The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
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.
Should there be gay priests, bishops etc in the Church?
Your opinions please.
Page:
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...) and that any man who's testicles are crushed cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
The bible also gives a list of races of men who are to be hated and, if possible, exterminated (that wacky Deuteronomy book...).
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.
> 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. Hell, the overwhelming majority of it isn't even contemporaneous, but the result of a few centuries of Chinese whispers.
>
> 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?
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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
And it was compiled in the 5th century AD. To say it was written 4000 years ago...I assume that's a mistype?
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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
But, again, respect to you for posting an unpopular opinion and taking the time to explain your logic behind it.
> 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...) and that any man who's testicles are crushed cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
The bible also gives a list of races of men who are to be hated and, if possible, exterminated (that wacky Deuteronomy book...).
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.
> 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. Hell, the overwhelming majority of it isn't even contemporaneous, but the result of a few centuries of Chinese whispers.
>
> 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?
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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
And it was compiled in the 5th century AD. To say it was written 4000 years ago...I assume that's a mistype?
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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
But, again, respect to you for posting an unpopular opinion and taking the time to explain your logic behind it.
monkey_man wrote:
> Seriously though, who really gives a toss around here?
I do in a way, if these people believe in god they could at least follow his rules. Otherwise why not just abandon christianity and admit that it was the biggest money making scheme ever concieved.
> Seriously though, who really gives a toss around here?
I do in a way, if these people believe in god they could at least follow his rules. Otherwise why not just abandon christianity and admit that it was the biggest money making scheme ever concieved.
Jesus was gay - he hung around with loads of blokes.
Seriously though, who really gives a toss around here?
Seriously though, who really gives a toss around here?
Gay clergy?
NEXT THEY'LL BE ALLOWED TO SMOKE!!!
NEXT THEY'LL BE ALLOWED TO SMOKE!!!
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> The bible explicilty condemns homosexuality.
But the bible was written by men thousands of years ago, hence it is only to be expected that some social inclinations, which are now totally out of date, would appear in it.
> 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.
'God' may not change, but people do.
> As for other things like prostitution. Well that was always condemned
> in the bible.
So was charging interest on borrowed money, wasn't it?
> The bible explicilty condemns homosexuality.
But the bible was written by men thousands of years ago, hence it is only to be expected that some social inclinations, which are now totally out of date, would appear in it.
> 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.
'God' may not change, but people do.
> As for other things like prostitution. Well that was always condemned
> in the bible.
So was charging interest on borrowed money, wasn't it?
"Gay priests? Hell, now there's priests of two persuasions I don't listen to"
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> there are too many unexplained gaps in
> the theory that the universe just spontaneously appeared.
So it MUST have been the work of an omnipotent being...
> there are too many unexplained gaps in
> the theory that the universe just spontaneously appeared.
So it MUST have been the work of an omnipotent being...
In answer to your question Lindgren, the answer is no there shouldn't be gay clergymen.
The bible explicilty condemns homosexuality.
The argument used FOR gay clergymen is that the bible is old and that it would be different now.
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.
As for other things like prostitution. Well that was always condemned in the bible.
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.
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.
I do believe in a God, because there are too many unexplained gaps in the theory that the universe just spontaneously appeared.
Also, life is futile and essentially meaningless in my eyes if it was just chance.
The bible explicilty condemns homosexuality.
The argument used FOR gay clergymen is that the bible is old and that it would be different now.
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.
As for other things like prostitution. Well that was always condemned in the bible.
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.
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.
I do believe in a God, because there are too many unexplained gaps in the theory that the universe just spontaneously appeared.
Also, life is futile and essentially meaningless in my eyes if it was just chance.
My theory for improving life is that everything should be replaced with something better... Shockingly simple. Impossible to implement.
;)
;)
So you'd replace one Dogma with another Black Glove :D
Page: