to think that your religion can't be that important to you

[theevildead2]

if you can just "switch to catholicism" when it suits you?

There is a bit on the news at the moment about women maybe being allowed to be bishops. Apparently some of our local priests will be leaving the church if women get this right???

at victoria.

Read it.

Thought it was obfustification and failed to clarify matters.

I genuinely fail to understand. If you don't like gay sex, then don't have it. Surely that's an end to it - why do people who do happen to like it need to be "loved?"

That whole love the sinner/ hate the sin thing really rips my knitting. Love whoever you want, put whatever conditions on it you want, but please, try not to pretend that you are doing it from any reason other than your own choices and predjudices.

link to pamphlet.

It's an old testament/new testament issue. The prawns thing was officially removed by Peter's vision of God commanding him to eat "unclean" animals, just as the allowance to the Jews for divorce was removed by Jesus's prohibition. As the homosexual act is treated in both testaments relatively similarly, that didn't get changed.

I don't know about switching to catholicism, but I do feel like that about Catholics who get pregnant out of wedlock and then cannot have an abortion on religious grounds in spite of their lives and their parenting prospects being shit.

MM - However, plenty of things that aren't sanctioned/condemned in both Testaments are important issues in Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Protestantism. The Holy Spirit doesn't really get much of a look in throughout the Bible, for example.

People who claim they follow the Bible alone, or take the Bible literally, are usually not being totally honest. Homosexuality is condemned with vitriol, whereas (for example) usury is not (though it is condemned in the NT). I reckon if you want to follow whatever interpretation or religion you want, fair enough: but do admit where it comes from and what it is.

Northernlebkuchen I already said I may have phrased that wrong (and asked to explain it ti me) but still doesn't explain to me why 2 churches with such huge differences such as the right to marry can swap so easily.

Why do the CofE priests feel they can go to the catholic church. And why would the catholic church accept them but they won't accept women? It just seems like picking and choosing and I can't get my head round it.

I think it is like picking and choosing too. It seems insincere to me, but I wonder if for some people misogyny comes before faith.

Menat to say why would the catholic church allow married priests.

I think so LRD, and I'm amazed that people will give up something that meant so much to them for so long just because a woman might get a look in.

It is depressing isn't it?

I know people who will reply, 'Well, Christ was made Man, and priests are the icons of God ... therefore, priests must be men!' and think this is a perfect and untouchable argument. Yet, I've never seen anyone insist that since Christ was made into a particular kind of man, priests should all be blond/dark/Palestinian/short/whatever Christ may have looked like!

I am a cynic about the Catholic Church and wish I could understand it better from a sympathetic point of view. I do know, though, that people who believe themselves to be 'Roman Catholic' have been wanting to ordain women in this country since around 1390, so it's not a new thing!

OldestCat I appreciate you trying to push me into a fight, but I didn't say I take the Bible literally, I asked what was meant by literal.

As far as usury goes, there's no theologically moral problem with loaning out money as an investment with a reasonable rate of return to cover opportunity costs and risk. There is a problem with lending out largish sums of money at high rates of interest knowing full well the debtor will never reasonably be able to pay it back. The former is not a sin, the latter very much is.

Homosexuality isn't really treated with vitriol as such in the New Testament, though I freely admit it has been at some points in history. Different ages tend to fixate on different sins, usually to distract themselves from whatever sin it is that is really keeping them from God.

Open, literally means 'by the letter'. I said it above but this thread is moving fast!

I was assuming you did take the Bible literally judging from the content of your posts, but if you don't, I'd be interested to know how you make judgments on when to take it literally and when not to?

Meh, have read this whole thread and reminded myself why I don't do any kind of religion all over again.

I just do faith and perseverance in the "doing the right thing because all humans and other sentient beings shouldn't have to suffer unnecessarily at each others hands" stuff.

Works for me.

MaryM - well, I reckon St. Paul is pretty vitriolic! But you're right, I think all ages have specific sins.

It always surprises me though: I grew up near Nottingham, and every Christmas there'd be a group of fundamentalist Christians standing right near one of the biggest banks (which at the time had some very shady lending practices!), holding up placards condemning homosexuality! A pretty good illustration of what you're saying, I think.

• er ... when I say all ages have specific sins, I mean all ages think they have specific sins!

LRD - quite, re your 'Christ was a man' post. And furthermore, the Bible also says that humans were made according to God's image of male and female. But a lot of people seem to conveniently overlook this when they want to do a wee bit of woman-bashing of a Sunday afternoon.

Toxic - sometimes I feel that way about life in general, with or without religion. Sigh.

I don't think God particularly likes any sexual sin i.e. sex outside marriage to balance up the comments about homophobia/homosexuality

I am a christian but the sex outside marriage is something which most people struggle with.

Hmm good question. I believe we are all born sinners and that Jesus died for me. I believe 100% in the trinity (that isn't in the Word) so that's something I've assumed from several references.

In regards to the OT. I tend to follow and regard the teachings that are said-however the majority of them have been renewed in the NT. I agree that some were written for the culture they were presented to (cloven hooves for e.g. I believe was to do with the curing of the meat and the warm weather of the Middle East). When I'm not too sure on something I research it and pray. I wouldn't say I take things too literally (like the reference to blood-I don't believe that is saying not to have a transfusion like the J.Ws believe)....some things aren't mentioned like abortion for example, yet murder is a no-no so we have to take a view on whether or not abortion IS murder etc. The Bible isn't black and white on some things and it wouldn't be truthful for me to declare otherwise. However, some things are fairly self explanatory and need no secondary reading.

Yes I believe ALL sexual sin is wrong. Not just outside of wedlock but gay sex & adultery.

snowy - exactly!

My DH's (annoying) priest tried to explain this to me and kept saying that men were so 'visibly' different from women, so priests must be 'visibly' male ... I may be simple, but as far as I know the most visible difference is usually quite well hidden in public!

alemci - there are plenty of people who do believe sex before marriage is wrong, though. I guess I worry about that argument, because I don't like the idea that, if you believe sex before marriage is wrong, it is somehow ok to judge other people for homosexuality.

I know some people who are very devout, and do very seriously believe sex before marriage is wrong. They believe the logical step is, therefore, to ask the Church to sanctify homosexual marriages. I think that's a much healthier viewpoint.

Thanks for explaining Open.

Ontologically speaking, the Church has always considered herself to be feminine with Christ being the masculine. The Church is the bride, Christ the bridegroom. When the priest is acting alter Christus, he is also acting as the bridegroom, making the binding of the sacrifice on the cross present to us at Mass. Bridegroom=Male

An umarried priesthood is a discipline brought about in response to abuses taking place a thousand years ago, and only applies to the Roman rite of the Catholic church. It could conceivably be changed. Unmarried bishops, on the other hand, are not allowed in any of the rites any more than female priests are. That is why any married Anglican bishops crossing the Tiber must give up their title and become simple priests.

Ah, OTLS...you eventually respond to the question. Shame on you. What a bigoted view but at least you are now being transparent.

shark - um, sorry, but that is a misunderstanding!

'catholic' (small 'c') means 'whole world. It doesn't mean 'Roman Catholic' at all! So that line in the Nicene Creed doesn't at all mean that the Anglican Church is related to the Catholic (big C, Roman) Church.