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 3 4 5 6

News

Job Description 'Celibacy'...legal?

148 replies

CogitoErgoSometimes · 04/01/2013 18:15

Gay Bishops have to keep it in their pants

The sex-obsessed Anglicans can't be serious. In no other walk of life would it be legally OK to insist successful job applicants could be gay but would have to be celibate. Hope someone challenges this.

OP posts:

Report

Anniegetyourgun · 05/01/2013 22:13

That's probably what St Paul was complaining about, then. Not homosexuality per se.

I also suspect that bit about women having to keep quiet in church was said in answer to a complaining letter. Timothy, or whoever it was, wrote about a group of women who used the church as a social meeting point, dressed in their best and having a good natter during the sermon. "You tell those women," St Paul answers, "to be quiet and to behave and dress respectfully in church, they're not at a party". So someone snips this bit out of the scroll and lo, two thousand years later, women can't preach, which is probably not what he meant at all.

Just a completely half-baked theory, you understand, but I rather like it.

ArielThePiraticalMermaid · 05/01/2013 22:14

God surely didn't write the book. People did.

Anniegetyourgun · 05/01/2013 22:14

"That" in my previous post referring, of course, to what MinitheMinx said about the Romans.

MUM2BLESS · 05/01/2013 22:15

You can clearly see that society is changing its views. What was considered wrong ten years ago seems to be the norm today.

God does not change His views.

Sex outside marriage is considered wrong whether woman with man or woman with woman or man with man. Also human with animals.

alemci · 05/01/2013 22:16

The book of Romans was written by Paul to the Romans. Perhaps it was in response to the things you are talking about Minnie. Like your theory Annie.

MiniTheMinx · 05/01/2013 22:21

I like your theory Annie

MUM2BLESS · 05/01/2013 22:22

God surely didn't write the book. People did. Inspired by GOD.

trockodile · 05/01/2013 22:23

Mum2Bless-what about slavery? Women being property of their husband? Children being beaten? Treatment of Prisoners? The Sabbath? Divorce? Genocide-Jericho.
Going back 10 years-we are less likely to accept bullying,domestic violence,child abuse now.
Modern society has so many pluses, the world is a huge place -your view of God seems very small. There is so much we don't understand about the world.

Anniegetyourgun · 05/01/2013 22:25

And don't forget the shellfish.

exexpat · 05/01/2013 22:27

Quite, trockodile - if God wrote (or inspired) everything that was in the old testament, then I have a very low opinion of him and anyone who takes the bible as a literal guide to how we should live our lives in the 21st century.

trockodile · 05/01/2013 22:27

Also, if sex is wrong outside marriage, then why not allow Gay marriage? Paul didn't think much of marriage but said if you have to have sex, better get married!

MiniTheMinx · 05/01/2013 22:37

ooh yes shellfish, don't touch the stuff personally, or pork. I actually like the old testament. God was full of wrath (he had his teeth in) when he wasn't he was given another name. Jews believe that god had two names, he was both ma and pa. I rather like the idea that god isn't just a man.

Does the King James bible include the old testament?

Snorbs · 05/01/2013 22:47

If God doesn't change his views, what was the point of Jesus? Judaism seemed to be just fine with God for quite a while. Then he decided that, actually, rather than all the smiting and mass genocide he carried out in the Old Testament, he'd go all touchy-feely in the New and killed hardly anybody.

"An eye for an eye" turned in to "turn the other cheek". That's quite a change of view.

TiggyD · 05/01/2013 22:47

Isn't it kind of funny how nowadays the 'people' have to teach the church about what is morally right and wrong when it used to be the other way round?

Pawan · 05/01/2013 22:52

I read a quote from Phillip Jensen (Dean of Sydney Cathedral), in response to people saying that "the church is full of hypocrites". He says;

"The church is not full of hypocrites. There is still plenty of room for more. Anybody can join at any time."

pointedlynoresolutions · 05/01/2013 22:53

The King James Bible does include the Old Testament, Mini. read the Book of Job - it's beautiful in the King James. Also utterly depressing, in that it shows God up as a completely amoral being who is happy to gamble with the lives of real people.

I have an enormous problem with the idea that God either wrote or inspired the Bible, and that everything in it is his will - it assumes that literally everything that has changed since He allegedly wrote the book does not meet with his approval - the abolition of slavery, modern medicine, women's suffrage, the drive for universal literacy and education, all those little things that us fallible human beings feel are a good idea.

I don't believe in God, but if I did, I would expect him to do what any good creator and author of non-fictional and instructive texts does, and write updates editions which incorporates those changes to society/technology/philosophy which make sense in the context of common sense.

The alternative is to believe that God does not care enough to update his word, and that he has no common sense.

Lastly, to the poster who mentioned poly cotton - I don't approve of poly cotton. It's a sweaty waste of time. God was right on that one.

alemci · 05/01/2013 22:56

if you read acts Peter has a dream where all kinds of foods appear to him hence no problem with pork and shellfish. with no refrigeration and a hot climate in a desert, it probably made sense not to eat them. Jesus came to fulfill the old testament.

What morals do you mean Tiggy. I think morals tend to be subjective in 2013 GB.

an eye for an eye was about justice and making the punishment fit the crime. I do agree God seemed very harsh in the old testament.

also I think if people have a heart for jesus and want to follow him, things fall into place and serving him becomes more important than things of the flesh i.e. sex. we live in a fallen world.

MiniTheMinx · 05/01/2013 22:56

Quite right snorbs. I have always found that strange. My opinion has always been (and it's just an opinion) that the Quran is probably the third instalment, if God has spoken. Which is perhaps the whole basis of my distrust towards those who follow the second instalment. Neither the Jews or the muslims lay claim to having the son of god batting for their team.

MUM2BLESS · 05/01/2013 23:07

trockodile slavery is a topic in itself. Some people in society see woman has second class. Woman are so precious, we bring new life into this world (babies). No child should be abused (slightly different to be disciplined, some mix up the two), the list is endless.

Some things that took place 10 years ago is much better now. I am talking about things that that bible states AS NOT BEING RIGHT

I challenge your comment on my view on God being small. what do you mean? Excuse me but I consider God to be of utmost important.

Please remember that God has given us all a free will. You can choose to be a christian or not. Why when something goes wrong do we blame God of turn to Him Why do we not turn to Him when things are good. I am aware that I am moving away from the topic being discussed.

Sex outside of marriage is wrong and also same sex whether married or singe is also wrong. Its the act that is being carried out between two people of the same sex. It is not natural. Lying, stealing, murder, being drunk etc etc is ALSO WRONG. Some would argue with me but these things are in the Bible I believe in. You have you free will to believe or not.

If you do things Gods way you will know in the long run its the best way.

mrsbaffled · 05/01/2013 23:07

Jesus came to fulfil the Law, not to do away with it. He kept the Laws in the Old Testament (including Leviticus) so we don't have to.

If we try to live by the Law and work our way into God's favour, we WILL fall short and fail. This is the point of the Old Testament. It is full of accounts of people failing to live up to God's standards. It is there to teach us that we fail to live properly and demonstrates we are in a hopeless position before God and cannot be in relationship with him.

The New Testament does NOT contradict the Old. It shows how God stepped in and fixed our problem of falling short, by coming Himself (in the person of Jesus) to live the perfect live and bridging the gap between us and Him. Our status before God does NOT depend on us keeping the Law. We are made right with God only by trusting in Jesus (who has kep the Law for us).

If we try to keep all the Laws of Leviticus we are rejecting Jesus' work on the cross and we will fail. That is why Christians are no longer bound by the Laws of the Old Testament.

However, we are called to live in a righteous (not a legalistic) way, following Jesus' example and the teachings in the Bible (read through New Testament eyes).

Anniegetyourgun · 05/01/2013 23:08

My dad was an atheist, and something of a utilitarian. He used to say that the rules in the Bible are nothing to do with gods, but a sound set of instructions for a nomadic tribe in a hot climate on how to keep healthy. The priests didn't know why you got sick after eg eating undressed pork, they didn't know about bacteria or hookworm, so they told people God was smiting them. Likewise the Ten Commandments are a great set of basic rules to run a society. (Don't notice Thou Shalt Not Commit Homosexuality in there btw. Clearly it wasn't important enough to warrant its own tablet.)

To be fair, my dad was somewhat homophobic as well, not to mention sexist, but he was at least partly a product of his era (1922 model). I think if he were alive today he'd probably have had a rethink by now. Or I'd have given him an earful until he submitted.

MUM2BLESS · 05/01/2013 23:16

Don't notice Thou Shalt Not Commit Homosexuality in there btw. Clearly it wasn't important enough to warrant its own tablet.

If everything that is not right was on the tablet it would have been very large. For example smoking can kill you but its not in the Bible. If you want to look after your body its better if you do not smoke. Somethings you do with your body will give you an earlier exist from this life. Over eating and not eating enough will too.

I do not hate people who are homosexual; I do not agree with the act that they carry out.

Anniegetyourgun · 05/01/2013 23:19

Well don't do it then.

MiniTheMinx · 05/01/2013 23:39

It doesn't explicitly say do not smoke but I seem to think there is a law in the old testament about respecting your body and keeping it healthy. Something along the lines that your body is a gift from god. It should be covered somewhere in the 613 Mitzvot www.jewfaq.org/613.htm it will be in that list somewhere!

Peacocklady · 05/01/2013 23:42

1 Timothy 1:5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

To me that says that it's not about following laws and commandments, but acting with love in everything. 'Vain jangling' is getting caught up in whether things are 'wrong' according to law, like homosexuality. Where is love there? It is because of this nonsense that I wouldn't call myself a Christian anymore, but it means I don't know where to go!

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Please create an account

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