View Full Version : A world gone mad
The governors of a Church of England school in my area have just 'cancelled' Halloween for their pupils, as it does not fit in with a Christian education.
Although I can see that a Church of England education falls under the auspices of Christian teachings, is it not wrong to be teaching children that other children are somehow evil because they dress up as ghoulies and ghosties one night of the year and have a little fun? After all, other than the followers of Wicca and Druidism, does anybody really see Halloween as anything other than an excuse to do just that?
Anonymous
28-Jun-03, 18:34
I fear a haunting response from Gleeber coming
©Amethyst
28-Jun-03, 20:26
what would the C of E know... they got a gay bishop, when the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is 'wrong'... not in as many words lol... there's loads about marriage etc. so am against some of the things they do...
having said that, I was brought up in an Episcopalian church - aaaaand I live with one... not a church, an episcopalian lol...
Infact, I got nowt against the C of E... but cancelling Halloween... it's just another thing for kids... ya know... get dressed up, go out, get sweets. Don't spoil the kids fun! Sheesh!
Tut Tut Amethyst, ye will be wanting a Christmas tree in the classroom next, and maybe do away with Hogmanay, [lol]
Gollach
Anonymous
29-Jun-03, 10:10
Wouldnt that be a return to tradition Golach? No Cristmas and presents at New Year? Or is that another old wives tale?
©Amethyst
29-Jun-03, 13:36
Tut Tut Amethyst, ye will be wanting a Christmas tree in the classroom next, and maybe do away with Hogmanay, [lol]
Gollach
All through school, we had Christmas trees in classrooms on the run up to Christmas!
I'm also appauled at the C of E appointing and openly gay bishop... and I'm appauled at the C of S appointing openly gay ministers. It's beyond rediculous.
Could someone remind me why I've not started going to the baptist church? lol
*by the way, got nowt against homosexuals... just them being ordained in the church - homosexuality is not something that the Bible supports*
by the way, got nowt against homosexuals... just them being ordained in the church - homosexuality is not something that the Bible supports
You can't have it both ways... either you have nothing against homosexuals, or you follow the notion that the Bible sees homosexuality as a sin, and therefore wrong. You cannot believe in both because they are opposing opinions.
Everybody should be free to follow whichever religion they wish (within the accepted bounds of socially responsible behaviour), but the 'gay-bashing' taking place at the moment over the appointment of the Bishop of Reading smacks of people using a religious text to justify their own small-minded bigotry.
By the way, I am often required to work weekends. As you disapprove of a homosexual bishop because the Bible tells you to, I take it you would also approve of my being executed for working on the Sabbath? If not, then how do you justify picking and choosing from the teachings of the Bible?
Hmmmmmm
I think the sexuality of a person affects not one jot their ability to act as a minister. If the man has faith and is able to preach Gods word then why would we be concerned if he happens to love someone who is the same sex as him.. In my mind the only "queer" people are the people who dont love anybody so good luck to him.
Got to disagree with you on that one, Squidge.
By seeking ordination into a Bible-based organisation, a homosexual individual is disobeying the principles of the faith into which he/she is being ordained.
While a homosexual person's ability to minister is not affected, his qualification to do so is clearly compromised, according to the Bible. Therefore, if the person's chosen religious organisation is one that requires him/her to follow the principles taught in Scripture, then he/she must conform.
And, when an organisation such as the C of E, or C of S, chooses to allow openly homosexual ministers, then it has chosen to disregard the Bible's clear teaching about who is and is not qualified to be a minister.
Amethyst - there's no harm in checking out the Baptists, they helped set me straight.
2little2late
30-Jun-03, 22:51
There is no such thing as the bible. It's just a load of rot. Some clever person hundreds of years ago wrote it. It was then found by someone. They read it and the rest is history. No such thing as god. If there is only one god why are there so many religions? One god cannot support all the religions.
By seeking ordination into a Bible-based organisation, a homosexual individual is disobeying the principles of the faith into which he/she is being ordained.
While a homosexual person's ability to minister is not affected, his qualification to do so is clearly compromised, according to the Bible. Therefore, if the person's chosen religious organisation is one that requires him/her to follow the principles taught in Scripture, then he/she must conform.
And, when an organisation such as the C of E, or C of S, chooses to allow openly homosexual ministers, then it has chosen to disregard the Bible's clear teaching about who is and is not qualified to be a minister.
Monkey,
I put a question to ©Amethyst but did not receive an answer. Perhaps, as you see the Bible as teaching us that homosexuality is wrong, you could answer it. The question was:
I am often required to work weekends. As you disapprove of a homosexual bishop because the Bible tells you to, I take it you would also approve of my being executed for working on the Sabbath? If not, then how do you justify picking and choosing from the teachings of the Bible?
It's a simple concept, really. We all have expectations of what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. I think that we will all agree that putting somebody to death for working on a Sunday is not acceptable. And yet the Bible not only allows it, but demands it. The Church no longer follows that particular Biblical teaching because it no longer fits with our society. In the same way, bigotry must no longer find a place in our society.
I wish that people would stop using religion as means to justify their own narrow mindedness. Religions adapt to the world around them, that is the only way they would survive. We no longer put witches to death, yet the bible calls for it. We should equally no longer subject homosexuals to discrimination, hatred, or just downright non-acceptance, simply because it is written in the Book.
If you have a problem accepting homosexuals, at least have the strength of your own convictions and stop cowering under the robes of the Church.
bigotry must no longer find a place in our society.
I wish that people would stop using religion as means to justify their own narrow mindedness.
I feel that this is exactly a point gleeber made in an earlier post on a different subject I think if i remember rightly- and i hope he will forgive me if i misquote him here- cos i cant find it... he said religion was the cause of prejudice. KW1 pulled him up by saying that it is one cause of it - maybe gleeber was right?
If religion is as old as man then maybe it IS the cause of our prejudices?
If religion is as old as man then maybe it IS the cause of our prejudices?
People are naturally prejudiced. We all want the perfect world but my idea of perfection almost certainly isn’t the same as yours. We judge those who we believe don’t fit in to our utopia and we either learn to live with what we see as their imperfections, or we don’t and we try to force them to fit in the way we want them to.
Religions are just an easy way to justify actions that are otherwise unjustifiable, they are not the cause.
Anonymous
02-Jul-03, 04:46
[mad] KW1 [mad] Squidge you really know how to upset me [lol]
Here in sunny, albeit somewat air- polluted, Toronto we just last week instituted marriage for gay couples.
Why anybody would want to get married in the first place is a mystery to me.
Alll over the city stable gay relationshiops are breaking up as people anguish over whether to marry or not.
Of course gay divorce comes with the package.
Nevertheless, I take pride in this development. And I feel proud to live in such a cosmopolitan and sophisticated city.
The Anglican Church in Canada sees to have taken the leadership role.
More power to them!
[mad] KW1 [mad] Squidge you really know how to upset me [lol]
OOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhh dont you pull that face at me KW14 :p
what would the C of E know... they got a gay bishop, when the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is 'wrong'... Not any more they won't. The gay priest at the center of this row has turned down the position of Bishop of Reading to protect the Church.
It is a disgrace that this man, who has dedicated his life to his religion, is unable to take up the promotion that, judging by the support he has received from the Archbishiop of Canterbury, so obviously deserves. It is appalling that ignorant bigots have been allowed to use religion as a justification for ruining this man's career and broadcasting personal details of his life to all and sundry. They should be ashamed of their conduct, but sadly I suspect they are rather proud.
JJC,
I dislike the use of the word "Gay" by everyone in place of the word " Homosexual " I am of the older generation and the word "Gay" to me has a happier meaning as in the title of the Scottish Country dance "The Gay Gordons", and many other happy uses.
I am not a bigot I was a Merchant Seaman and a Steward as well on the passenger liners where homosexual communities existed and was accepted and tolerated by the hertosexual members of the crew.
All I say is I dont care if you are one way or the other just dont shout about it in my ear and expect to get a positive or sympathic reaction.
As far as the Bishop designate is concerned I could not care one wee bit as Im an Agnostic and have not the least bit of interest in the workings of the Anglican Church or any other for that matter.
Golach
Sorry Golach, didn't mean to offend... I just find the whole situation of 'Christian' folk who are unable to accept others for what they are astounding.
[quote="jjc"]Sorry Golach, didn't mean to offend...
No offence taken jjc, I was just letting off steam, and encouraging debate
Golach
I dislike the use of the word "Gay" by everyone in place of the word " Homosexual " I am of the older generation and the word "Gay" to me has a happier meaning as in the title of the Scottish Country dance "The Gay Gordons", and many other happy uses.
Here's your chance to educate all us younger folk about THE "Gay Gordon". :D :D
Partan
My God, the worlds gone mad right enough! jjc gets more than a little upset at the prejudice shown by christians towards homosexuals but apoligies grovengly to Golach for his more than thinly veiled prejudice towards his fellow man.
Thankfully, Golach is such a gay chappie that he dosnt take offence.
Prejudice is prejudice though and it dosnt matter whether its shown by an old mannie from Scrabster Thurso and Edinburgh, or a compassionite christian chappy whose world veiw is formed by the writings of his holy book.
by the way, got nowt against homosexuals... just them being ordained in the church - homosexuality is not something that the Bible supports
You can't have it both ways... either you have nothing against homosexuals, or you follow the notion that the Bible sees homosexuality as a sin, and therefore wrong. You cannot believe in both because they are opposing opinions.
I think you are confusing a person with a sin committed by a person. God says that homosexuality is wrong, that it is a sin and therefore a Christian accepts that. There is no getting around it. The Bible also says we should hate sin. This is of course the same when it comes to other forms of immorality that the Bible speaks of such as adultery and other types of sin for that matter. The point is a Christian hates sin.
God also teaches us to love our neighbour and to be tolerant and not to judge others. Jesus for example showed love to all sorts of people. He loved people but hated the sins they committed. However if after listening to Jesus they wished to accept his teachings they would have had to change their lifestyles, which would involve repentance.
The Bible also teaches that we should worry about the beam/rafter in our own eye, rather than be concerned about the straw/chaff in another’s. In other words, none of us are perfect and we all sin so we should worry about trying to live our own lives to God’s standards instead of criticising/judging others who for one thing may not have any understanding of the Bible's teachings.
Using this and the many other examples in the Bible should help people to gain a balanced view of this. Yes a Christian should hate sin, but he/she should show love to their neighbour. If their neighbour does not follow the Bible’s teachings that is up to them, but it should not make us treat anyone without the respect, compassion or love that we would show to anyone.
As such you can believe that homosexuality is a sin while having nothing against homosexuals.
Dinna be daft Geo!
Your entitled to believe in a loving God who apparently has all the pain and suffering in our world in the palm of his hand, but to say you can seperate homosexuality from the homosexual is as jjc says......not on
Its a pity the church of England succumbed to the politics of man instead of the spirit of man.
Dinna be daft Geo!
Your entitled to believe in a loving God who apparently has all the pain and suffering in our world in the palm of his hand, but to say you can seperate homosexuality from the homosexual is as jjc says......not on
Its a pity the church of England succumbed to the politics of man instead of the spirit of man.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. Are you honestly saying you have never disagreed with something someone does or did, yet remained a friend, respected the person, or the fact they have their own free will to do whatever it was? Even if you haven't been in that situation, can you see how it is possible?
Whatever, I'm not going to get involved in an endless debate over it but it is possible, I see it all the time. If you haven't seen it, that does not make it untrue.
My God, the worlds gone mad right enough! jjc gets more than a little upset at the prejudice shown by christians towards homosexuals but apoligies grovengly to Golach for his more than thinly veiled prejudice towards his fellow man.
Thankfully, Golach is such a gay chappie that he dosnt take offence.
Prejudice is prejudice though and it dosnt matter whether its shown by an old mannie from Scrabster Thurso and Edinburgh, or a compassionite christian chappy whose world veiw is formed by the writings of his holy book.
Gleeber,
I would not say I was predudiced aginst my fellow man, in any way, as you insinuate that I am.
In my reply to JJC all I said was I did not like the use of the word "Gay" to mean homosexual, this was to generate another view to the general debate.
I also stated that I was an Agnostic, so I am not a Christian, nor am I a Muslim, nor a Buddist or a follower of any of the main stream religions, but in my opinion I dont have to be one of the Christian faith to be compassionate. And I am I consider, to be as compassionate as you Gleeber and may be more so because my opinions are not blinkered by that mythical word "Religion"
Golach
Geo says im wrong......maybe hes right.
Golach says he may be more compassionite than me......maybe hes right.
I say Geo and Golach are prejudiced against homosexuals.......maybe im right.
Gleeber
maybe's Aye.....maybe's No
Golach
I read an interesting book reveiw in the Herald today. The book is called The Man Jesus Loved by Theodore W Jennings and is published by the Pilgrem Press at £17.20.
Jennings is professor of biblical and constructive theology at the Chicago Theological Seminary and has studdied the gospel of John from a gay affirmitive point of veiw paying close attention to Jesus's relationship with John, the "disciple whom he loved"
Hmmmmmmm
I read an interesting book reveiw in the Herald today. The book is called The Man Jesus Loved by Theodore W Jennings and is published by the Pilgrem Press at £17.20.
Jennings is professor of biblical and constructive theology at the Chicago Theological Seminary and has studdied the gospel of John from a gay affirmitive point of veiw paying close attention to Jesus's relationship with John, the "disciple whom he loved"
Hmmmmmmm
Are you implying that Jesus was a homosexual? Interesting concept...would His teachings as a spiritual leader be considered invalid simply because He was gay?
My own feeling on the subject is that His teachings would hold the same value to me whether Jesus himself was gay or straight. It was what He said and taught, and the person that He was, that was important, not who He fancied. Which leads to the point (which I believe was the crux of this thread) that if Jesus' sexuality is not important to his value as a spiritual leader, why would the sexuality of my minister be any different?
Cheers,
Tristan
Hi Tristan,
Nope, i didnt imply Jesus was gay. Someones sexuality is of no consequence to me as long as their desires are kept within the law of the land, hetro, homo or bi are all the same on the inside where it really matters. Your post was a very human response and puts the bible thumpers to shame. Our only difference would be your use of capitals when referring to Jesus as He and His.
The P&J reported yesterday that Wick Church of Scotland minister Rev. Bill Wallace sent an open letter to the Kirks moderator Professor Iain Torrence asking him to clarify his position on the ordination of gay ministers. Apparently Prof. Torrence is open to the idea and would be prepared to appoint an openly gay minister.
Rev. Wallace said his letter was prompted after visiting one of the most "progressive congregations" in the area and people there had expressed considerable concern about the idea of gay ministers.
I wondered what was a "progressive congregation"? Apart from discriminating on the grounds of sexuality, what other illuminating factors do they embrace?
This is not an issue purely for christians because the values of the church permeates all of society and in ideal circumstances i would say thats great, but when discrimination and prejudice is allowed to fester within its very walls, what hope for the rest of us?
The Episcopal church I attend is considered progressive, and even called wildly radical because it offers "open hospitality" at the communion table. That means that every single person, regardless of religion, if any at all, is welcome to take the sacraments. It's been amazing to hear comments about how only baptized Christians "qualify", but the archbishop asks whether Christ himself would have refused anyone who wanted to partake. Interesting how the church forgot that for hundreds of years..
Geo says im wrong......maybe hes right.
Golach says he may be more compassionite than me......maybe hes right.
I say Geo and Golach are prejudiced against homosexuals.......maybe im right.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I had hoped I'd made it quite clear that I wasn't. Anyway this will just go round in circles and will be a pointless debate. I know I am not prejudiced against homosexuals and I hope my comments have shown that.
That's the second time you have apoligised to me because you think i got it wrong Geo.
Do you think your original posting on here could be seen as insulting to a homosexual?
If so, apoligise to them.
If not, then your discriminating against people on grounds of sexuality because of your own high moral rightness.
I say Geo and Golach are prejudiced against homosexuals.......maybe im right.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I had hoped I'd made it quite clear that I wasn't. Anyway this will just go round in circles and will be a pointless debate. I know I am not prejudiced against homosexuals and I hope my comments have shown that.
As such you can believe that homosexuality is a sin while having nothing against homosexuals
My dictionary defines 'Sin' as 'Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong'.
I'm not sure how you can say that homosexuality is shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong, and yet say you have nothing against homosexuals???
I say Geo and Golach are prejudiced against homosexuals.......maybe im right.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I had hoped I'd made it quite clear that I wasn't. Anyway this will just go round in circles and will be a pointless debate. I know I am not prejudiced against homosexuals and I hope my comments have shown that.
As such you can believe that homosexuality is a sin while having nothing against homosexuals
My dictionary defines 'Sin' as 'Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong'.
I'm not sure how you can say that homosexuality is shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong, and yet say you have nothing against homosexuals???
Disagreeing with someone over anything does not mean you have anything against the person. It means you have a differing view.
Anyway that is my last word on it. I don't see how I can make it any clearer so there's no point going on and on about it.
That's the second time you have apoligised to me because you think i got it wrong Geo.
Do you think your original posting on here could be seen as insulting to a homosexual?
If so, apoligise to them.
If not, then your discriminating against people on grounds of sexuality because of your own high moral rightness.
I had hoped I'd finished with this thread....
I make no apologies for accepting the Bible's view on this however if I insulted anyone I apologise, as that was not my intent.
As I previously explained I have nothing against anyone with differing views on mine.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.