GetDotted Domains

Viewing Thread:
"Gay Clergy"

The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.

Wed 15/10/03 at 20:36
Regular
"Sure.Fine.Whatever."
Posts: 9,629
In light of the Anglican Church's recent meeting I think a debate is in order (preferably a civilised one with no name-calling)

Should there be gay priests, bishops etc in the Church?

Your opinions please.
Fri 17/10/03 at 16:33
"I love yo... lamp."
Posts: 19,577
I forgot to check for a reply. Will have a read and post some responses later OK? I'll have a look at that page just now.
Fri 17/10/03 at 16:31
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/ 0,2763,1065302,00.html

A very good article that does a very good job of highlighting how many other 'sins' were condemned by the Bible that are now accepted practices. It also points out the ambiguity of the condemnation of homosexuality which if, like me, you were under the impression that the Bible was unconditional in it's condemnation of homosexuality, may come as something of a revelation.
Fri 17/10/03 at 09:03
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
Notorious Biggles wrote:

>
> It was part of the uncleanness laws. They didn't have tampons back
> then after all. And it wasn't confinement to a cave.
>
> and that any man
> who's testicles are crushed cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
>
> That is true. However, there is more to it than that. Back in those
> days children were viewed as a blessing from God. Some men were
> voluntarily eunuchs, and were denied full membership of the nation of
> Israel for effectively throwing that blessing back in Gods face.
> However, later on in the bible, in Isaiah (56?), God shows love for
> those eunuchs who do serve him. They would have a monument in his
> house. Now that doesn't refer to the temple, but is part of the
> prophecy refering to when the Messiah would come and the Mosaic Law
> would be nullified... Getting off topic.


So hang on...you're willing to re-interpret the divine word of God if you (and when I say 'you', I mean the church) think that it relates to something no longer relevant in todays world? Well, bearing in mind the acceptance of homosexuality in the majority of western culture, wouldn't you say that it's time to re-interpret that bigoted "no gays in our gang" rule?
>
>
>
> The bible also gives a list of races of men who are to be hated and,
> if possible, exterminated (that wacky Deuteronomy book...).
>
> It does indeed. I'm surprised to see someone who knows that. The
> chapter in question is chapter 7, and there are a couple of reasons
> for their destruction. Firstly, the land was given to them by God.
> The seven tribes who lived in that land would not have left. The main
> reason however for their destruction was that they would corrupt the
> Israelites and stop them serving God. To prevent that they were to
> destroy those seven tribes.

Right; so the bible ordered an act of genocide. This is that loving God I keep hearing about ordering the annihilation of a people based solely on race.

Bearing in mind the old testament God was fairly easygoing when it came to mass slaughter, and bearing in mind that genocide isn't exactly de rigeur any more, how come you're willing to listen to what is said about homosexuality. It seems that you're being selective about what you choose to listen to.

>
> Finally, most of what you talk about is the Old Testament. Are you
> Jewish? If not, why are you listening to the Old Testament when the
> New Testament is what concerns Christianity.
>
> I'm not Jewish, I am Christian. The reason I listen to the Old
> Testament is because (I believe) it is inspired. That wouldn't change
> with the writing of the New Testament.


Inspired? It directly contradicts the New Testament; the Old says "An Eye for an Eye", the New say "Love your enemy", for example. It is simply not possible to live your life according to both, which is why I have a problem with the church using the bible to justify what is nothing more than homophobic bigotry.


> Well yeah...I mean, it's a textbook for how to live your life in the
> 5th century AD.
>
> Perhaps. But points in it are still valid today, don't kill, don't
> steal, marrital faithfulness etc, none of those today are outdated
> concepts.

True, but as I also said; that is basic morality, NOT religion. It is entirely possible to live by those precepts as a humanist.

>
> Hell, the overwhelming majority of it isn't even
> contemporaneous, but the result of a few centuries of Chinese
> whispers.
>
> To many big words late at night. What do you mean?

Basically it was compiled in the 4th century AD. The gospels were all written at least 100 years after Christ. Not a single book in the bible was actually written by whomever it was supposed to have been (the exception being Revelations; written by a man who had spent too long in the sun). Even the Letters to...are suspect; there were so many forgeries (the Donations of Constantine for example) around the time that it is impossible to be sure.
>
>

>
> But it isn't really the case. In the time of the nation of Israel,
> they were his chosen people collectively, as a nation. He loved his
> people and as such protected the nation. There were times when there
> was war, and he was vengeful against the attacking nations. But it
> was to the end of protecting the nation. In the New Testament, after
> the messiah the Mosaic Law was gone, and the Jews were no longer his
> chosen people, there was no nation to protect. Just individuals who
> had embraced what became Christianity. Because of that there was no
> need to take revenge on pagan nations threatening Israel.


He protected his children by ordering them to massacre 7 races of people? Hardly an act of defence, is it?
I could go a little further and ask that, if there was no need to take revenge on pagan nations threatening Israel, why did we ever have the Crusades (apart of course from Pope Urban the Somethingth wanting to get his name in lights...bloodthirsty git)?

Also, if the Mosaic law was gone, why still listen to the Old Testament?

>
> Also, the church used to bless gay unions. Don't believe me?
> Well...have a look at who Richard the Lionheart was buried with,
> then
> we'll talk.
>
> I'll look into that.

Do that; you'll be surprised by how tolerant the medieval church was of homosexuality.
>
> As for other things like prostitution. Well that was always
> condemned
> in the bible.
>
> Yet it was a Prositute who served the word of God by allowing the
> Jews in to sack...oh, I forget actually. Some city or other. Anyway,
> where in the Bible does it condemn prostitution? I can't say as I'm
> sure about that.
>
> City was Jericho. Her name was Rahab. She did serve him. Having heard
> of the miracle at the Red Sea she put faith in God and so hid the
> spies who were sent by Joshua to check out Jericho. She was rewarded
> with her life, and later when she maried a Jew she ended up the great
> great grandmother of King David, and hence part of Jesus lineage.

Cheers for that; couldn't remember the story.

However, that story is yet another example of genocide ordered by God, no?
>
> Good point. I can't think of anywhere off the top of my head where
> prostitution is condemned explicitly. I worded that wrong in my last
> post. However, it was still wrong, as the bible does condemn
> adulterous affairs and premarital sex, so how could you sleep with a
> prostitute without condemnation from one of those? So it is a null
> point.

Yet there we go again; selective interpretation of the bible. If you can selectively interpret it to make Prostitution a sin, why not selectively interpret it to say that homosexuality is not?

>

>
> Right...so are you saying that the removal of someone's freedom is
> justified if they're treated alright? Just curious.
>
> You worded that very broadly. Removal of freedom as punishment i.e.
> jail, is justified. If guilty of course. However I imagine that you
> are referring to slavery. As I tried to point out, it was a loving
> provision of the law for those who had fallen on hard times. Pagan
> nations of the time would just kill you if you defaulted on your
> debt. Also you would run into serious problems if borrowing and
> defaulting on debt was fine in society with no sort of repayment for
> the lender. I can't think of a better solution. Can you?

Actually, yeah I can; military service. It's not slavery, it doesn't take away ones freedom.
Heh. And talking of wording things broadly...bringing the punishment of criminals into a discussion about slavery is a little disingenuous, don't you think?
As to a loving provision of the law...well, tell that to all those people who lost their lives cos their master would rather pay a fine than send them to a Greek Hospital. Or all those who signed up for the Gladiatorial arena in Rome. Or slaves put to the torture in legal cases in order to extract evidence (a provision in Roman Law stated that slave evidence was not valid UNLESS extracted by torture). Loving? Only the same kind of Love that drives a God to order the extermination of a people.

>
> Even nearly 4000 years after some of it was written, the principles
> in the bible still hold true. They still are the best way to live.
>
> B******t. The morality of the bible is convoluted and contradictory.
> A lot of it is basic human decency, hijacked by religion and called
> it's own.
>
> Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. Mine is that it isn't
> as simple as that. Basic human decency didn't exist quite the same in
> the ancient world. Back then, child sacrifice was socially
> acceptable. But when the Jews turned away from God, and tried it
> themselves, they were to be punished for it. That is just one example
> of religion teaching humans basic decency rather than religion
> hijacking human decency and calling it's own. I would like to see a
> contradiction in the bible. All I have ever seen are scriptures taken
> out of context and twisted to say something else.

No, it was not. Child sacrifice as practiced by Minoans Phoenicians and Carthaginians was the ULTIMATE in appeals to their Gods. It was not done without some major threat hanging over them. If it was done as a day to day thing, the peoples of those nations would have been horrified. It was only ever done when those nations were about to collapse. That doesn't excuse it of course, but you're taking the last resort of a people and saying they did it all the time.

As to religion teaching people basic decency...religion and the ancient world went hand in hand. If you want to find religion teaching morality, why aren't you looking at the religion of the Babylonians (which taught that crime must not go unpunished, and that there should be a system of laws to ensure that inequality was kept at bay), or the Egyptians (which taught reverence and obedience), or perhaps the Greeks (which gave us democracy). To say that a religion that appeared after all of these cultures and just 'invented' the principles of morality is, bluntly, false and self deluding.

What I'm driving at is that, in my opinion, human principles came first and religion was wrapped around them to give them some weight. After all, if you want to influence the hairy ars*d warrior about to cut your goolies off, you can't threaten him with something temporal. So get him with the afterlife. Worked for every religion ever created.
>
> And it was compiled in the 5th century AD. To say it was written
> 4000
> years ago...I assume that's a mistype?
>
> Yeah. The first books of the bible were written over 3500 years ago,
> with the last books being written in approximately 98 AD.

Uhh...you've been misinformed. They were being written up until 400AD.
>
> Also, why were the Gospels of Thomas et al cut out? Could it be
> because they advocated a more personal and spiritual religion that
> cut out the need for a church?
>
> No. It was because it is not believed to be inspired by God, rather
> just contemporary writings.

Right...so the apostles who said "Give us a church which puts men in control of other men", they're divine? But the ones that say "You need no church; if you wish to commune with God, I am with you always, so no church will control you life", they're not? Ri-ight...
>
> I do believe in a God, because there are too many unexplained gaps
> in
> the theory that the universe just spontaneously appeared.
>
> So rather than try and find what the answers may be, you'll accept a
> convenient explaination? How is that any different from stone age
> man
> believing the earth was made from the body of a giant? They didn't
> know the geology etc, so they made something up to explain it.
>
> No I have wondered how life got here and how the universe began. But
> the numbers are too big, the odds so small, things so precise that it
> seems unrealistic to me that it was all just chance. Despite the many
> many failings in this world in which we live, when I look around I
> see something wonderful in life and nature. I see something beautiful
> and wonderfully crafted, so much so that I can only believe something
> greater than me created it. Random chance is not greater than me.

Yeah, nature is indeed beautiful. And to discover it's secrets has been a driving force of man since time immemorial. Yet religion would have us stop trying to find answers, and accept the convenient lies that they tell in order to keep the people under their sway. Personal faith...well that's A-ok with me; whatever gets you through the night, y'know? If you think it's more than chance, that's fine. But the church ALWAYS seeks to impose it's beliefs on others; it brooks no disobedience or questioning and that, to me, is utterly abhorrent.

>
> Also, life is futile and essentially meaningless in my eyes if it
> was
> just chance.
>
> Not if you give life your own meaning. I've been happily humanist
> for
> 10 years now; my life is far from futile and meaningless. To say
> only
> God can give life meaning is to abdicate responsibility for ones own
> life and own actions.
>
> I don't abdicate responsibility for my life and actions by believing
> in God, rather by believing in him I stand prepared to be judged by
> him for my life and my actions.

I don't; I stand prepared to be judged by me. There can be no harsher critic than ones own conscience. Nobody NEEDS a mythical umpire to keep score on their life. One just needs to be honest with oneself.

>
> But, again, respect to you for posting an unpopular opinion and
> taking the time to explain your logic behind it.
>
> Thank you. You raised some good intelligent points and made for an
> interesting discussion.

Likewise. Cheers.
Fri 17/10/03 at 02:14
"I love yo... lamp."
Posts: 19,577
Light wrote:
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
> In answer to your question Lindgren, the answer is no there
> shouldn't
> be gay clergymen.
>
> The bible explicilty condemns homosexuality.
>
>
> It also explicitly says that we should send mentruating women to a
> cave to be on their own (not a bad idea actually...)

It was part of the uncleanness laws. They didn't have tampons back then after all. And it wasn't confinement to a cave.

and that any man
> who's testicles are crushed cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

That is true. However, there is more to it than that. Back in those days children were viewed as a blessing from God. Some men were voluntarily eunuchs, and were denied full membership of the nation of Israel for effectively throwing that blessing back in Gods face. However, later on in the bible, in Isaiah (56?), God shows love for those eunuchs who do serve him. They would have a monument in his house. Now that doesn't refer to the temple, but is part of the prophecy refering to when the Messiah would come and the Mosaic Law would be nullified... Getting off topic.


>
> The bible also gives a list of races of men who are to be hated and,
> if possible, exterminated (that wacky Deuteronomy book...).

It does indeed. I'm surprised to see someone who knows that. The chapter in question is chapter 7, and there are a couple of reasons for their destruction. Firstly, the land was given to them by God. The seven tribes who lived in that land would not have left. The main reason however for their destruction was that they would corrupt the Israelites and stop them serving God. To prevent that they were to destroy those seven tribes.
>
> Finally, most of what you talk about is the Old Testament. Are you
> Jewish? If not, why are you listening to the Old Testament when the
> New Testament is what concerns Christianity.

I'm not Jewish, I am Christian. The reason I listen to the Old Testament is because (I believe) it is inspired. That wouldn't change with the writing of the New Testament.
>
> The argument used FOR gay clergymen is that the bible is old and
> that
> it would be different now.
>
> Well yeah...I mean, it's a textbook for how to live your life in the
> 5th century AD.

Perhaps. But points in it are still valid today, don't kill, don't steal, marrital faithfulness etc, none of those today are outdated concepts.

Hell, the overwhelming majority of it isn't even
> contemporaneous, but the result of a few centuries of Chinese
> whispers.

To many big words late at night. What do you mean?
>
>
> But that is rubbish. The bible explicitly says that God does not
> change. Which is reasonable. Why would God lower his standards? Why
> would his perfect purpose change? It just wouldn't happen, which
> means what he says is still the case.
>
> Really? Then how come God when from being Vengeful in the old
> Testament, and jealously guarded over his chosen people, the Jews.
> Yet in the New, he's all loving. I'd call that a change, wouldn't
> you? And if that is the case, why not change again?

But it isn't really the case. In the time of the nation of Israel, they were his chosen people collectively, as a nation. He loved his people and as such protected the nation. There were times when there was war, and he was vengeful against the attacking nations. But it was to the end of protecting the nation. In the New Testament, after the messiah the Mosaic Law was gone, and the Jews were no longer his chosen people, there was no nation to protect. Just individuals who had embraced what became Christianity. Because of that there was no need to take revenge on pagan nations threatening Israel.
>
> Also, the church used to bless gay unions. Don't believe me?
> Well...have a look at who Richard the Lionheart was buried with, then
> we'll talk.
>
I'll look into that.
>
> As for other things like prostitution. Well that was always
> condemned
> in the bible.
>
> Yet it was a Prositute who served the word of God by allowing the
> Jews in to sack...oh, I forget actually. Some city or other. Anyway,
> where in the Bible does it condemn prostitution? I can't say as I'm
> sure about that.
>
City was Jericho. Her name was Rahab. She did serve him. Having heard of the miracle at the Red Sea she put faith in God and so hid the spies who were sent by Joshua to check out Jericho. She was rewarded with her life, and later when she maried a Jew she ended up the great great grandmother of King David, and hence part of Jesus lineage.

Good point. I can't think of anywhere off the top of my head where prostitution is condemned explicitly. I worded that wrong in my last post. However, it was still wrong, as the bible does condemn adulterous affairs and premarital sex, so how could you sleep with a prostitute without condemnation from one of those? So it is a null point.
>
> Slavery, well slaves had a lot of rights. A better way of viewing it
> is as servants who couldn't resign. Slavery was allowed as a form of
> bankruptcy basically. You could become a slave to clear your debt,
> and if a relative ever had the money they could buy your freedom. Or
> the slave themself could. Plus, every 50 years was a Jubilee year,
> when all the slaves were freed.
>
> Right...so are you saying that the removal of someone's freedom is
> justified if they're treated alright? Just curious.
>
You worded that very broadly. Removal of freedom as punishment i.e. jail, is justified. If guilty of course. However I imagine that you are referring to slavery. As I tried to point out, it was a loving provision of the law for those who had fallen on hard times. Pagan nations of the time would just kill you if you defaulted on your debt. Also you would run into serious problems if borrowing and defaulting on debt was fine in society with no sort of repayment for the lender. I can't think of a better solution. Can you?
>
> Even nearly 4000 years after some of it was written, the principles
> in the bible still hold true. They still are the best way to live.
>
> B******t. The morality of the bible is convoluted and contradictory.
> A lot of it is basic human decency, hijacked by religion and called
> it's own.

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. Mine is that it isn't as simple as that. Basic human decency didn't exist quite the same in the ancient world. Back then, child sacrifice was socially acceptable. But when the Jews turned away from God, and tried it themselves, they were to be punished for it. That is just one example of religion teaching humans basic decency rather than religion hijacking human decency and calling it's own. I would like to see a contradiction in the bible. All I have ever seen are scriptures taken out of context and twisted to say something else.
>
> And it was compiled in the 5th century AD. To say it was written 4000
> years ago...I assume that's a mistype?

Yeah. The first books of the bible were written over 3500 years ago, with the last books being written in approximately 98 AD.
>
> Also, why were the Gospels of Thomas et al cut out? Could it be
> because they advocated a more personal and spiritual religion that
> cut out the need for a church?

No. It was because it is not believed to be inspired by God, rather just contemporary writings.
>
> I do believe in a God, because there are too many unexplained gaps
> in
> the theory that the universe just spontaneously appeared.
>
> So rather than try and find what the answers may be, you'll accept a
> convenient explaination? How is that any different from stone age man
> believing the earth was made from the body of a giant? They didn't
> know the geology etc, so they made something up to explain it.
>
No I have wondered how life got here and how the universe began. But the numbers are too big, the odds so small, things so precise that it seems unrealistic to me that it was all just chance. Despite the many many failings in this world in which we live, when I look around I see something wonderful in life and nature. I see something beautiful and wonderfully crafted, so much so that I can only believe something greater than me created it. Random chance is not greater than me.

> Also, life is futile and essentially meaningless in my eyes if it
> was
> just chance.
>
> Not if you give life your own meaning. I've been happily humanist for
> 10 years now; my life is far from futile and meaningless. To say only
> God can give life meaning is to abdicate responsibility for ones own
> life and own actions.

I don't abdicate responsibility for my life and actions by believing in God, rather by believing in him I stand prepared to be judged by him for my life and my actions.
>
> But, again, respect to you for posting an unpopular opinion and
> taking the time to explain your logic behind it.

Thank you. You raised some good intelligent points and made for an interesting discussion.
Thu 16/10/03 at 18:44
Moderator
"possibly impossible"
Posts: 24,985
I agree with Light and had I posted earlier (too busy at work) then I would have said much the same thing.

The Catholic church is being run by a stuffy organisation which itself is headed up by an aging man who resists all change and refuses to look at the 'evidence' in a different light.

If you believe in the stories of the New Testament then you believe that Jesus did not take sides against any one type of person and was kind to the prostitute, the criminal and others shunned by the rest of the world.

People, being people, tend to add their own predjudice to organised religion and twist words to fit their own views.

oh, and Monkey_man, I'd be interested to hear more about that documentary, the beginnings of organised religion interest me. Certainly many religions are linked together and split at the point where one person has an arguement and decides to 'do their own thing'.
Thu 16/10/03 at 18:24
Regular
"Proffesional Eejit."
Posts: 1,631
If god wants doesn't want gay preists, he should say so.

Yet he hasn't. He's merely continued to allow the world to decay, and malform the bible to suit their sexuality.

For an omnipotent being, he's a pretty lax guy.
Thu 16/10/03 at 18:21
Regular
"Not a Jew"
Posts: 7,532
No, there should be no homosexual priests etc. The bible states that homosexuality is wrong and therefore a gay priest in a church would be an affrontery with the bible itself. I am not religious, but a gay minister? No thanks.
Thu 16/10/03 at 15:29
Regular
"Best Price @ GAME :"
Posts: 3,812
IB is Guilty
Thu 16/10/03 at 15:27
Posts: 15,443
However, I am not a bad, evil SMOKY commie.
Thu 16/10/03 at 15:26
Posts: 15,443
Yeah, I have it right now. I am positively SMOKING

Freeola & GetDotted are rated 5 Stars

Check out some of our customer reviews below:

Impressive control panel
I have to say that I'm impressed with the features available having logged on... Loads of info - excellent.
Phil
My website looks tremendous!
Fantastic site, easy to follow, simple guides... impressed with whole package. My website looks tremendous. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to set this up, Freeola helps you step-by-step.
Susan

View More Reviews

Need some help? Give us a call on 01376 55 60 60

Go to Support Centre
Feedback Close Feedback

It appears you are using an old browser, as such, some parts of the Freeola and Getdotted site will not work as intended. Using the latest version of your browser, or another browser such as Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Opera will provide a better, safer browsing experience for you.