Job Description 'Celibacy'...legal?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

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.

QI says if you actually look at the Bible there aren't ten commandments anyway - there between a little more than 10 and 50 or something. (I haven't bothered to check this, btw, but QI researchers don't generally make stuff up.)

Mum2bless- your analogy makes no sense-whether smoking is good for you or not it does not prohibit one from becoming a Bishop and not seen as a sin.
Homosexuality is not mentioned either but it seems to be so much more important to people than keeping the Sabbath holy however-which is mentioned.
If you leave out the old Testament as it was suggested Jesus fulfilled these laws for us by keeping them-he didn't btw, he healed on the Sabbath and allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath-then the only mention of Homosexuality is by Paul and his prohibition can be interpreted as against Temple Prostitutes and married men having sex with other men. It wasn't a big deal and was hardly mentioned. And not by Jesus at all.
And I said you are making God small because you are refusing to acknowledge that the world he created is huge and filled with complex and wonderful people who do not fit your view of how they should behave. Love is amazing and to be embraced. More and more people are agreeing that homosexuality/bisexualism/transvestites is not a mental illness and that people are indeed "born this way". Hermaphroditism/pansexuals/assexuals etc -people are different-and amazing and do not fit into your box. People are damaged by religious zealots (many of whom do not themselves understand the bible) who tell them they are sinful and wrong to feel the way they do. "Gay conversion" programmes do untold damage.
This is a huge topic, I am aware that I will not change your mind. But just know that there are people who are willing to try to change the status quo-just like people were willing to challenge mainstream views on inter racial marriage, slavery, suffrage, domestic violence-all sanctioned by the church at some point. The CofE was born from challenging the Roman Catholic Church!

Not mentioned ... In the 10 commandments

One good thing- by analogy, women could obviously be Bishops now, so long as they promise not to practice womanness.

Ok, so in the Old Testament people were expected to uphold God's law directly. Then God decided that wasn't working and so, instead, sent Jesus to uphold the law for us.

How is that not God changing his mind?

"God does not change His views. "

But the people - because this is ultimately about people - interpreting god have had no trouble in the past updating those views in order to keep step with society. In fact, the CofE has made a speciality of it in the past and was only created in order to provide an alternative to rigid Catholicism. They're missing a golden opportunity to continue the tradition of being the original 'broad church'.

Any branch of religion that insists on upholding views & practices that no-one else agrees with either ends up becoming irrelevant or resorting to extremist or bullying tactics. As I can't see the CofE becoming extreme or bullying it is simply on a road to obsolescence.

Liking the posts upthread a bit by Pawan and pointedly.

Pawan quoting the Bish of Sydney that the church is not full of hypocrites, there's plenty of room for more - anyone can join at anytime

And pointedly that polycotton is all wrong - God was right on that one !

Pawan around 22.52 for your reference, and pointedly follows.

No he did not change his mind. People were always able to be included in god's family my faith alone. Look at David. He broke lots of commandments, but is still described as being a man after God's own heart. The Law simply highlights our sin. Right from the beginning people were called to repent and put their trust in God and His promises.

On another tangent now.....just because the whole world acts one way doesn't make it right. Yes, the church might look irrelevant, but it doesn't make everyone else right.

So if people were always able to be included in God's family by faith alone then you seem to be implying that Jesus' sacrifice was pointless.

Faith and trust in Jesus sacrifice. It wouldn't work without Jesus. The sacrifice was for all sins over all time, so works backwards too.

People in the Old Testament trusted in god's promises to fix the problem of sin....he achieved this through the cross x

Faith and trust in Jesus sacrifice. It wouldn't work without Jesus. The sacrifice was for all sins over all time, so works backwards too.

Thank you for clarifying. So, the people in the Old Testament - David, for example - had faith and trust in Jesus' sacrifice even though that wasn't to happen until quite a long way in their future. But that's ok because Jesus's sacrifice travelled back in time too.

Makes perfect sense. I'm struggling to understand why I find all this so hard to believe.

Snorbs, please read my clarification at 10:28.

mum2bless - just out of curiosity how would you feel if your vicar was homosexual and had a partner, and you did not know whether he was having relations with him? Would you assume he was unGodly because of this?

This is my problem - there are a few gay people who work in the Church and have a romantic relationship, with one person. The Bible says the act is sinful but it is the act that is sinful not the person. So, if a person has romantic feelings for another person, gay or straight this is not in itself a sin.

The Church of England should stop assuming that all gay people are at it like rabbits - which they do, because the literature is very biased towards assuming that all gay people are promiscuous and incapable of having a seriously relationship.

Being a Christian means putting God at the centre of your life (even if they have a romantic partner), and for everyone, this should be accepted without the need for justification.

Lastly, on the issue of sin - it is a private matter between God and the individual. No-one should have to trail through their past private lives to get the job - the only question that should asked is whether they live out their lives in a Godly way now.

Years ago I thought Celibacy and Chastity were two different things. Celibacy meant not being married and Chastity meant complete abstinence from sex.

also Abraham was faithful and lived by God's law. He trusted God and even would have sacrificed his son which does seem pretty harsh. also Joseph (Jesus's son) was a direct descendent of David which is quite interesting.

In the old testament it constantly refers to the coming of christ.

Not really going to start a debate on theology-but don't you think it is possible to accept that people can interpret scripture differently to you? That we are all fallible, inc the original authors of the bible? That while not suggesting you give up your own faith accept that other people can be right and that God is powerful enough to see it out if we believe him to be a just and loving God?

yes definitely Trocodile. None of us understand God and shouldn't claim to.

OOH I will try to defend the christian faith and point out why certain views are being voiced, especially when certain posters tend to ridicule it (not on this thread particularly and then insult people who do hold those views which I have seen alot on Mumsnet)

I think I hold the belief that scripture was inspired by God and is his word. However as I get older I realise life isn't always black and white and there is so much grey. I still maintain that if you do follow christ and walk close to him he will convict you of your 'sinful' behaviour and you will want to give it up.

I am very backslidden myself but I do think there is so much positivity in christ's message and the fact that he was prepared to die for me and all humanity sums it up.

trockodile
I mentioned about smoking because it was mentioned about certain things not being within the 10 commandments. Smoking is not good and is not mentioned.

You can become a bishop and be gay, you can be a Bishop and lie or smoke but does that make it right in the eyes of God. I think not.

I do put sin into categorise, society does.

Yes there was probably temple prostitutes and married men having sex with other men. You mentioned it not being a big deal, then how do you know? It may not have been mentioned but we do not know what took place with those involved.

And I said you are making God small because you are refusing to acknowledge that the world he created is huge and filled with complex and wonderful people who do not fit your view of how they should behave

Excuse me, but that has nothing to do with how I see my God.

I know that the world is filled with complex and wonderful people who do not all see my view and behave the way I do. I am not expecting them all to. I know people have varying views that is their privilegde. We all have a will and can choose what we want to believed in. God Himself will not take that choose away from them. It is also my right to have my own personal view. I am not forcing anyone to see it how I do, I am just viewing my own option. Even if its not yours.

mummyonvalium

mum2bless - just out of curiosity how would you feel if your vicar was homosexual and had a partner, and you did not know whether he was having relations with him? Would you assume he was unGodly because of this?

I would not embrace this as it goes against what I believe to be right. I am being honest. Why am I compromising with what the bible states.

If someone does not see anything wrong with being homosexual then it would not be a problem to them.

I would expect someone who is a christian to be an example to me.

I don't agree with the CofE discriminating against women and gay people, but this latest move did make me chuckle. Given my own experience since getting hitched two years ago, is there anyone in a marriage/civil partnership who ISN'T effectively celibate? (I don't belive it's just me and Mr Crazy who find an early night far more tempting nowadays...)

Getting the thread back on topic I thought this was an interesting story-
m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/06/why-gay-bishops-have-to-lie
Giles Fraser agrees with you BeyondCrazy-that if people made less hoo ha about what goes on in the bedroom that homosexual sex would be considerably more boring and vanilla!
Mum2bless-of course you can have an opinion. I just cannot agree that smoking is in any way comparable to homosexuality. Homosexual love is no more harmful than heterosexual. Conversely hatred,injustice,bullying-which IMO includes telling people that the way they love and who they love is unnatural and wrong-that is harmful to people leading to psychological trauma, suicide and ruined lives.
Interestingly of course 100 years ago, smoking was normal,natural and everyone did it-as we evolve, things change!

mum2bless - how would you know though whether he was celibate or not? Gay or not? He may have made a decision to love someone but not to have relations because he believed wholeheartedly in the scripture, as you do? There are plenty of people who are like this.

I take your point that someone who is Christian should be an example to others, but there are bigger and more important ways of telling if this is the case than whether or not he has feelings towards men.