Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 ··· 5 6 7 ··· 15 16

AIBU?

About gay vicars.

396 replies

VivaLeBeaver · 12/07/2014 23:34

Now I admit I'm not religious so I don't really get the argument of breaking church law, etc.

But I think its crazy that in this day and age a vicar can be refused a licence to practice by the local bishop because he's gay.

I thought Christians were meant to be tolerant, compassionate, etc.

Its even more crazy when he wouldn't be working directly for the diocese but for the local hospital.

bbc news story

OP posts:

Report

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 14/07/2014 09:01

The Bishop who has withdrawn the priest's license is basically retired who has stepped in for a year until a new permanent one is appointed. As such, there are very few consequences for him. He won't have to put up with parishioners being unhappy with him (for very long at least), and he doesn't have to play the political game.

The CofE is a strange beast. It covers a huge range of theologies and practises, from very liberal high anglo-catholic where it would almost be unusual if your priest wasn't gay, to ultra conservative evangelicals where women aren't allowed to lead still. A lot of things are a fudge. Generally speaking, many try to avoid upsetting things. So, officially gay marriage may be deemed unacceptable, but in practise a blind eye may be turned.

livelablove · 14/07/2014 09:02

People get something from Christianity and it is not just a bunch of outdated rules and nothing more, to people who follow it. Otherwise why would gay people even want to be involved with it? Yet many of them do, even in these times when there are so many other spiritual paths they could choose.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 14/07/2014 09:09

"If God/Jesus was writing the bible today do you really think they'd be bothered about people being gay?"

Well, firstly, the bible wasn't written by God but by people. There are different opinions as to how 'inspired' the writing was (from God basically dictating it, to people just writing what they wanted with no divine inspiration). The middle of the road view is probably that it was inspired by God, but not dictated, so is reflective of the times when it was written.

Secondly, Jesus wasn't reported to have said anything about homosexuality, so imo wasn't particularly bothered about it 2000 years ago.

Thirdly, long term monogamous homosexual relationships didn't exist in the societies at the time. So it is very difficult (impossible really) to draw any conclusions to the situation now.

settingsitting · 14/07/2014 09:38

The bible was inspired by God.
I dont think God is going to create the universe and then "forget" to make sure is word is a but skew whiff.

settingsitting · 14/07/2014 09:38

his word is a bit

settingsitting · 14/07/2014 09:41

The writings of Paul make up a substantial part of the new testament.

TheCunkOfPhilomena · 14/07/2014 10:15

I like to read about what believers in god think so I follow this wonderfully compassionate and unprejudiced blog/forum.

Read it, it is shocking.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 14/07/2014 10:18

Yet he didn't exactly bang on about homosexuality. In his writings he also is very clear about women having their head covered (and not having their hair cut short), whilst men shouldn't have long hair either. Funny how these things are ignored by most, yet homosexuality isn't.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 14/07/2014 10:23

Or, if you want a more balanced discussion, from both sides, then check out the various threads here

VivaLeBeaver · 14/07/2014 10:34

It'll be interesting to see what happens. I have a suspicion that this vicar will take it further.

Philomena, that blog really is shocking.

OP posts:

niminypiminy · 14/07/2014 10:48

Yet more balance at Changing Attitude.

settingsitting · 14/07/2014 10:49

The head covered thing states that it is a custom of that time.

I am not a man, but I wouldnt have long hair if I was. I cannot make people do what the bible says.

TheCunkOfPhilomena · 14/07/2014 10:50

Viva They were the people that tried to stop Catholics from donating to Children In Need because some of the money was to go to pro choice organisations. They are a such a caring bunch of individuals. Anyone that doubts the danger of religion should read their blog and see just what hatred these people have towards others.

settingsitting · 14/07/2014 10:52

Havent read it all Cunk. Which parts in particular are you objecting to?

God made the rules. It is up to us to follow them.

settingsitting · 14/07/2014 10:54

There cannot be a situation where people are more powerful than God. That wouldnt exactly be right, would it?

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 14/07/2014 10:57

It does all seem to be about rules to you settingsitting.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 14/07/2014 10:59

Anyway, there will be no agreement here. All I wanted to do was to point out to the OP that there are a range of views within Christianity.

TheCunkOfPhilomena · 14/07/2014 11:06

Looking at this objectively setting (I am an atheist so the idea of there being a god at all is all like a fairy tale to me), it would seem that, in this case, God has decided who his representative on earth should be and that is Pope Francis. Pope Francis has decided to appoint a new cardinal whom believes in equality for same sex couples. The catholics on this blog are very much against it as they are extremely homophobic.

I don't understand how they can decide that their opinion holds any weight against the word of their God (via Pope Francis).

Religion baffles me sometimes. Other times it is offensive and boring in equal measures.

The only thing I have any regard for with these people is that they are not cherry picking the bits of the religion that they like and disregarding the rest. I assume they agree with stoning women if they commit adultery, not eating shellfish and all the other things mentioned here.

alemci · 14/07/2014 11:24

remember Jesus talks about let he who is sinless cast the first stone so he was against stoning and defending the woman accused of adultery. Also Peter's dream about being able to eat anything in Acts and this is after Deuteronomy. It is Jewish people who tend to not eat shellfish etc and that makes sense before refrigeration. as a christian I would look to the new testament for answers but I agree you cannot ignore the OT. It is all about God's people trying to reach him and failing without Jesus.

The bible doesn't support sex outside of marriage if you read Romans and I don't think you can ignore that. You could say it is a discipline but that is unfashionable in the 21st century.

As a christian you are meant to put to death things of the flesh and to become more like christ so you should develop more self control.

none of this is easy.

settingsitting · 14/07/2014 11:38

I dont go into catholism.

I have never commented on catholism, but I think I will here.

The bible says that there is no need for an intermediary.
When we pray, we pray direct to God.

alemci · 14/07/2014 11:48

me neither setting.

headinhands · 14/07/2014 13:29

he was against stoning

He didn't say that. (In fact he says he hasn't come to change the law) He said that only someone who hadn't sinned could throw the first stone. He should have said. 'No one is going to throw stones, god hates that, it's really violent and completely unfair. She's allowed to have sex with whatever consenting adult she wishes. No, he just turned it into some navel gazing exercise. And by his own logic Jesus obviously thinks he had the right to throw stones at her for having sex with another consenting adult. If you came across a group of men about to kill a woman you wouldn't say 'you can only kill her if you've never made a mistake in your life'. No, that would be grotesque. And I know it was 2 thousand years ago blah blah blah but how come mine and your morals (and I know they're better than you're leading us to believe) have developed to a level of sophistication and humanity that far far far far FAR outstrips that of the biblical god.

headinhands · 14/07/2014 13:57

Essentially I don't care how sinless/blameless/perfect you are, I don't think ANYONE has the right to throw rocks at someone's head. That's my position. That's superior to Jesus' position. Bit odd isn't it.

edamsavestheday · 14/07/2014 14:12

No, because Jesus knew full well there was and is no-one who is without sin. He was making the point that no-one should throw stones.

alemci · 14/07/2014 14:25

I think jesus had to be diplomatic and getting the crowd to think about their own shortcomings was a sensible approach. violent times.
.They may have lynched him too if he had said what you suggested hand and the woman may have still died

Flip

1 2 ··· 5 6 7 ··· 15 16

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.