy 20:10-14 Genocide Joshua 6:20-21 Judges 20:48 Judges 18:27-29 Jeremiah 50:21-22 Slavery Leviticus 25:44-46 Exodus 21:2-6 Exodus 21:7-11 Exodus 21:20-21 Ephesians 6:5 Timothy 6:1-2 Luke 12:47-48 (Even Jesus thinks slavery is okay) Infanticide Samuel 12:11-14 Isaiah 14:21 Isaiah 13:15-18 It is an evil book and should be banned from publication under the Public Order Act 1986 (and its subsequent amendments). But because it is The Bible it won't happen. Edited 13 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 It is wrong, but alas, those two who ran a B&B, were found to be wrong in the eyes of the 'law', even though it was against their religeous belief. This my friend, is what the country is coming to, a series of laws, supporting the few, and sod the majority, it is PC gone mad imo. How ****ing dare the laws of this country protect people from small-minded discrimination! What a national ****ing disgrace!11!!!111!!
Big John Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 Are people okay with people using churches as pretty back-drop's for their photo albums?
rocknrollman no2 Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 So gay people cant be Christains and celebrate their partnership in their place of worship? Religion is so full of contradictions and bullsh1te,so how can they tell people how to live their lives? The Church of England was started because Henry V111 wanted to keep marrying and didnt agree with the Catholic church,the same Caltholic church that has recently apologised, because for years a lot of Catholic priests were peadophiles. Yet people on here are up in arms because two people want to get married?? Lets get some perspective.
Verbal Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 So gay people cant be Christains and celebrate their partnership in their place of worship? Religion is so full of contradictions and bullsh1te,so how can they tell people how to live their lives? The Church of England was started because Henry V111 wanted to keep marrying and didnt agree with the Catholic church,the same Caltholic church that has recently apologised, because for years a lot of Catholic priests were peadophiles. Yet people on here are up in arms because two people want to get married?? Lets get some perspective. I think our more delicate flowers would prefer a full-blown moral panic. On that subject - hypo, i'm still waiting for your list of personal indiscretions so that we can start a thread condemning you as a moral degenerate. Hope it's soon.
RedAndWhite91 Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 Global financial crisis, wars, religious extremism, nations building nuclear weapons, genocide, global warming, terrorism... And people are getting worked up because some gays want to get married in a Church?
Deppo Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 Global financial crisis, wars, religious extremism, nations building nuclear weapons, genocide, global warming, terrorism... And people are getting worked up because some gays want to get married in a Church? Do you understand that these are the reasons why people get worked about gay marriage, etc? Because they are the things within the realm of their control. They are the things that are tangible to them. It's what thick people do in times of unrest. They can't grasp hold of global religious extremism, so they go and graffiti a local Mosque instead. They can't control the global economy, so they post a thread on an internet forum about a gay singer adopting a baby.
docker-p Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 Don't understand why a gay couple would want to get married in church, but if they do good luck to 'em. Hopefully there are enough enlightened members of all the main religions to accommodate them.
pele Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 Matthew your understanding of the bible is unbelievably wrong! It is full of truth and if you take the time to understand it rather than condone your life will be much better!
buctootim Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 Are people okay with people using churches as pretty back-drop's for their photo albums? Thats really the nub of it. I didnt have my two children baptised because although it would have been a nice family event, I thought it was hypocritical to make all kinds of promises about bringing them up as Christians when i knew we wouldnt because neither parents were believers. I dont think its discrimination for churches to try to ensure that the people being blessed, christianed or married by them actually believe in their teachings.
scotty Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 A b and b in lyndhurst is in trouble for putting a sign out saying "pooftas welcome " lol ! lmao, you ought to look around brighton sometime
Big John Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 (edited) i bet there's loads of young brides out there who'd love to have their ceremony straight after a gay wedding, the floral decor would be better than any straight girl could muster even with the help of daddy's life savings and mummy's chrysanths. i have attended weddings where the straight groom has got off with am ex at the reception hours after promising himself to one woman, I have also been to weddings where the I have known the groom only through gay friends. It's not always the church that is the bigger hypocrite. Edited 13 February, 2011 by Big John missed a few winkey thingies out, insert where applicable.
Matthew Le God Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 Matthew your understanding of the bible is unbelievably wrong! It is full of truth and if you take the time to understand it rather than condone your life will be much better! How do you explain away all the passages I listed then?
Jonnyboy Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 How do you explain away all the passages I listed then? I think we've found a religious nut MLG
Jonnyboy Posted 13 February, 2011 Posted 13 February, 2011 Oh, Humans, humans... feeling misanthropic tonight?
Pancake Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 A lot of genuine lols on this thread from people who dont have a clue what they are talking about. Im a semi-regular church go-er (CoE). We have gays (OH NOEZ!!111) at our church, so all this "you cant be a gay Christian" is laughable. Yeah, some higher churches frown upon it, some certainly reject the idea, and some extreme denominations vociferously oppose it - but not all.
Special K Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12442375 Absolute disgrace IMO. How on Earth can you use a church? And potentially bible readings??? What is the world coming to. I'm not against a civil partnership but this is crazy. Aren't there more important things to worry about than same sex partners (who shouldn't be categorised with offensive terms) getting wed? And how many "throw their arms up in horror" types actually go to church and have a faith? Not many i'm guessing. Edited 15 February, 2011 by Special K
ecuk268 Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 Matthew your understanding of the bible is unbelievably wrong! It is full of truth and if you take the time to understand it rather than condone your life will be much better! Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but I don't see how you can say the bible is full of truth. It's mostly a collection of folk tales that have changed over the centuries and been interpreted by the various churches to reinforce their particular prejudices. If you want to believe what's in the bible, that's fine, but I wouldn't say that it's full of proven facts.
Verbal Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but I don't see how you can say the bible is full of truth. It's mostly a collection of folk tales that have changed over the centuries and been interpreted by the various churches to reinforce their particular prejudices. If you want to believe what's in the bible, that's fine, but I wouldn't say that it's full of proven facts. Proven facts, no! It's mostly written, and censored, by Romans, in order to turn the tenets of a small Jewish sect into a state religion.
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 Proven facts, no! It's mostly written, and censored, by Romans, in order to turn the tenets of a small Jewish sect into a state religion. Is that a fact or speculation based on your opinon?
RedAndWhite91 Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 Is that a fact or speculation based on your opinon? I think Verbal is on about Constantine, Roman Emperor who converted to Christianity, then made it the religion of Rome as opposed to Paganism. He supposedly compiled the Bible. Or something like that.
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 I think Verbal is on about Constantine, Roman Emperor who converted to Christianity, then made it the religion of Rome as opposed to Paganism. He supposedly compiled the Bible. Or something like that. So not "mostly written" by Romans at all then. Unless they are brilliant at giving first hand accounts of things that happened in other lands 1,000's of years before, like Moses taking the Israelites from slavery, King David etc.....
Verbal Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 Is that a fact or speculation based on your opinon? You'll never know. But for others, there's a big difference between the history of religions (quite interesting, and based on some pretty well documented material) and religious beliefs (not as interesting, in my opinion). Of course, historians end up falling foul of religious 'authorities' all the time. The biggest row is about to break - concerning new theories proposed by historians about the origins of Islam.
Verbal Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 So not "mostly written" by Romans at all then. Unless they are brilliant at giving first hand accounts of things that happened in other lands 1,000's of years before, like Moses taking the Israelites from slavery, King David etc..... Who gave 'first-hand accounts' exactly? Be specific - I bet (for very good reasons) you won't be able to name one first hand account in the Bible. Of course, all the Old Testament stuff was swiped from Jewish texts.
RedAndWhite91 Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 So not "mostly written" by Romans at all then. Unless they are brilliant at giving first hand accounts of things that happened in other lands 1,000's of years before, like Moses taking the Israelites from slavery, King David etc..... From what I once read (memory a bit sketchy so may not be true) he sent out people to obtain the scrolls and whatnot from back in the day, then put all the ones HE wanted to show off Christianity into the Bible. Something like that anyway.
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 Who gave 'first-hand accounts' exactly? Be specific - I bet (for very good reasons) you won't be able to name one first hand account in the Bible. Of course, all the Old Testament stuff was swiped from Jewish texts. Weren't the first five books written by Moses, much of which was about leading the Jews out of slavery and across the wilderness, which he did himself. I'd say that's pretty first hand wouldn't you?
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 What about the apostles that were at the final supper? or is that not a first hand account?
Verbal Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 Weren't the first five books written by Moses, much of which was about leading the Jews out of slavery and across the wilderness, which he did himself. I'd say that's pretty first hand wouldn't you? Wrong. You clearly won't take my word for it. So do a bit of research if you're genuinely interested. None of what I've said is remotely unorthodox among historians - in fact, there's wide consensus on it.
Verbal Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 What about the apostles that were at the final supper? or is that not a first hand account? Nope.
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 Wrong. You clearly won't take my word for it. So do a bit of research if you're genuinely interested. None of what I've said is remotely unorthodox among historians - in fact, there's wide consensus on it. Why woud i take your word for it? I've done research on it before and In the Hebrew Bible, the narratives of Moses are in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Many of these accounts are of when Moses was instructed to take the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt and to the promised land. He was there, he wrote the books, how is this wrong? How is this not first hand?
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 Nope. Nope what? So the apostle Paul who wrote about the final supper as was also at it, does not provide a first hand account?
Verbal Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 Why woud i take your word for it? I've done research on it before and In the Hebrew Bible, the narratives of Moses are in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Many of these accounts are of when Moses was instructed to take the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt and to the promised land. He was there, he wrote the books, how is this wrong? How is this not first hand? He didn't write the books that now exist in the Bible. They are not first hand. You are confusing two things. Religious beliefs - which are what you are talking about. And historical scholarship - which in this case has LONG held that the Bible was conceived, written and edited to underpin a new state religion in Rome. It's one of the reasons - if not the main one - why the Dead Sea Scrolls are so important: they give a much more contemporaneous account of what was happening in the founding years of Christianity.
Verbal Posted 14 February, 2011 Posted 14 February, 2011 Nope what? So the apostle Paul who wrote about the final supper as was also at it, does not provide a first hand account? Paul didn't write it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now