to think that only people who worship Christ should have a church wedding or baptism

[HollyMiamiFLA]

And that those people who are not Christians but have a church wedding are just doing it because they want to be the centre of attention in a lovely white dress, to walk down the aisle with music playing and that all that stuff the vicar says about God etc is irrelevant because they don't actually believe it but they're going with the flow and it's traditional.

AIBU to think it's a facade - vicars go along with it because it keeps the church going, couples go along with it because it's tradition and they can ignore the religious stuff and true Christians probably get a bit annoyed but accept it?

And if people claim the Church is inclusive, isn't it valid to produce an argument against that?

As the thread starter, I think I can take this thread anywhere I want

Yes but I was responding to your original post.

HollyMiamiFLA

What the hell is wrong with you today/tonight?

This is AIBU. Being told to get a grip is mild.

Do get a grip of yourself and stop barking out such rubbish.

And my last post is re:UK only. Different laws apply to Church of Denmark and various others.

That's better.

It shouldn't turn in to a fight. I responded to her original post.

If you keep changing the original post and adding bits it, you move away from the original post that you wanted opinions on.

Then if you are rude to people this adds animosity. AIBU should not be an excuse to attack people no matter how invested you are in MN. I don't hold to these rules because I am a genuine person who is always measured in my responses with no agenda.

The very fact you thought I was having a 'go' at you, is slightly worrying.

That's why people should read the thread.

I could use an acronym. But I won't

Yes, but debates move on, otherwise it would just be...Yes it does, no it doesn't.

and get a grip is v mild

Ok so the debate had moved on unbeknownst to me but does it give people the right to be rude to me when I suggest the 'gay' thing, for want of better words, is suggested genuinely , in another AIBU thread? No, it doesn't.

To recap, I responded to the original opinion and won't be called names and to suggest I accept being called names because it's in AIBU is ludicrous.

I am not sure MN would take being told to get a grip seriously if you reported it.

Otherwise half of AIBU would be deleted.

I responded to something on the thread and you told me it should not be there because it did not relate to the OP.

But the thread moved on.

HollyMiami- I am not sure MN would take being told to get a grip seriously if you reported it. Otherwise half of AIBU would be deleted.

This is worrying in itself isn't it.

I responded to something on the thread and you told me it should not be there because it did not relate to the OP.

I actually said: "With respect HollyMiami, the OP's post does not centre on gay rights. This might be a point worth raising on AIBU though?"

I did not say it should not be there because it did not relate to the OP.

limara, I find your references to 'the gay thing' and 'gays' more offensive to be honest, and I dare to put my head above the parapet to suggest that others may agree with me on that. But I still wouldn't ask for an apology. I would just think you were a bit ignorant of 'the gay thing' and 'gays'. Apologies in advance for suggesting your ignorance.

Catsize - Are you actually being serious? I've never heard anything more ridiculous in all my life! The 'gay thing' is in context to this thread and which I explained and I referenced and I refute any implications you are making.

OK so I haven't RTFT but I think getting married in church when you don't believe is bullshit and I'd find it very painful to do.

Why on earth on one of the biggest days of your life when you are making a public declaration of love to your spouse would you want to spout a load of lies - or at disingenuous rubbish (which, no disrespect meant to Christians, is what it is to those who don't believe in god)?

limara are you being serious to consider reporting to mn that someone told you to get a grip? Get a grip

Ah yes limara, like apartheid is 'the black thing'. Now do you realise how you sound? Yes, I am being serious. You are quick to be offended but so quick to dismiss and offend. Glad I have provided you with the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard. I somehow doubt that.

"OK so I haven't RTFT but I think getting married in church when you don't believe is bullshit and I'd find it very painful to do."

Ivanapoo - well don't get married in the church then and don't be so judgemental and let others decide for themselves.

Catsize, read through my posts, I think you'll find your implication and distortion of what I said rediculous.

limara,
Sunday, 22:04...
I understood your post to be about hetrosexual couples because of references to a dress and did not see any reference to gay couples? [...] I will not be drawn in to a discussion about gays or female bishops because I don't have enough knowledge about it.

22:27...
Ok so the debate had moved on unbeknownst to me but does it give people the right to be rude to me when I suggest the 'gay' thing, for want of better words, is suggested genuinely , in another AIBU thread? No, it doesn't.

And still you repeated it at 22:54 with...
The 'gay thing' is in context to this thread and which I explained and I referenced and I refute any implications you are making.

Are there others I am missing? I don't wish to be unfair.

You do not have a 'want of better words', as you are clearly an articulate person. Perhaps you just have a want of understanding as to why an entire issue, so important to so many, is dismissed in such a way. Or why lumping people together as 'gays' might be offensive to some people. I think Ann Widdecombe did it recently, so you are not alone.

Catsize, you have merely copied and pasted my posts, what are you trying to say? I thing you are trying to engineer something here and and tbh, it's a little desperate .

IMO. OP's post suggests references to a heterosexual couple, fact, because that's how I understood it's meaning.

I thought OP point about gay right in the church deserved its own thread tbh and that's why I suggested it.

If you get your kicks out of this behaviour, diverting the entire thread to this, then, as I said, it's a little sad but like my mum used to say about bullies, because this is how your making me feel right now, bullied , just ignore them. So that's what I'm going to do now. I'm not going to post again on this thread and if you feel the need to 'carry on' how will this look on you?

Erm, limara, I agreed with you that the OP referred to heterosexual couples (albeit the 'dress' reasoning seemed a tad distorted) and I supported you on that at 22:12.
I have no issue with you suggesting a separate thread, albeit it has been done before.
You seem to be very defensive, saying on several occasions I have been ridiculous, now accusing me of trying to engineer something (!) when all I have been trying to do is answer your points and invite you to comprehend why something you say might be deemed hurtful. I have not sought to divert the thread at all, just answer your points.
I am not getting 'kicks' out of this so much as bewilderment.
And now you accuse me of bullying. Because I have repeated your own threads back at you to support my earlier assertions? (As invited to do by yourself). Bizarre.
I even invited you to list any others, lest I be at risk of distorting your references to 'gays' and 'the gay thing'.
Perhaps others will think it looks bad on me to respond to you again, as you suggest, but I cannot see how.
I do not seek to derail a thread.
However, you were told (in a fairly jovial manner) by another poster to 'get a grip' and your reaction was very dramatic. Meanwhile, I have been told that I have said the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard, that I am generally ridiculous, that I am engineering a situation, that I am a bully, that I am getting 'kicks out of this sort of behaviour' etc. And I am fine about that, albeit confused.

Ah well... There is no reasoning with some people.

I don't think I would have got married in church if I had no faith but I can understand that others may wish to do so for all kinds of reasons (partner's religion, family, community etc etc).

I agree that the Church should be a welcoming place for all. Who knows which of those people feeling welcomed will choose to explore their faith further as a result of being embraced by the church when wishing to get married or child baptised? Or it may be that this enables people to see the church as a place they could turn to in times of difficulty so a positive message to send.

The point about same sex couples is a good one. Many practising Christians (myself included) think love should be celebrated wherever it is found. The Church is changing slowly as grass roots membership often have different ideas to the hierarchy and it is for us to continue to debate and encourage the church to grow and develop.

Just to point out the issue that Catsize has raised regarding limaras used of language. It doesnt appear to be obvious to limara why catsize is offended.

Limara cant seem to realise that her use of language is discriminatory. The terminology used would be described as something called 'othering' 'Othering' is discriminatory because it simply lumps a group of people together who share a common characteristic, using terminology which those people might not identify themselves with and sets the user of the terminology as separate. In this case, limara refers to 'the gay thing' which is dismissive and dehumanising.

If you replace the word black or disabled or woman for instance with the word gay in the context that limara has used it, you might see how offensive it is.

Please feel free to correct that If I'm wrong !

I can't work out who started that and who is wrong and I'm not going through it all again now to get it straight, but I want to make a general point about phrases like 'the gay thing'.

I'm often posting and talking in support of gay rights, but am quite capable of saying something like "well, yes, but the gay thing is more important" I don't examine my choice of words all that carefully. You're lucky if you get punctuation that's nearly in the right place.

It depends on context so I say nothing about how Limara used it, Maybe she was being dismissive/rude, but you have to be careful about reading too much into small combinations of words. Luckily you can usually tell by all the other things they just said.

I haven't read the whole thread, apologies.

The church is very bad at talking about what baptism/marriage actually are.

As a result people who don't know much about Christianity, and perhaps a lot of Christians too, make a lot of assumptions about what they are. Almost everyone on this thread thinks that a marriage/baptism is (or should be) a proclamation of faith, a statement of belief, made in public, a kind of party political broadcast about what you believe, taking a platform to proclaim something. Therefore that anyone who struggles with the form of wording used, or who doesn't go to church regularly, is being a hypocrite.

However, this is a wrong understanding of what marriage and baptism actually are.

Baptism and marriage are "sacraments", in church speak. That means, they are a created opportunity for an encounter with God's grace, a sign of God's grace.

The person "doing the doing" at a baptism/marriage is GOD, not the bride/groom/parents/godparents. We are merely receiving something, i.e. God's grace and blessing on our marriage, our child etc. This blessing and grace is freely given, and is not conditional upon saying the right words or believing the right things.

In any event, the form of words used in these services are human-derived - put together by church elders at some ancient theological conference. They are not necessarily anything to do with God, although they are of course our attempt to say something about our understanding of God (which will always be limited - how can we humans understand that which is inherently transcendent?).

When I was baptised (as an adult) I looked upon the form of words as an important link with the traditions and history of the church that I was joining. I didn't think it was necessary to tick a box next to each statement that I 100% believed in it. It was enough that I felt a strong desire to be baptised and learn more.

Faith is a journey into deeper spiritual understanding. Baptism is the start of that journey. How can you be a fully fledged christian at the point of baptism? Baptism is only the beginning, God's grace being given to you freely and unconditionally to sustain you in that journey. Faith is like exercise - you start small and build up - no-one can run a marathon on day one. You also have to make the effort to maintain your spiritual fitness levels. If you don't bother going to church/praying/ or whatever it is that you do to sustain your faith, your faith will become weaker. Baptism happens at the point where the runner is beginning the Couch to 5k app, just running a tiny bit then walking! But if you keep it up, soon you will be running 5k without stopping.

So I think, if people want to be baptised/have their child baptised/get married in a church, then the fact that they want to is sufficient. Who are we to make judgements about why they want to? Most people don't want to
just because "its a pretty building" etc - they have a feeling that there is something important about it for them, even though they can't really articulate that and certainly wouldn't dream of going to church each sunday.

They aren't hypocrites in my book.

Blessings