BBC News reporting that a few more religious types have been pushing the boundaries of (im)morality

I love her to bits despite the fact she’s racist and socially inept

Sounds similar to my mum. She’s retired now but for years she had a friend at work who was/is a lesbian, she was very proud of their friendship and always referred to her as her ‘lesbian friend’. And yes, she reads the Daily Mail.

So – do I need to buy a hat for emsz wedding? Or a sailor suit?

You be the sailor TJ, I’ll be the cowboy, tonyd can be the construction worker.

(genuinely without wanting to hi-jack the thread and so please don’t think I am, but just want to clear this up a bit….)

Have you Edukator?

The same book in the bible which says homosexuality is immoral is the same book which says you can’t eat pork… Deuteronomy by the way.

Edukator I’m also not suggesting that your are saying it’s immoral. I am saying that it is amazing how Christianity can pick and choose what it wishes to believe and ignore.

This point has been raised a few times and to be fair is an extremely understandable comment – just wanted to try and very briefly clear this up a touch. The Old Testament laws as laid down in Leviticus etc were laws set out for the nation of Israel at that time, i.e. they are basically the Jewish laws. In the New Testament, when Jesus came, he basically put in place a New covenant with the world that replaced the majority of those laws. Essentially, the Old Testament was written for and about Israel, the New Testament for everyone, whether Jewish or not. Christianity is NOT about obeying laws. The whole doctrine of Grace says that there is NOTHING we can do to make God love us more and NOTHING we can do to make Him love us less.

Sorry for the mild hi-jack, hope that makes sense. Not meant to impart anything either way, just wanted to clear it up. Some great debate points in this thread – let’s keep it like that.

Indian one for me please. I want to bag racist and homophobic when I “black up” for the role and mince – iirc he was the only gay one anyway

speed12: the trouble comes that not every Christian sees it like that (including the Cardinal it seems).

Leviticus and Deuteronomy are commonly used by the extremist Christian homophobes, as is the Old Testament tale of Soddom and Gomorrah. Though obviously such groups tend to conveniently ignore all the other Old Testament laws and stories that don’t fit their prejudices.

But fair point, and let’s not get into a big religious debate. The discussion is over non-religious civil marriage. The churches are still free to make up their own rules as they see fit.

So – do I need to buy a hat for emsz wedding? Or a sailor suit?

I think you should go as Sailor Moon!

Which rather topically was censored from the original Japanese anime for the American release – Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune were depicted as cousins, rather than as lovers, and Zoisite was given a female voice actress despite originally being a male character to make his relationship with Kunzite less… well, gay.

Yay equality! o/

Christianity is NOT about obeying laws.

It shouldn’t be.

Dont worry Grum it is fine god is love and

Christianity is NOT about obeying laws. The whole doctrine of Grace says that there is NOTHING we can do to make God love us more and NOTHING we can do to make Him love us less.

I can only assume from this at judgement he will show us all the love god has and treat us all the same after all …its not about following gods rules or anything
A i dont follow gods rules nonetheless god will love me the same as the Pope and yet treat us both so very differently…mmm wonders why
Is god a bit mean despite loving me?

Just heard the Muslim view of this mentioned on R4.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

Makes Catholicism look like a liberal hippy festival by comparison.

I haven’t read all the Bible but enough to quote some gems. In Luke 19 you’ll find Jesus has little regard for some of the ten commandements. He tells his followers to bring his ennemies (those who didn’t want Jesus to be king) before him and kill them, then he sends a couple of disciples to steal a donkey for him to ride into town on, threatens to stone people on the ride, enters the town and squats the temple.

Imagine how the Cardinal would react if a bunch of revolutionaries did that in his church!

The discussion is over non-religious civil marriage. The churches are still free to make up their own rules as they see fit.

This is really the key issue with this, I think. Most of the anti- points of view I’ve heard have been similar: “this shouldn’t be allowed in church”. Nobody is asking for that.

Essentially, all that’s being asked for is for the name of the current civil partnership arrangement to be officially changed to match what most people call it anyway.

Essentially, all that’s being asked for is for the name of the current civil partnership arrangement to be officially changed to match what most people call it anyway.

ie giving non-denominational gay people the exact same rights as non-denominational hetero people. So still can’t get married in church (unless you get an amenable vicar – but there again I bet there’s a lot of vicars who would marry atheist heteros but only a few who would marry a gay couple) but can get married not just civilly unionised.

Speed12 what was Jesus’s view on pork?
I’m presuming he didn’t eat it himself but I seriously doubt he preached about it’s wickedness or I’d never have experienced the taste sensation that is a bacon buttie when I was a kid.

Did he mention any thing about homosexuality?

If the answers are no and no then why are the various churches still hung up about same sex couples but not bothering to boycott danepak?

The churches are still free to make up their own rules as they see fit.

This is really the key issue with this, I think. Most of the anti- points of view I’ve heard have been similar: “this shouldn’t be allowed in church”. Nobody is asking for that.

On a superficial level this is a persuasive argument – it’s their chuch / club / belief system – they can retain whatever rules they please within that system…

However, as many theologians are currently arguing re female bishops, the chuch cannot stand isolated from societal values.

They look frankly absurd and out of date in insisting that only men can be bishops, and rightly so.

It is exactly the same mentality re same sex marriages.

Would it be acceptable for them to require their “club members” to be white, blond, blue eyed and fine physical specimens? Would we still be ok with the opinion that it’s their club so they can do what they please?

Of course not.

I’d love to believe that the churches will become the victim of Darwinism – slow extinction through failing to adapt and evolve…

Unfortunately I suspect that their are too many ignorant people around for that to happen anytime soon 🙄

Would we still be ok with the opinion that it’s their club so they can do what they please?

bit of a tricky one really, religions do seem to be able to ignore the discriminatory rules that apply to other “clubs” but discrimination is at the centre of many religions

Speedy 12 has just shot down most of the reasons I can dislike the church. Why has that been kept secret from even it seems all the church goers. Would it be best to publish a bible with just the new bit?
I’ve not read the new bit is it all nice and loving?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/07/muslim-african-nations-un-gay-rights?

Religion. An appalling load of sh1te.

No, the new bit isn’t all nice and loving, Zippykona, check my last post. Jesus endorsed the rules Moses had set down in Leviticus so some church people consider Jesus was against homosexuality even though you won’t find a direct condemnation from him in the New Testament. It’s down to interpretation. Google something like “Jesus on homosexuality”.