Wycombe MP expects to vote against gay marriage proposal

Steve Baker

Steve Baker

First published in News Bucks Free Press: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

WYCOMBE MP Steve Baker said he expects to vote against the Government's gay marriage proposal, but said he believes as a Christian the church needs to address the issue in today's society.

This month the government announced its gay marriage plans and said the Church of England and Church in Wales would be banned in law from holding same-sex marriage.

Whilst other religious groups can 'opt in' and the plans would be due to be introduced before the next election.

The government said The Church of England and The Church in Wales expressed strong opposition to the plans.

Steve Baker, MP for Wycombe, said he is expecting to vote against the proposal and he believes the government should reduce legislation rather than increase it.

He said: "Firstly it is a mess. This is the wrong way of improving tolerance in society."

And secondly, he said, it will infringe on people's freedom of speech, conscience and religion.

Mr Baker said it should be a matter for the church to decide, adding: "I do not think anybody should be forced to approve of a gay marriage, I don't think anyone should be forced to conduct one or be forced to have one in their church."

But he said he has been disappointed by the views of some.

Mr Baker, who is a Christian, said: "Some of what's been said by fellow Christians seems quite heartbreaking. Many Christians seem determined to jump with both feet on the land mine with this. Our religion is one of universal acceptance and love and we as a church, apart from politics, need to work out what our response is to homosexuality in the 21st century.

"In the meantime there must be genuine tolerance- that tolerance begins with irreconcilable differences of opinion and it should end with a refusal to use the law to enforce one particular point of view. I want to live in a genuinely tolerant society where people can go their own way who are not doing anybody any harm."

He noted that there was a difference in attitude between members of the older generation - who were more likely to be against gay marriage - and younger people, who were more likely to accept it.

He said as civil partnerships have just been introduced it would have been better to leave the marriage issue for another 10 years when culturally, he believes, peoplewould have been more willing to support it.

Mr Baker said: "We seem to have begun to accept the liberal elite enforcing their views on everyone else. That is not tolerant. That is intolerant."

He added: "The law has to leave plenty of space for a private sphere where people can lead their life as they see fit as long as they do no harm. Marriage is part of that private sphere."

Reverend Peter Simpson, of Penn Free Methodist Church, who is openly against gay marriage wrote to the Free Press this week expressing his opposition.

He said: "By promoting same sex marriage all three main parties are rejecting the Bible’s teaching that homosexuality is sinful. By what authority do they claim to be wiser than God? They have no foundation for their position other than the currently prevailing winds."

A bill is expected at the end of January, when MPs will then vote.

Comments (94)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:04am Fri 21 Dec 12

craig239 says...

The world might end today because we have gone nuts!. I say they should be allowed to marry as long as one partner changes their name to a female name and that person has to always wear women's clothing! The Lunatics have turned our beautiful country into an asylum
The world might end today because we have gone nuts!. I say they should be allowed to marry as long as one partner changes their name to a female name and that person has to always wear women's clothing! The Lunatics have turned our beautiful country into an asylum craig239
  • Score: 0

8:36am Fri 21 Dec 12

demoness the second says...

I thought the world might end cos it is the end of the Mayan calendar?
I thought the world might end cos it is the end of the Mayan calendar? demoness the second
  • Score: 0

8:47am Fri 21 Dec 12

craig239 says...

No the guy making the calender ran out of materials when he got to Dec21st. Without thinking he would worry a future generation. Those Mayans can be so selfish!
No the guy making the calender ran out of materials when he got to Dec21st. Without thinking he would worry a future generation. Those Mayans can be so selfish! craig239
  • Score: 0

8:59am Fri 21 Dec 12

yog says...

Baker speaking garbage as usual.

Where in the bill does it force churches to carry out a same sex marriage?
Baker speaking garbage as usual. Where in the bill does it force churches to carry out a same sex marriage? yog
  • Score: 0

9:03am Fri 21 Dec 12

A VOTER says...

What harm does it do if two people, regardless of gender, want to be together in a marriage?

I think it does more harm if a government stands in the way of any such union of two people.

I'm heterosexual, but I wouldn't want to inhibit anyone from being with the person they want to be with, and wish to make that union a recognised and legal union.
What harm does it do if two people, regardless of gender, want to be together in a marriage? I think it does more harm if a government stands in the way of any such union of two people. I'm heterosexual, but I wouldn't want to inhibit anyone from being with the person they want to be with, and wish to make that union a recognised and legal union. A VOTER
  • Score: 0

9:18am Fri 21 Dec 12

geoffW says...

Will the same apply to Citadels, Chapels, Synagogues and Mosques?
Will the same apply to Citadels, Chapels, Synagogues and Mosques? geoffW
  • Score: 0

10:07am Fri 21 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

Surely this is discrimination and illegal in the UK?
Surely this is discrimination and illegal in the UK? Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

10:55am Fri 21 Dec 12

BOOKERite says...

A VOTER wrote:
What harm does it do if two people, regardless of gender, want to be together in a marriage?

I think it does more harm if a government stands in the way of any such union of two people.

I'm heterosexual, but I wouldn't want to inhibit anyone from being with the person they want to be with, and wish to make that union a recognised and legal union.
Well said A VOTER I agree.
[quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: What harm does it do if two people, regardless of gender, want to be together in a marriage? I think it does more harm if a government stands in the way of any such union of two people. I'm heterosexual, but I wouldn't want to inhibit anyone from being with the person they want to be with, and wish to make that union a recognised and legal union.[/p][/quote]Well said A VOTER I agree. BOOKERite
  • Score: 0

11:37am Fri 21 Dec 12

Bill Taxpayer says...

"Our religion is one of universal acceptance...."

Hilarious!
"Our religion is one of universal acceptance...." Hilarious! Bill Taxpayer
  • Score: 0

11:37am Fri 21 Dec 12

craig239 says...

This matter is the business of the Church not the state unless you want the Government to re write the Bible.
This matter is the business of the Church not the state unless you want the Government to re write the Bible. craig239
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Fri 21 Dec 12

sai-diva says...

About time we grew up and separated the state from outdated superstitions.
Craig, the government did re write the bible, with the help of King James.
About time we grew up and separated the state from outdated superstitions. Craig, the government did re write the bible, with the help of King James. sai-diva
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Fri 21 Dec 12

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

sai-diva wrote:
About time we grew up and separated the state from outdated superstitions.
Craig, the government did re write the bible, with the help of King James.
It was translated by a committee - not bad writing considering. (Kipling uses a lot of biblical-sounding or biblically-indebted phrases.)
[quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: About time we grew up and separated the state from outdated superstitions. Craig, the government did re write the bible, with the help of King James.[/p][/quote]It was translated by a committee - not bad writing considering. (Kipling uses a lot of biblical-sounding or biblically-indebted phrases.) ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Fri 21 Dec 12

demoness the second says...

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
About time we grew up and separated the state from outdated superstitions.
Craig, the government did re write the bible, with the help of King James.
It was translated by a committee - not bad writing considering. (Kipling uses a lot of biblical-sounding or biblically-indebted phrases.)
He also makes exceedingly good cakes - a man of many talents.. ;)
[quote][p][bold]ImpeturbableLawrence[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: About time we grew up and separated the state from outdated superstitions. Craig, the government did re write the bible, with the help of King James.[/p][/quote]It was translated by a committee - not bad writing considering. (Kipling uses a lot of biblical-sounding or biblically-indebted phrases.)[/p][/quote]He also makes exceedingly good cakes - a man of many talents.. ;) demoness the second
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Fri 21 Dec 12

J B Blackett says...

We should keep all religion out of marriage, imo. What's some divisive cult or other got to do with it ?
.
So why have it incorporated into some kind of religious ceremony anyway. There are still lots of human some proclivities / variations excluded anyway by all religions . Either legally , socially or by default
.
Marriage can be all a bit of a struggle anyway , without causing more stress.
by exacerbating things by apparently obliging participants to add some form of ethereal religious ritual to the wedding event.
.
If you want a religion , invent your own with your own rules and don't just do what your parents for cultural / historic / inertial reasons.
.
If there is a God , do you think He/She cares what religion you and your partner(s) belong to when you are socially / spiritually / materially / physically and emotionally amalgamated ?
.
If God does actually care which religion or cult you belong to if/when you get married in an institution (or not) - there is going to be an awful lot of very disappointed people when they eventually pass over into the next life.
.
He/She could , in that case , be very very angry with you - and you will be really really for it and be accordingly punished - and for all eternity - Allegedly.
We should keep all religion out of marriage, imo. What's some divisive cult or other got to do with it ? . So why have it incorporated into some kind of religious ceremony anyway. There are still lots of human some proclivities / variations excluded anyway by all religions . Either legally , socially or by default . Marriage can be all a bit of a struggle anyway , without causing more stress. by exacerbating things by apparently obliging participants to add some form of ethereal religious ritual to the wedding event. . If you want a religion , invent your own with your own rules and don't just do what your parents for cultural / historic / inertial reasons. . If there is a God , do you think He/She cares what religion you and your partner(s) belong to when you are socially / spiritually / materially / physically and emotionally amalgamated ? . If God does actually care which religion or cult you belong to if/when you get married in an institution (or not) - there is going to be an awful lot of very disappointed people when they eventually pass over into the next life. . He/She could , in that case , be very very angry with you - and you will be really really for it and be accordingly punished - and for all eternity - Allegedly. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Fri 21 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

J B Blackett is absolutely right. In fact I'd go further and say we should keep religion out of everything. If people want to worship a non-existent effigy and follow the teachings of a piece of fiction their ability to get involved in the running of the country has to be questionable.

I have been running a business since 1987 and the only problems and bad debts I've encountered are directly attributable to clients who call themselves Christians.

This world would be a better place without ANY religion.

I pray at the Church of Google because everything it stands for can be proven!
J B Blackett is absolutely right. In fact I'd go further and say we should keep religion out of everything. If people want to worship a non-existent effigy and follow the teachings of a piece of fiction their ability to get involved in the running of the country has to be questionable. I have been running a business since 1987 and the only problems and bad debts I've encountered are directly attributable to clients who call themselves Christians. This world would be a better place without ANY religion. I pray at the Church of Google because everything it stands for can be proven! Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

10:04pm Fri 21 Dec 12

Peter Cyprus says...

Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?
Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church? Peter Cyprus
  • Score: 0

10:12pm Fri 21 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

For the same reason as agnostic and atheist heterosexuals get married in church - it's the norm, the expected thing to do, peer pressure.

Why shouldn't they?
For the same reason as agnostic and atheist heterosexuals get married in church - it's the norm, the expected thing to do, peer pressure. Why shouldn't they? Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

10:20pm Fri 21 Dec 12

Peter Cyprus says...

Mike Henson wrote:
For the same reason as agnostic and atheist heterosexuals get married in church - it's the norm, the expected thing to do, peer pressure.

Why shouldn't they?
Homosexuals currently have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals and can currently get married in church. All they need to do is marry someone of the opposite gender as is the norm!
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: For the same reason as agnostic and atheist heterosexuals get married in church - it's the norm, the expected thing to do, peer pressure. Why shouldn't they?[/p][/quote]Homosexuals currently have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals and can currently get married in church. All they need to do is marry someone of the opposite gender as is the norm! Peter Cyprus
  • Score: 0

10:34pm Fri 21 Dec 12

Peter Cyprus says...

No one has yet said why homosexuals want to get married in church, apart from its the norm, which homosexuality is not.
No one has yet said why homosexuals want to get married in church, apart from its the norm, which homosexuality is not. Peter Cyprus
  • Score: 0

10:41pm Fri 21 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

Nobody has given a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married in church.

We are all human beings and are entitled to be treated in the same way to act otherwise is to discriminate which is an offence in the UK
Nobody has given a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married in church. We are all human beings and are entitled to be treated in the same way to act otherwise is to discriminate which is an offence in the UK Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

10:58pm Fri 21 Dec 12

Peter Cyprus says...

Mike Henson wrote:
Nobody has given a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married in church.

We are all human beings and are entitled to be treated in the same way to act otherwise is to discriminate which is an offence in the UK
As I have already said, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals as far as marriage is concerned.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: Nobody has given a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married in church. We are all human beings and are entitled to be treated in the same way to act otherwise is to discriminate which is an offence in the UK[/p][/quote]As I have already said, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals as far as marriage is concerned. Peter Cyprus
  • Score: 0

12:12am Sat 22 Dec 12

tom.marlow2 says...

Peter Cyprus wrote:
Mike Henson wrote:
Nobody has given a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married in church.

We are all human beings and are entitled to be treated in the same way to act otherwise is to discriminate which is an offence in the UK
As I have already said, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals as far as marriage is concerned.
To marry the person they love?
[quote][p][bold]Peter Cyprus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: Nobody has given a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married in church. We are all human beings and are entitled to be treated in the same way to act otherwise is to discriminate which is an offence in the UK[/p][/quote]As I have already said, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals as far as marriage is concerned.[/p][/quote]To marry the person they love? tom.marlow2
  • Score: 0

12:36am Sat 22 Dec 12

demoness the second says...

I can't understand why anyone would want to get married in church - a ceremony full of fakery and pomposity.
Much prefer a civil ceremony which actually means something.
I can't understand why anyone would want to get married in church - a ceremony full of fakery and pomposity. Much prefer a civil ceremony which actually means something. demoness the second
  • Score: 0

6:16am Sat 22 Dec 12

craig239 says...

"I can't understand why anyone would want to get married in church - a ceremony full of fakery and pomposity.
Much prefer a civil ceremony which actually means something"


Your lack of understanding is not a great surprise based on your polarised view
"I can't understand why anyone would want to get married in church - a ceremony full of fakery and pomposity. Much prefer a civil ceremony which actually means something" Your lack of understanding is not a great surprise based on your polarised view craig239
  • Score: 0

9:28am Sat 22 Dec 12

bluebanana says...

MP's represent their constituents. So shouldn't he gather the views of his constituents & vote accordingly - not on his own personal opinion?! The fact that he is a christian should be irrelevent.
MP's represent their constituents. So shouldn't he gather the views of his constituents & vote accordingly - not on his own personal opinion?! The fact that he is a christian should be irrelevent. bluebanana
  • Score: 0

9:29am Sat 22 Dec 12

esilvester says...

When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies. esilvester
  • Score: 0

10:09am Sat 22 Dec 12

The Erastus Piggott Poem says...

It says in the Erastus Piggott poem.. 'Adam and Eve' not; 'Adam and Steve' ........just leave things as they... it's just not right..... disgusting actually to even think of it....
It says in the Erastus Piggott poem.. 'Adam and Eve' not; 'Adam and Steve' ........just leave things as they... it's just not right..... disgusting actually to even think of it.... The Erastus Piggott Poem
  • Score: 0

10:37am Sat 22 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

Mike Henson wrote:
J B Blackett is absolutely right. In fact I'd go further and say we should keep religion out of everything. If people want to worship a non-existent effigy and follow the teachings of a piece of fiction their ability to get involved in the running of the country has to be questionable. I have been running a business since 1987 and the only problems and bad debts I've encountered are directly attributable to clients who call themselves Christians. This world would be a better place without ANY religion. I pray at the Church of Google because everything it stands for can be proven!
Typical of the claptrap spouted by haters of the Church; in the same way that Christians cannot prove the existence of God, but wish to believe, by the same token you cannot prove that he doesn't exist, but wish to believe, and (worse) wish to force that belief onto others.
I find your assertion that only Christians are bad debtors patently ludicrous; quite frankly, if a business asked for my religion before accepting my custom, I'd walk straight out, and never return. I've had messages from Nigerians, claiming to be Christians, and promising me loads of money, if I'll just let them have my bank details; strangely enough I don't believe them, and, if you want to continue to be a success in business, I'd advise against believing everything you're told.
This world would actually be a better place if those, who profess to believe in their particular god, were to obey the teachings of that deity, instead of twisting the philosophies to suit themselves, and stop behaving in the conceited, self-serving, selfish ways of so many so-called humans.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: J B Blackett is absolutely right. In fact I'd go further and say we should keep religion out of everything. If people want to worship a non-existent effigy and follow the teachings of a piece of fiction their ability to get involved in the running of the country has to be questionable. I have been running a business since 1987 and the only problems and bad debts I've encountered are directly attributable to clients who call themselves Christians. This world would be a better place without ANY religion. I pray at the Church of Google because everything it stands for can be proven![/p][/quote]Typical of the claptrap spouted by haters of the Church; in the same way that Christians cannot prove the existence of God, but wish to believe, by the same token you cannot prove that he doesn't exist, but wish to believe, and (worse) wish to force that belief onto others. I find your assertion that only Christians are bad debtors patently ludicrous; quite frankly, if a business asked for my religion before accepting my custom, I'd walk straight out, and never return. I've had messages from Nigerians, claiming to be Christians, and promising me loads of money, if I'll just let them have my bank details; strangely enough I don't believe them, and, if you want to continue to be a success in business, I'd advise against believing everything you're told. This world would actually be a better place if those, who profess to believe in their particular god, were to obey the teachings of that deity, instead of twisting the philosophies to suit themselves, and stop behaving in the conceited, self-serving, selfish ways of so many so-called humans. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

10:39am Sat 22 Dec 12

downleylocal says...

A VOTER wrote:
What harm does it do if two people, regardless of gender, want to be together in a marriage?

I think it does more harm if a government stands in the way of any such union of two people.

I'm heterosexual, but I wouldn't want to inhibit anyone from being with the person they want to be with, and wish to make that union a recognised and legal union.
Absolutely right.It's discrimination to prevent a gay couple from getting married and so that should be changed. At the moment the Govt are letting the churches wriggle off the hook because they have discriminatory "beliefs".
If Steve Baker votes against this he will be an another anti-gay bigot, that's all.
[quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: What harm does it do if two people, regardless of gender, want to be together in a marriage? I think it does more harm if a government stands in the way of any such union of two people. I'm heterosexual, but I wouldn't want to inhibit anyone from being with the person they want to be with, and wish to make that union a recognised and legal union.[/p][/quote]Absolutely right.It's discrimination to prevent a gay couple from getting married and so that should be changed. At the moment the Govt are letting the churches wriggle off the hook because they have discriminatory "beliefs". If Steve Baker votes against this he will be an another anti-gay bigot, that's all. downleylocal
  • Score: 0

10:40am Sat 22 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

bluebanana wrote:
MP's represent their constituents. So shouldn't he gather the views of his constituents & vote accordingly - not on his own personal opinion?! The fact that he is a christian should be irrelevent.
And if the majority of those constituents are opposed to homosexuality, you'd be prepared to accept that? Not a chance, and you know it.
[quote][p][bold]bluebanana[/bold] wrote: MP's represent their constituents. So shouldn't he gather the views of his constituents & vote accordingly - not on his own personal opinion?! The fact that he is a christian should be irrelevent.[/p][/quote]And if the majority of those constituents are opposed to homosexuality, you'd be prepared to accept that? Not a chance, and you know it. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

11:12am Sat 22 Dec 12

Peter Cyprus says...

Edgar Brooks wrote:
bluebanana wrote:
MP's represent their constituents. So shouldn't he gather the views of his constituents & vote accordingly - not on his own personal opinion?! The fact that he is a christian should be irrelevent.
And if the majority of those constituents are opposed to homosexuality, you'd be prepared to accept that? Not a chance, and you know it.
Well said Edgar there's more chance of pigs flying!
[quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluebanana[/bold] wrote: MP's represent their constituents. So shouldn't he gather the views of his constituents & vote accordingly - not on his own personal opinion?! The fact that he is a christian should be irrelevent.[/p][/quote]And if the majority of those constituents are opposed to homosexuality, you'd be prepared to accept that? Not a chance, and you know it.[/p][/quote]Well said Edgar there's more chance of pigs flying! Peter Cyprus
  • Score: 0

11:21am Sat 22 Dec 12

demoness the second says...

craig239 wrote:
"I can't understand why anyone would want to get married in church - a ceremony full of fakery and pomposity.
Much prefer a civil ceremony which actually means something"


Your lack of understanding is not a great surprise based on your polarised view
You know nothing about me Craig.
I was born and raised very High Church so actually I do have quite a bit of knowledge of the workings of the C of E.

It is not God who created divisions but man and man's interpretation of the word of God.
Which is why I completely reject organised religion. Made and created by man - no thanks.
[quote][p][bold]craig239[/bold] wrote: "I can't understand why anyone would want to get married in church - a ceremony full of fakery and pomposity. Much prefer a civil ceremony which actually means something" Your lack of understanding is not a great surprise based on your polarised view[/p][/quote]You know nothing about me Craig. I was born and raised very High Church so actually I do have quite a bit of knowledge of the workings of the C of E. It is not God who created divisions but man and man's interpretation of the word of God. Which is why I completely reject organised religion. Made and created by man - no thanks. demoness the second
  • Score: 0

11:25am Sat 22 Dec 12

sai-diva says...

Peter Cyprus wrote:
Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?
Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.
[quote][p][bold]Peter Cyprus[/bold] wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?[/p][/quote]Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay. sai-diva
  • Score: 0

11:29am Sat 22 Dec 12

sai-diva says...

The Erastus Piggott Poem wrote:
It says in the Erastus Piggott poem.. 'Adam and Eve' not; 'Adam and Steve' ........just leave things as they... it's just not right..... disgusting actually to even think of it....
Don't think about it then. We can't legislate because of your inability to control your thoughts.
[quote][p][bold]The Erastus Piggott Poem[/bold] wrote: It says in the Erastus Piggott poem.. 'Adam and Eve' not; 'Adam and Steve' ........just leave things as they... it's just not right..... disgusting actually to even think of it....[/p][/quote]Don't think about it then. We can't legislate because of your inability to control your thoughts. sai-diva
  • Score: 0

11:33am Sat 22 Dec 12

sai-diva says...

Why do the bfp only ever ask Rev Pete his opinion on this matter? It's like asking Nick griffin his opinion on immigration, you're bound to get an intelligent and reasoned response, lol.

Why not ask some of the other church leaders, maybe the one that heads the huge church in the centre of town, rather than the leader of a small 'sect'?
Why do the bfp only ever ask Rev Pete his opinion on this matter? It's like asking Nick griffin his opinion on immigration, you're bound to get an intelligent and reasoned response, lol. Why not ask some of the other church leaders, maybe the one that heads the huge church in the centre of town, rather than the leader of a small 'sect'? sai-diva
  • Score: 0

11:45am Sat 22 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

sai-diva wrote:
Peter Cyprus wrote:
Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?
Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.
Quite right sai-diva.

That was the point I was trying to make earlier.
[quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter Cyprus[/bold] wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?[/p][/quote]Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.[/p][/quote]Quite right sai-diva. That was the point I was trying to make earlier. Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

11:45am Sat 22 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

esilvester wrote:
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.
We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too.
If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false?
The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart.
As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.
[quote][p][bold]esilvester[/bold] wrote: When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.[/p][/quote]We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too. If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false? The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart. As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

11:50am Sat 22 Dec 12

Peter Cyprus says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Peter Cyprus wrote:
Mike Henson wrote:
Nobody has given a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married in church.

We are all human beings and are entitled to be treated in the same way to act otherwise is to discriminate which is an offence in the UK
As I have already said, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals as far as marriage is concerned.
To marry the person they love?
I love my brother, but I don't need or have any desire to marry him!
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter Cyprus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: Nobody has given a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married in church. We are all human beings and are entitled to be treated in the same way to act otherwise is to discriminate which is an offence in the UK[/p][/quote]As I have already said, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals as far as marriage is concerned.[/p][/quote]To marry the person they love?[/p][/quote]I love my brother, but I don't need or have any desire to marry him! Peter Cyprus
  • Score: 0

11:51am Sat 22 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

sai-diva wrote:
Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?
Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.
Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.
[quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter Cyprus[/bold] wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?[/p][/quote]Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.[/p][/quote]Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

11:52am Sat 22 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed!

82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.
It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians. Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Sat 22 Dec 12

J B Blackett says...

Mike Henson wrote:
It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed!

82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.
Strangely , being of a rather reserved nature , I think I could be persuaded to convert (perhaps only for a temporary period) to one of these primitive archaic historically brutal vengeful blood-soaked dogmatic book-based cults.
.
But only if threatened with excruciating public torture, mutilation and some sort of nasty humiliating and painful death followed by even further mutilation. The historic way of persuading hapless helpless non-believing naive folk to 'believe'.
.
You know it worked that way in the past and so it still works like that today. That goes for all cults - whether you're gay or not.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.[/p][/quote]Strangely , being of a rather reserved nature , I think I could be persuaded to convert (perhaps only for a temporary period) to one of these primitive archaic historically brutal vengeful blood-soaked dogmatic book-based cults. . But only if threatened with excruciating public torture, mutilation and some sort of nasty humiliating and painful death followed by even further mutilation. The historic way of persuading hapless helpless non-believing naive folk to 'believe'. . You know it worked that way in the past and so it still works like that today. That goes for all cults - whether you're gay or not. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Francis Harris says...

As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'? Francis Harris
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Sat 22 Dec 12

sai-diva says...

Edgar Brooks wrote:
esilvester wrote:
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.
We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too.
If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false?
The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart.
As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.
Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks.

I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people.
So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality.
I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there?
Or alternatively, those who shout loudest.......
I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?
[quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]esilvester[/bold] wrote: When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.[/p][/quote]We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too. If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false? The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart. As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.[/p][/quote]Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks. I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people. So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality. I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there? Or alternatively, those who shout loudest....... I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well? sai-diva
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Sat 22 Dec 12

sai-diva says...

Edgar Brooks wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?
Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.
Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.
Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''
[quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter Cyprus[/bold] wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?[/p][/quote]Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.[/p][/quote]Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.[/p][/quote]Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do'' sai-diva
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Sat 22 Dec 12

sai-diva says...

Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?
''Til Death do us part''?
[quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?[/p][/quote]''Til Death do us part''? sai-diva
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

I've just discovered this on the CofE website which is rather disturbing.


By Archbishop Rowan Williams

Christian life is lived in relationship with God through Jesus Christ and, in common with other Christians, seeking to deepen that relationship and to follow the way that Jesus taught.

Central to that relationship is knowing we can trust God. Saint Paul says at the end of the eighth chapter of his letter to the Church in Rome, 'if God is for us, who can be against us?' And this is the heart of faith.

How do we know that 'God is for us'? Because Jesus Christ, the one human being who is completely in tune with God - with what God wants and what God is doing - has carried the burden of our human betrayals of God and running away from goodness. He has let himself be betrayed and rejected, executed in a humiliating and agonising way, and yet has not turned his back on us. Death did not succeed in silencing him or removing him from the world. He is alive; and that means that his love is alive, having survived the worst we can do.
Ends

So, can someone tell me how you can have a relationship with a "human being", born out of a virgin; which seems to suggest he might be of alien parentage and is dead - if you can't see him and touch him he must be dead.
I've just discovered this on the CofE website which is rather disturbing. By Archbishop Rowan Williams Christian life is lived in relationship with God through Jesus Christ and, in common with other Christians, seeking to deepen that relationship and to follow the way that Jesus taught. Central to that relationship is knowing we can trust God. Saint Paul says at the end of the eighth chapter of his letter to the Church in Rome, 'if God is for us, who can be against us?' And this is the heart of faith. How do we know that 'God is for us'? Because Jesus Christ, the one human being who is completely in tune with God - with what God wants and what God is doing - has carried the burden of our human betrayals of God and running away from goodness. He has let himself be betrayed and rejected, executed in a humiliating and agonising way, and yet has not turned his back on us. Death did not succeed in silencing him or removing him from the world. He is alive; and that means that his love is alive, having survived the worst we can do. Ends So, can someone tell me how you can have a relationship with a "human being", born out of a virgin; which seems to suggest he might be of alien parentage and is dead - if you can't see him and touch him he must be dead. Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Sat 22 Dec 12

J B Blackett says...

sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
esilvester wrote:
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.
We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too.
If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false?
The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart.
As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.
Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks.

I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people.
So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality.
I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there?
Or alternatively, those who shout loudest.......
I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?
How could you say such a thing . Please wash your mouth out.
[quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]esilvester[/bold] wrote: When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.[/p][/quote]We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too. If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false? The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart. As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.[/p][/quote]Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks. I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people. So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality. I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there? Or alternatively, those who shout loudest....... I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?[/p][/quote]How could you say such a thing . Please wash your mouth out. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?
Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.
Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.
Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''
Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing.
And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.
[quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter Cyprus[/bold] wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?[/p][/quote]Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.[/p][/quote]Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.[/p][/quote]Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''[/p][/quote]Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing. And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

Mike Henson wrote:
I've just discovered this on the CofE website which is rather disturbing. By Archbishop Rowan Williams Christian life is lived in relationship with God through Jesus Christ and, in common with other Christians, seeking to deepen that relationship and to follow the way that Jesus taught. Central to that relationship is knowing we can trust God. Saint Paul says at the end of the eighth chapter of his letter to the Church in Rome, 'if God is for us, who can be against us?' And this is the heart of faith. How do we know that 'God is for us'? Because Jesus Christ, the one human being who is completely in tune with God - with what God wants and what God is doing - has carried the burden of our human betrayals of God and running away from goodness. He has let himself be betrayed and rejected, executed in a humiliating and agonising way, and yet has not turned his back on us. Death did not succeed in silencing him or removing him from the world. He is alive; and that means that his love is alive, having survived the worst we can do. Ends So, can someone tell me how you can have a relationship with a "human being", born out of a virgin; which seems to suggest he might be of alien parentage and is dead - if you can't see him and touch him he must be dead.
For an allegedly well-educted businessman, your knowledge is woefully short in some areas; though some (one in particular) churches harp on this "virgin" business, it's known that the original word applied, also, to a woman who had "known" only her husband.
Doesn't make the miracle any less for those believers, but it does rather cut the ground from the hysterical cynics.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: I've just discovered this on the CofE website which is rather disturbing. By Archbishop Rowan Williams Christian life is lived in relationship with God through Jesus Christ and, in common with other Christians, seeking to deepen that relationship and to follow the way that Jesus taught. Central to that relationship is knowing we can trust God. Saint Paul says at the end of the eighth chapter of his letter to the Church in Rome, 'if God is for us, who can be against us?' And this is the heart of faith. How do we know that 'God is for us'? Because Jesus Christ, the one human being who is completely in tune with God - with what God wants and what God is doing - has carried the burden of our human betrayals of God and running away from goodness. He has let himself be betrayed and rejected, executed in a humiliating and agonising way, and yet has not turned his back on us. Death did not succeed in silencing him or removing him from the world. He is alive; and that means that his love is alive, having survived the worst we can do. Ends So, can someone tell me how you can have a relationship with a "human being", born out of a virgin; which seems to suggest he might be of alien parentage and is dead - if you can't see him and touch him he must be dead.[/p][/quote]For an allegedly well-educted businessman, your knowledge is woefully short in some areas; though some (one in particular) churches harp on this "virgin" business, it's known that the original word applied, also, to a woman who had "known" only her husband. Doesn't make the miracle any less for those believers, but it does rather cut the ground from the hysterical cynics. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
esilvester wrote: When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.
We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too. If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false? The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart. As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.
Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks. I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people. So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality. I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there? Or alternatively, those who shout loudest....... I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?
And there you go again, twisting words to suit yourself; where have I advocated legislation against homosexuals? If they wish to "marry" in a register office, and the State has no objection, then they can go ahead, as far as I'm concerned, but I don't expect the Church to throw away years of traditional beliefs, just to suit an increasingly vocal minority.
And, of course, you have to throw in the usual petty, childish insults about me and my friends; water off a duck's back, my friend. As for those who shout loudest, I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian."
Try to remember, too, that the Christian religion starts with the first words of Matthew, so continually spouting the Old Testament, as a justification for your hatred of Christians, is a touch misguided.
[quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]esilvester[/bold] wrote: When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.[/p][/quote]We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too. If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false? The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart. As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.[/p][/quote]Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks. I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people. So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality. I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there? Or alternatively, those who shout loudest....... I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?[/p][/quote]And there you go again, twisting words to suit yourself; where have I advocated legislation against homosexuals? If they wish to "marry" in a register office, and the State has no objection, then they can go ahead, as far as I'm concerned, but I don't expect the Church to throw away years of traditional beliefs, just to suit an increasingly vocal minority. And, of course, you have to throw in the usual petty, childish insults about me and my friends; water off a duck's back, my friend. As for those who shout loudest, I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian." Try to remember, too, that the Christian religion starts with the first words of Matthew, so continually spouting the Old Testament, as a justification for your hatred of Christians, is a touch misguided. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Sat 22 Dec 12

J B Blackett says...

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Sat 22 Dec 12

craig239 says...

Great how people on here attack each other.
Its all about Love. But if the church does not want to marry you because of everything it believes in (right or wrong) who are you to say ignore your beliefs just do it.
Its not been a major thing for gays for 2000 years but now it is. Funny but if they are really inlove why do they need a church.Stand under the stars and shout how much you are in love.
Great how people on here attack each other. Its all about Love. But if the church does not want to marry you because of everything it believes in (right or wrong) who are you to say ignore your beliefs just do it. Its not been a major thing for gays for 2000 years but now it is. Funny but if they are really inlove why do they need a church.Stand under the stars and shout how much you are in love. craig239
  • Score: 0

9:05pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

Craig, if we followed your thesis we'd still be throwing Christians to the lions. The world changes, we move on, we rationalise and we (should) take on board the opinions of others.

Unfortunately, the Church, Christians, don't want change, they're afraid to embrace change, so female vicars, female bishops and gay marriage are cast aside on the basis of their own beliefs.

As I've said before, to discriminate is illegal in the UK so why does the church think its above the law.

If the church doesn't change it's attitude it'll drown and it'll pull our monarchy down with it - maybe that won't be a bad thing?
Craig, if we followed your thesis we'd still be throwing Christians to the lions. The world changes, we move on, we rationalise and we (should) take on board the opinions of others. Unfortunately, the Church, Christians, don't want change, they're afraid to embrace change, so female vicars, female bishops and gay marriage are cast aside on the basis of their own beliefs. As I've said before, to discriminate is illegal in the UK so why does the church think its above the law. If the church doesn't change it's attitude it'll drown and it'll pull our monarchy down with it - maybe that won't be a bad thing? Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Sat 22 Dec 12

craig239 says...

Mike Get to facts
All saints Marlow in last 12 months 2 gay Vicars.You don't know what your talking about.
Don t say the Church doesn t change
Its another question whether they should have been there
Mike Get to facts All saints Marlow in last 12 months 2 gay Vicars.You don't know what your talking about. Don t say the Church doesn t change Its another question whether they should have been there craig239
  • Score: 0

9:52pm Sat 22 Dec 12

J B Blackett says...

All institutions do not want to or resist change - not really. It's in their make-up / 'DNA' That's why they are called institutions. Otherwise they would be given another name.
.
So civilizations , empires , dominant cultures , dictatorships , vast social , religious and political movements - they all wax and wane and then fall back into the dust of history leaving just a few mouldering remnants and mystical traces here and there.
.
Just like sandcastles built on the seashore. A lot of effort but Nature claims it all back in the end.
.
And so with institutions - however all-powerful , invincible , immovable and unchanging they regard themselves. Their contradictions , illogicalities and self-destructive tendencies are already there - right at their beginnings and origins.
.
All history shows and proves this - with no exceptions.
All institutions do not want to or resist change - not really. It's in their make-up / 'DNA' That's why they are called institutions. Otherwise they would be given another name. . So civilizations , empires , dominant cultures , dictatorships , vast social , religious and political movements - they all wax and wane and then fall back into the dust of history leaving just a few mouldering remnants and mystical traces here and there. . Just like sandcastles built on the seashore. A lot of effort but Nature claims it all back in the end. . And so with institutions - however all-powerful , invincible , immovable and unchanging they regard themselves. Their contradictions , illogicalities and self-destructive tendencies are already there - right at their beginnings and origins. . All history shows and proves this - with no exceptions. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

9:53pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

Well, just imagine how they'll feel if they can't marry the man they love in their own church.

It's hypocrisy
Well, just imagine how they'll feel if they can't marry the man they love in their own church. It's hypocrisy Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

10:23pm Sat 22 Dec 12

J B Blackett says...

Why would they want to go to into a church building and perform some kind of ancient bonding ritual when the institutional authority did not want them to be there in the first place ?
.
Why would they want to go to into a church building and perform some kind of ancient bonding ritual when the institutional authority did not want them to be there in the first place ? . J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

10:28pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

Mike Henson wrote:
It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.
What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.[/p][/quote]What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

10:30pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

Should be "will not sink," of course.
Should be "will not sink," of course. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

10:32pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

craig239 wrote:
Mike Get to facts
All saints Marlow in last 12 months 2 gay Vicars.You don't know what your talking about.
Don t say the Church doesn t change
Its another question whether they should have been there
You seem to be arguing with yourself. First you seem to be praising the church for appointing two gay vicars in one year (why did the first leave so quickly) then you question whether they should have been appointed in the first place?
[quote][p][bold]craig239[/bold] wrote: Mike Get to facts All saints Marlow in last 12 months 2 gay Vicars.You don't know what your talking about. Don t say the Church doesn t change Its another question whether they should have been there[/p][/quote]You seem to be arguing with yourself. First you seem to be praising the church for appointing two gay vicars in one year (why did the first leave so quickly) then you question whether they should have been appointed in the first place? Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

10:38pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

Edgar Brooks wrote:
Mike Henson wrote:
It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.
What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.
Me and my ilk want to see equality regardless of age, creed or sexual persuasion. It's you, your fellow Christians and a church that's losing followers hand over fist, that are trying to prevent the natural rights of every human being on this planet.
[quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.[/p][/quote]What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.[/p][/quote]Me and my ilk want to see equality regardless of age, creed or sexual persuasion. It's you, your fellow Christians and a church that's losing followers hand over fist, that are trying to prevent the natural rights of every human being on this planet. Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

10:48pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

Mike Henson wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
Mike Henson wrote:
It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.
What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.
Me and my ilk want to see equality regardless of age, creed or sexual persuasion. It's you, your fellow Christians and a church that's losing followers hand over fist, that are trying to prevent the natural rights of every human being on this planet.
Edgar Brooks wrote:
"What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are"

Aren't Christians supposed to love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek?

******
I once took a church going Christian to a business meeting where we happened to park in a muddy area. On leaving the car I slipped over; did he offer his hand to help me to my feet - did he hell!
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.[/p][/quote]What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.[/p][/quote]Me and my ilk want to see equality regardless of age, creed or sexual persuasion. It's you, your fellow Christians and a church that's losing followers hand over fist, that are trying to prevent the natural rights of every human being on this planet.[/p][/quote]Edgar Brooks wrote: "What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are" Aren't Christians supposed to love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek? ****** I once took a church going Christian to a business meeting where we happened to park in a muddy area. On leaving the car I slipped over; did he offer his hand to help me to my feet - did he hell! Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

12:08am Sun 23 Dec 12

demoness the second says...

Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?
Apologies.. I was referring to the traditional wedding from the book of common prayer which seems to be the norm in the C of E churches.
I truly believe that only believers should marry in church -how could you swear to be true to your intended in front of a being you do not believe in?
[quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?[/p][/quote]Apologies.. I was referring to the traditional wedding from the book of common prayer which seems to be the norm in the C of E churches. I truly believe that only believers should marry in church -how could you swear to be true to your intended in front of a being you do not believe in? demoness the second
  • Score: 0

12:51am Sun 23 Dec 12

craig239 says...

Mike
I only said it is another question should they have been there. I have not answered it so I can't be arguing against myself.
As for why did Danny leave so soon I'm not sure what your definition of so soon is. I only knew him for a year before he went back home to Spain to start Los Olivos
Mike you stated that the Church needs to change I would argue that it is you that needs to change. Open your eyes and see what is around you.
For someone who seems to know something about the goings on at All saints maybe you knew our female vicar Elizabeth (ref your previous comment female vicars)
Mike I only said it is another question should they have been there. I have not answered it so I can't be arguing against myself. As for why did Danny leave so soon I'm not sure what your definition of so soon is. I only knew him for a year before he went back home to Spain to start Los Olivos Mike you stated that the Church needs to change I would argue that it is you that needs to change. Open your eyes and see what is around you. For someone who seems to know something about the goings on at All saints maybe you knew our female vicar Elizabeth (ref your previous comment female vicars) craig239
  • Score: 0

1:09am Sun 23 Dec 12

craig239 says...

Good point Francis
Its like walking into an Italian and demanding they serve Indian food. You have to read whats on the menu!!
Good point Francis Its like walking into an Italian and demanding they serve Indian food. You have to read whats on the menu!! craig239
  • Score: 0

7:53am Sun 23 Dec 12

demoness the second says...

sai-diva wrote:
Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?
''Til Death do us part''?
I think that will do for starters.
[quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?[/p][/quote]''Til Death do us part''?[/p][/quote]I think that will do for starters. demoness the second
  • Score: 0

9:21am Sun 23 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

Mike Henson wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
Mike Henson wrote: It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.
What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.
Me and my ilk want to see equality regardless of age, creed or sexual persuasion. It's you, your fellow Christians and a church that's losing followers hand over fist, that are trying to prevent the natural rights of every human being on this planet.
Who said that I'm a Christian? I don't have the moral courage to follow their creed, and human beings do not have a "natural right" to be married in a church, built by other human beings.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.[/p][/quote]What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.[/p][/quote]Me and my ilk want to see equality regardless of age, creed or sexual persuasion. It's you, your fellow Christians and a church that's losing followers hand over fist, that are trying to prevent the natural rights of every human being on this planet.[/p][/quote]Who said that I'm a Christian? I don't have the moral courage to follow their creed, and human beings do not have a "natural right" to be married in a church, built by other human beings. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

9:24am Sun 23 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

Mike Henson wrote:
Mike Henson wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
Mike Henson wrote: It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.
What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.
Me and my ilk want to see equality regardless of age, creed or sexual persuasion. It's you, your fellow Christians and a church that's losing followers hand over fist, that are trying to prevent the natural rights of every human being on this planet.
Edgar Brooks wrote: "What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are" Aren't Christians supposed to love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek? ****** I once took a church going Christian to a business meeting where we happened to park in a muddy area. On leaving the car I slipped over; did he offer his hand to help me to my feet - did he hell!
Yes, but "the other cheek" does not refer to their backside.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.[/p][/quote]What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.[/p][/quote]Me and my ilk want to see equality regardless of age, creed or sexual persuasion. It's you, your fellow Christians and a church that's losing followers hand over fist, that are trying to prevent the natural rights of every human being on this planet.[/p][/quote]Edgar Brooks wrote: "What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are" Aren't Christians supposed to love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek? ****** I once took a church going Christian to a business meeting where we happened to park in a muddy area. On leaving the car I slipped over; did he offer his hand to help me to my feet - did he hell![/p][/quote]Yes, but "the other cheek" does not refer to their backside. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

9:51am Sun 23 Dec 12

tom.marlow2 says...

demoness the second wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?
''Til Death do us part''?
I think that will do for starters.
I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary.

Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.
[quote][p][bold]demoness the second[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?[/p][/quote]''Til Death do us part''?[/p][/quote]I think that will do for starters.[/p][/quote]I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary. Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it. tom.marlow2
  • Score: 0

10:29am Sun 23 Dec 12

Dr James says...

As a great poet once said

"One up the b+m no harm done"
As a great poet once said "One up the b+m no harm done" Dr James
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Sun 23 Dec 12

educationbod says...

This is just about the most ridiculous arguement yet, THAT next to:

" the ressurected jesus will be forced to marry a man" us radio dj

" We'll be marrying animals next" ( thats his councillor buddy in
wycombe)

"we'll have to revise sex education to teach aout gay sex " yes because
thats all marriage is about really. Thats his buddy david davies, who
can't open his mouth without vomiting rubbish.

" gay marriage caused the conneticut shooting" thats! just not even
worth commenting on..

" less heterosexuals will get married as a result" ....oh pls..(another tory mp)

Why do they have to reduce government to a size thats just
big enough to fit in our homes.

If he thinks what he says isn't damaging, think about the hate crimes
that occur whenever stuff like this is uttered in the press, if
tolerance wont be improved in our society its because politicians
perpetuate intolerance.!!!!!!

And i'm not a hater of the church, i believe in God and he's shaking his head at the politicians today....
This is just about the most ridiculous arguement yet, THAT next to: " the ressurected jesus will be forced to marry a man" us radio dj " We'll be marrying animals next" ( thats his councillor buddy in wycombe) "we'll have to revise sex education to teach aout gay sex " yes because thats all marriage is about really. Thats his buddy david davies, who can't open his mouth without vomiting rubbish. " gay marriage caused the conneticut shooting" thats! just not even worth commenting on.. " less heterosexuals will get married as a result" ....oh pls..(another tory mp) Why do they have to reduce government to a size thats just big enough to fit in our homes. If he thinks what he says isn't damaging, think about the hate crimes that occur whenever stuff like this is uttered in the press, if tolerance wont be improved in our society its because politicians perpetuate intolerance.!!!!!! And i'm not a hater of the church, i believe in God and he's shaking his head at the politicians today.... educationbod
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Sun 23 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

Edgar Brooks wrote:
Mike Henson wrote:
I've just discovered this on the CofE website which is rather disturbing. By Archbishop Rowan Williams Christian life is lived in relationship with God through Jesus Christ and, in common with other Christians, seeking to deepen that relationship and to follow the way that Jesus taught. Central to that relationship is knowing we can trust God. Saint Paul says at the end of the eighth chapter of his letter to the Church in Rome, 'if God is for us, who can be against us?' And this is the heart of faith. How do we know that 'God is for us'? Because Jesus Christ, the one human being who is completely in tune with God - with what God wants and what God is doing - has carried the burden of our human betrayals of God and running away from goodness. He has let himself be betrayed and rejected, executed in a humiliating and agonising way, and yet has not turned his back on us. Death did not succeed in silencing him or removing him from the world. He is alive; and that means that his love is alive, having survived the worst we can do. Ends So, can someone tell me how you can have a relationship with a "human being", born out of a virgin; which seems to suggest he might be of alien parentage and is dead - if you can't see him and touch him he must be dead.
For an allegedly well-educted businessman, your knowledge is woefully short in some areas; though some (one in particular) churches harp on this "virgin" business, it's known that the original word applied, also, to a woman who had "known" only her husband.
Doesn't make the miracle any less for those believers, but it does rather cut the ground from the hysterical cynics.
If the biblical definition of a virgin is a woman who has only known her husband this, from Luke 2:36 Doesn't make sense:

"And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;"

Furthermore it begs the question, what words were used to describe:

A. A girl who was still intact?
B. A woman who had been with more than one man?
[quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: I've just discovered this on the CofE website which is rather disturbing. By Archbishop Rowan Williams Christian life is lived in relationship with God through Jesus Christ and, in common with other Christians, seeking to deepen that relationship and to follow the way that Jesus taught. Central to that relationship is knowing we can trust God. Saint Paul says at the end of the eighth chapter of his letter to the Church in Rome, 'if God is for us, who can be against us?' And this is the heart of faith. How do we know that 'God is for us'? Because Jesus Christ, the one human being who is completely in tune with God - with what God wants and what God is doing - has carried the burden of our human betrayals of God and running away from goodness. He has let himself be betrayed and rejected, executed in a humiliating and agonising way, and yet has not turned his back on us. Death did not succeed in silencing him or removing him from the world. He is alive; and that means that his love is alive, having survived the worst we can do. Ends So, can someone tell me how you can have a relationship with a "human being", born out of a virgin; which seems to suggest he might be of alien parentage and is dead - if you can't see him and touch him he must be dead.[/p][/quote]For an allegedly well-educted businessman, your knowledge is woefully short in some areas; though some (one in particular) churches harp on this "virgin" business, it's known that the original word applied, also, to a woman who had "known" only her husband. Doesn't make the miracle any less for those believers, but it does rather cut the ground from the hysterical cynics.[/p][/quote]If the biblical definition of a virgin is a woman who has only known her husband this, from Luke 2:36 Doesn't make sense: "And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;" Furthermore it begs the question, what words were used to describe: A. A girl who was still intact? B. A woman who had been with more than one man? Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Sun 23 Dec 12

J B Blackett says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
demoness the second wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?
''Til Death do us part''?
I think that will do for starters.
I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary.

Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.
That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book
.
Neither is Sex.
.
That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture).
.
On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell
.
And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'.
.
Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge.
.
And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony.
.
Take your pick.
.
So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]demoness the second[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?[/p][/quote]''Til Death do us part''?[/p][/quote]I think that will do for starters.[/p][/quote]I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary. Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.[/p][/quote]That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book . Neither is Sex. . That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture). . On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell . And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'. . Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge. . And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony. . Take your pick. . So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Sun 23 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

J B Blackett wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
demoness the second wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?
''Til Death do us part''?
I think that will do for starters.
I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary.

Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.
That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book
.
Neither is Sex.
.
That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture).
.
On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell
.
And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'.
.
Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge.
.
And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony.
.
Take your pick.
.
So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.
When you're dead, you're dead!
[quote][p][bold]J B Blackett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]demoness the second[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?[/p][/quote]''Til Death do us part''?[/p][/quote]I think that will do for starters.[/p][/quote]I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary. Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.[/p][/quote]That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book . Neither is Sex. . That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture). . On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell . And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'. . Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge. . And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony. . Take your pick. . So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.[/p][/quote]When you're dead, you're dead! Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Sun 23 Dec 12

J B Blackett says...

Mike Henson wrote:
J B Blackett wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
demoness the second wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?
''Til Death do us part''?
I think that will do for starters.
I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary.

Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.
That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book
.
Neither is Sex.
.
That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture).
.
On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell
.
And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'.
.
Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge.
.
And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony.
.
Take your pick.
.
So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.
When you're dead, you're dead!
What happens to you , is what kind of destiny you believe in
.
Don't force / tell other people what's going to happen to them.
.
If you choose to be forever 'dead' , that's your choice and that's perhaps what will happen to you.
.
Otherwise you are being just like all those dictatorial preachers and dogmatic religious zealots , nuts , 'scholarly' know-alls and bigots who tell people how to think and live.
.
You believe what you want to believe and let me believe what I want to believe. And let all those close-minded zealots flaunt their ancients books and texts about and say The Truth in all in there too. Someone told them to say that - probably going back generations on generations and centuries on centuries. And there are lots of creeds and books to choose from as you know. Whole piles of it
.
Do you really want to know the Real Truth ?
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Real Truth is that nobody knows. That's the frustrating dilemma of being a human on this planet.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J B Blackett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]demoness the second[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?[/p][/quote]''Til Death do us part''?[/p][/quote]I think that will do for starters.[/p][/quote]I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary. Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.[/p][/quote]That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book . Neither is Sex. . That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture). . On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell . And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'. . Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge. . And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony. . Take your pick. . So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.[/p][/quote]When you're dead, you're dead![/p][/quote]What happens to you , is what kind of destiny you believe in . Don't force / tell other people what's going to happen to them. . If you choose to be forever 'dead' , that's your choice and that's perhaps what will happen to you. . Otherwise you are being just like all those dictatorial preachers and dogmatic religious zealots , nuts , 'scholarly' know-alls and bigots who tell people how to think and live. . You believe what you want to believe and let me believe what I want to believe. And let all those close-minded zealots flaunt their ancients books and texts about and say The Truth in all in there too. Someone told them to say that - probably going back generations on generations and centuries on centuries. And there are lots of creeds and books to choose from as you know. Whole piles of it . Do you really want to know the Real Truth ? .... . . . . . . . . The Real Truth is that nobody knows. That's the frustrating dilemma of being a human on this planet. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Sun 23 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

What keeps me going it that the these Christians, who despise gay people, believes it's un-natural and don't want to allow same sex couples to marry in a church, might end up in hell;
..........if it exists.
What keeps me going it that the these Christians, who despise gay people, believes it's un-natural and don't want to allow same sex couples to marry in a church, might end up in hell; ..........if it exists. Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Sun 23 Dec 12

tom.marlow2 says...

J B Blackett wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
demoness the second wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?
''Til Death do us part''?
I think that will do for starters.
I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary.

Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.
That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book
.
Neither is Sex.
.
That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture).
.
On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell
.
And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'.
.
Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge.
.
And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony.
.
Take your pick.
.
So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.
Thank you for clarifying JBB.
[quote][p][bold]J B Blackett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]demoness the second[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?[/p][/quote]''Til Death do us part''?[/p][/quote]I think that will do for starters.[/p][/quote]I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary. Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.[/p][/quote]That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book . Neither is Sex. . That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture). . On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell . And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'. . Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge. . And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony. . Take your pick. . So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.[/p][/quote]Thank you for clarifying JBB. tom.marlow2
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Sun 23 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

Mike Henson wrote:
What keeps me going it that the these Christians, who despise gay people, believes it's un-natural and don't want to allow same sex couples to marry in a church, might end up in hell; ..........if it exists.
And there you go again, propagating an utter lie; Christians do not despise homosexuals (or lesbians - isn't it wonderful how you have to use the twee word "gay," to describe your friends, rather than the older, more prosaic, words,) it is the sexual act, between men, that they view as abhorrent. Though, of course, you never mention them, since it would lessen the perceived impact of your vitriolic outbursts, lesbians do not figure in this alleged contempt that Christians have; it is a simple case that the church also views marriage between them as impossible.
Like your perverted cheerleader, Sai-Diva, you cannot understand that the Christian religion can forgive the sinner, but not the sin. If, like Kenneth Williams, you feel homosexual urges, but don't indulge, no true Christian will ever despise you, but that doesn't sit well with your rabid desire to portray them as wild-eyed death-dealing extremists, does it?
If anal sex is not unnatural, perhaps you can tell us how many children have been born as a result of it? Are you a product of it? Somehow I doubt it.
I suggest that you should then go and listen to a church-held wedding service, in which you will hear the priest tell you that "marriage is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are born and nurtured."
And that is why the church says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and why all your twists, turns, and convoluted thinking can never alter that. To hear you sneering at, and decrying, the Christian religion, then demand that you should be allowed to get married in a building in which that religion is practiced, is a clasic example of the worst of double standards.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: What keeps me going it that the these Christians, who despise gay people, believes it's un-natural and don't want to allow same sex couples to marry in a church, might end up in hell; ..........if it exists.[/p][/quote]And there you go again, propagating an utter lie; Christians do not despise homosexuals (or lesbians - isn't it wonderful how you have to use the twee word "gay," to describe your friends, rather than the older, more prosaic, words,) it is the sexual act, between men, that they view as abhorrent. Though, of course, you never mention them, since it would lessen the perceived impact of your vitriolic outbursts, lesbians do not figure in this alleged contempt that Christians have; it is a simple case that the church also views marriage between them as impossible. Like your perverted cheerleader, Sai-Diva, you cannot understand that the Christian religion can forgive the sinner, but not the sin. If, like Kenneth Williams, you feel homosexual urges, but don't indulge, no true Christian will ever despise you, but that doesn't sit well with your rabid desire to portray them as wild-eyed death-dealing extremists, does it? If anal sex is not unnatural, perhaps you can tell us how many children have been born as a result of it? Are you a product of it? Somehow I doubt it. I suggest that you should then go and listen to a church-held wedding service, in which you will hear the priest tell you that "marriage is given as the foundation of family life in which children are born and nurtured." And that is why the church says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and why all your twists, turns, and convoluted thinking can never alter that. To hear you sneering at, and decrying, the Christian religion, then demand that you should be allowed to get married in a building in which that religion is practiced, is a clasic example of the worst of double standards. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Sun 23 Dec 12

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

Edgar Brooks wrote:
Mike Henson wrote:
J B Blackett is absolutely right. In fact I'd go further and say we should keep religion out of everything. If people want to worship a non-existent effigy and follow the teachings of a piece of fiction their ability to get involved in the running of the country has to be questionable. I have been running a business since 1987 and the only problems and bad debts I've encountered are directly attributable to clients who call themselves Christians. This world would be a better place without ANY religion. I pray at the Church of Google because everything it stands for can be proven!
Typical of the claptrap spouted by haters of the Church; in the same way that Christians cannot prove the existence of God, but wish to believe, by the same token you cannot prove that he doesn't exist, but wish to believe, and (worse) wish to force that belief onto others.
I find your assertion that only Christians are bad debtors patently ludicrous; quite frankly, if a business asked for my religion before accepting my custom, I'd walk straight out, and never return. I've had messages from Nigerians, claiming to be Christians, and promising me loads of money, if I'll just let them have my bank details; strangely enough I don't believe them, and, if you want to continue to be a success in business, I'd advise against believing everything you're told.
This world would actually be a better place if those, who profess to believe in their particular god, were to obey the teachings of that deity, instead of twisting the philosophies to suit themselves, and stop behaving in the conceited, self-serving, selfish ways of so many so-called humans.
so-called humans.


Why only 'so-called' - what are they really - humanoids?
[quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: J B Blackett is absolutely right. In fact I'd go further and say we should keep religion out of everything. If people want to worship a non-existent effigy and follow the teachings of a piece of fiction their ability to get involved in the running of the country has to be questionable. I have been running a business since 1987 and the only problems and bad debts I've encountered are directly attributable to clients who call themselves Christians. This world would be a better place without ANY religion. I pray at the Church of Google because everything it stands for can be proven![/p][/quote]Typical of the claptrap spouted by haters of the Church; in the same way that Christians cannot prove the existence of God, but wish to believe, by the same token you cannot prove that he doesn't exist, but wish to believe, and (worse) wish to force that belief onto others. I find your assertion that only Christians are bad debtors patently ludicrous; quite frankly, if a business asked for my religion before accepting my custom, I'd walk straight out, and never return. I've had messages from Nigerians, claiming to be Christians, and promising me loads of money, if I'll just let them have my bank details; strangely enough I don't believe them, and, if you want to continue to be a success in business, I'd advise against believing everything you're told. This world would actually be a better place if those, who profess to believe in their particular god, were to obey the teachings of that deity, instead of twisting the philosophies to suit themselves, and stop behaving in the conceited, self-serving, selfish ways of so many so-called humans.[/p][/quote][italic] [quote] so-called humans. [/quote][/italic] Why only 'so-called' - what are they really - humanoids? ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Sun 23 Dec 12

demoness the second says...

Edgar Brooks wrote:
Mike Henson wrote:
What keeps me going it that the these Christians, who despise gay people, believes it's un-natural and don't want to allow same sex couples to marry in a church, might end up in hell; ..........if it exists.
And there you go again, propagating an utter lie; Christians do not despise homosexuals (or lesbians - isn't it wonderful how you have to use the twee word "gay," to describe your friends, rather than the older, more prosaic, words,) it is the sexual act, between men, that they view as abhorrent. Though, of course, you never mention them, since it would lessen the perceived impact of your vitriolic outbursts, lesbians do not figure in this alleged contempt that Christians have; it is a simple case that the church also views marriage between them as impossible.
Like your perverted cheerleader, Sai-Diva, you cannot understand that the Christian religion can forgive the sinner, but not the sin. If, like Kenneth Williams, you feel homosexual urges, but don't indulge, no true Christian will ever despise you, but that doesn't sit well with your rabid desire to portray them as wild-eyed death-dealing extremists, does it?
If anal sex is not unnatural, perhaps you can tell us how many children have been born as a result of it? Are you a product of it? Somehow I doubt it.
I suggest that you should then go and listen to a church-held wedding service, in which you will hear the priest tell you that "marriage is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are born and nurtured."
And that is why the church says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and why all your twists, turns, and convoluted thinking can never alter that. To hear you sneering at, and decrying, the Christian religion, then demand that you should be allowed to get married in a building in which that religion is practiced, is a clasic example of the worst of double standards.
So what about men and women who practice anal sex?
What about married men and women who practice anal sex?

Surely that is just as bad... or is it just men practising it that is wrong?

If that what you feel then I am afraid it is you who are responsible for double standards.
[quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: What keeps me going it that the these Christians, who despise gay people, believes it's un-natural and don't want to allow same sex couples to marry in a church, might end up in hell; ..........if it exists.[/p][/quote]And there you go again, propagating an utter lie; Christians do not despise homosexuals (or lesbians - isn't it wonderful how you have to use the twee word "gay," to describe your friends, rather than the older, more prosaic, words,) it is the sexual act, between men, that they view as abhorrent. Though, of course, you never mention them, since it would lessen the perceived impact of your vitriolic outbursts, lesbians do not figure in this alleged contempt that Christians have; it is a simple case that the church also views marriage between them as impossible. Like your perverted cheerleader, Sai-Diva, you cannot understand that the Christian religion can forgive the sinner, but not the sin. If, like Kenneth Williams, you feel homosexual urges, but don't indulge, no true Christian will ever despise you, but that doesn't sit well with your rabid desire to portray them as wild-eyed death-dealing extremists, does it? If anal sex is not unnatural, perhaps you can tell us how many children have been born as a result of it? Are you a product of it? Somehow I doubt it. I suggest that you should then go and listen to a church-held wedding service, in which you will hear the priest tell you that "marriage is given as the foundation of family life in which children are born and nurtured." And that is why the church says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and why all your twists, turns, and convoluted thinking can never alter that. To hear you sneering at, and decrying, the Christian religion, then demand that you should be allowed to get married in a building in which that religion is practiced, is a clasic example of the worst of double standards.[/p][/quote]So what about men and women who practice anal sex? What about married men and women who practice anal sex? Surely that is just as bad... or is it just men practising it that is wrong? If that what you feel then I am afraid it is you who are responsible for double standards. demoness the second
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Sun 23 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

The adjective "gay" is a respectful way to group homosexuals and lesbians; to the best of my knowledge there is no other suitable word.

According to your interpretation, sexual intercourse should only take place between a man who is married to a woman for the purpose of procreation. What a boring life you must lead.

It therefore follows that adoption of a child by a heterosexual couple is sinful because the child is not a result of their loins?

So a heterosexual couple who perform oral or anal sex are committing a sin just the same as a male homosexual couple?

Lesbians cannot indulge in anal sex so where do they stand - or are you still living back in Victorian times where gay women simply didnt exist?
The adjective "gay" is a respectful way to group homosexuals and lesbians; to the best of my knowledge there is no other suitable word. According to your interpretation, sexual intercourse should only take place between a man who is married to a woman for the purpose of procreation. What a boring life you must lead. It therefore follows that adoption of a child by a heterosexual couple is sinful because the child is not a result of their loins? So a heterosexual couple who perform oral or anal sex are committing a sin just the same as a male homosexual couple? Lesbians cannot indulge in anal sex so where do they stand - or are you still living back in Victorian times where gay women simply didnt exist? Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Sun 23 Dec 12

educationbod says...

Edgar is being very selective..

"marriage is given as the foundation of family life in which children are born and nurtured."


really? because all other types of families are irrelevant i take it.... thats what your saying... all single mothers from IVF or adoption take note of this idiot..


and thank you so much..... for leaving your arguement wide open to attack.....i love it when idiots give me this much space.

natural ?

really.?.. if homosexuality wasn't natural and a common occurence why does it appear in over 450 species on the planet...... homophobia appears in only one....

you think were redefining marriage
you lot seem to ahve been redefining it for centuries....

perhaps we should wind back 30 years and see if the church had objections to inter-racial marriage...

if as the bible says homosexuality is an abomination.. it more or less of an abomination than say perhaps that seafood salad your going to have for your starter in about 48 hrs..... are there degrees of abomination.?.... i don't know YOU TELL ME.. ?

if 'religion is constantly telling everyone else that who were are is wrong.. that only serves to perpetuate hatred and violence..... thats not very christian now IS IT ?
Edgar is being very selective.. "marriage is given as the foundation of family life in which children are born and nurtured." really? because all other types of families are irrelevant i take it.... thats what your saying... all single mothers from IVF or adoption take note of this idiot.. and thank you so much..... for leaving your arguement wide open to attack.....i love it when idiots give me this much space. natural ? really.?.. if homosexuality wasn't natural and a common occurence why does it appear in over 450 species on the planet...... homophobia appears in only one.... you think were redefining marriage you lot seem to ahve been redefining it for centuries.... perhaps we should wind back 30 years and see if the church had objections to inter-racial marriage... if as the bible says homosexuality is an abomination.. it more or less of an abomination than say perhaps that seafood salad your going to have for your starter in about 48 hrs..... are there degrees of abomination.?.... i don't know YOU TELL ME.. ? if 'religion is constantly telling everyone else that who were are is wrong.. that only serves to perpetuate hatred and violence..... thats not very christian now IS IT ? educationbod
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Sun 23 Dec 12

demoness the second says...

Mike Henson wrote:
The adjective "gay" is a respectful way to group homosexuals and lesbians; to the best of my knowledge there is no other suitable word.

According to your interpretation, sexual intercourse should only take place between a man who is married to a woman for the purpose of procreation. What a boring life you must lead.

It therefore follows that adoption of a child by a heterosexual couple is sinful because the child is not a result of their loins?

So a heterosexual couple who perform oral or anal sex are committing a sin just the same as a male homosexual couple?

Lesbians cannot indulge in anal sex so where do they stand - or are you still living back in Victorian times where gay women simply didnt exist?
And what about men and women who cannot have children?
Does that mean they are not allowed to have sex?
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: The adjective "gay" is a respectful way to group homosexuals and lesbians; to the best of my knowledge there is no other suitable word. According to your interpretation, sexual intercourse should only take place between a man who is married to a woman for the purpose of procreation. What a boring life you must lead. It therefore follows that adoption of a child by a heterosexual couple is sinful because the child is not a result of their loins? So a heterosexual couple who perform oral or anal sex are committing a sin just the same as a male homosexual couple? Lesbians cannot indulge in anal sex so where do they stand - or are you still living back in Victorian times where gay women simply didnt exist?[/p][/quote]And what about men and women who cannot have children? Does that mean they are not allowed to have sex? demoness the second
  • Score: 0

8:52pm Sun 23 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

That is what Edgar Brooks seems to be suggesting
That is what Edgar Brooks seems to be suggesting Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

8:52pm Sun 23 Dec 12

J B Blackett says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
J B Blackett wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
demoness the second wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?
''Til Death do us part''?
I think that will do for starters.
I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary.

Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.
That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book
.
Neither is Sex.
.
That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture).
.
On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell
.
And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'.
.
Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge.
.
And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony.
.
Take your pick.
.
So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.
Thank you for clarifying JBB.
That's all right. I must say I do find , when it comes to clarification , that filtering or warming gently works best.
.
Especially with rancid butter with little bits of burnt toast in it.
.
Merry Christmas
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J B Blackett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]demoness the second[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?[/p][/quote]''Til Death do us part''?[/p][/quote]I think that will do for starters.[/p][/quote]I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary. Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.[/p][/quote]That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book . Neither is Sex. . That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture). . On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell . And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'. . Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge. . And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony. . Take your pick. . So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.[/p][/quote]Thank you for clarifying JBB.[/p][/quote]That's all right. I must say I do find , when it comes to clarification , that filtering or warming gently works best. . Especially with rancid butter with little bits of burnt toast in it. . Merry Christmas J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Sun 23 Dec 12

J B Blackett says...

Mike Henson wrote:
What keeps me going it that the these Christians, who despise gay people, believes it's un-natural and don't want to allow same sex couples to marry in a church, might end up in hell;
..........if it exists.
It says that in their Book(s). Of all the dominant world religions
.
And all the followers thereof have been brought up / raised / taught / indoctrinated / inherited / forced / pretended or whatever to believe what's written in these very ancient Book(s)
.
Adherents are obliged to seem to believe what's written in these vast tomes - otherwise their peers / fellow believers will regard them as 'Not True Believers'.
.
And that is also Not Allowed. Oh No - because thinking otherwise is extremely naughty and deserves not very nice punishment / torture for all eternity.
.
It's all in the Book(s) if you care to read them.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: What keeps me going it that the these Christians, who despise gay people, believes it's un-natural and don't want to allow same sex couples to marry in a church, might end up in hell; ..........if it exists.[/p][/quote]It says that in their Book(s). Of all the dominant world religions . And all the followers thereof have been brought up / raised / taught / indoctrinated / inherited / forced / pretended or whatever to believe what's written in these very ancient Book(s) . Adherents are obliged to seem to believe what's written in these vast tomes - otherwise their peers / fellow believers will regard them as 'Not True Believers'. . And that is also Not Allowed. Oh No - because thinking otherwise is extremely naughty and deserves not very nice punishment / torture for all eternity. . It's all in the Book(s) if you care to read them. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

11:59am Mon 24 Dec 12

sai-diva says...

J B Blackett wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
esilvester wrote:
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.
We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too.
If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false?
The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart.
As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.
Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks.

I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people.
So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality.
I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there?
Or alternatively, those who shout loudest.......
I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?
How could you say such a thing . Please wash your mouth out.
Because it's true, men sometimes like to use the ''back door'', and some women enjoy it too, it is also a very effective contraceptive.
'Go and wash your mouth out''..... price less!
[quote][p][bold]J B Blackett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]esilvester[/bold] wrote: When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.[/p][/quote]We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too. If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false? The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart. As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.[/p][/quote]Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks. I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people. So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality. I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there? Or alternatively, those who shout loudest....... I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?[/p][/quote]How could you say such a thing . Please wash your mouth out.[/p][/quote]Because it's true, men sometimes like to use the ''back door'', and some women enjoy it too, it is also a very effective contraceptive. 'Go and wash your mouth out''..... price less! sai-diva
  • Score: 0

11:59am Mon 24 Dec 12

sai-diva says...

J B Blackett wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
esilvester wrote:
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.
We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too.
If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false?
The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart.
As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.
Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks.

I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people.
So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality.
I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there?
Or alternatively, those who shout loudest.......
I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?
How could you say such a thing . Please wash your mouth out.
Because it's true, men sometimes like to use the ''back door'', and some women enjoy it too, it is also a very effective contraceptive.
'Go and wash your mouth out''..... price less!
[quote][p][bold]J B Blackett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]esilvester[/bold] wrote: When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.[/p][/quote]We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too. If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false? The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart. As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.[/p][/quote]Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks. I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people. So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality. I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there? Or alternatively, those who shout loudest....... I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?[/p][/quote]How could you say such a thing . Please wash your mouth out.[/p][/quote]Because it's true, men sometimes like to use the ''back door'', and some women enjoy it too, it is also a very effective contraceptive. 'Go and wash your mouth out''..... price less! sai-diva
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Mon 24 Dec 12

sai-diva says...

Edgar Brooks wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?
Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.
Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.
Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''
Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing.
And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.
''It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave''
Oh so a group of men who determine what makes a christian then?
Of course I don't know what jesus would do, I don't have the answer but then neither do you, unless you profess to know the word of god.
I do not twist your words, this is called a ''discussion'' something those who 'believe' have trouble doing.
You say
''I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian."
Really? do you never watch TV,Proud to be christian may not be being shouted but plenty of parades of christians all over the place, from adverts on buses, to the house of lords to the very unpleasant Westboro baptists.
Can you please point out where i have insuted you? Again I feel it is the other way around, but I get used to it.
I don't hate christianity, how can you hate any philosophy that preaches we should all love our neighbours? It's some christians interpretation of that instruction that bothers me.
[quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter Cyprus[/bold] wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?[/p][/quote]Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.[/p][/quote]Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.[/p][/quote]Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''[/p][/quote]Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing. And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.[/p][/quote]''It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave'' Oh so a group of men who determine what makes a christian then? Of course I don't know what jesus would do, I don't have the answer but then neither do you, unless you profess to know the word of god. I do not twist your words, this is called a ''discussion'' something those who 'believe' have trouble doing. You say ''I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian." Really? do you never watch TV,Proud to be christian may not be being shouted but plenty of parades of christians all over the place, from adverts on buses, to the house of lords to the very unpleasant Westboro baptists. Can you please point out where i have insuted you? Again I feel it is the other way around, but I get used to it. I don't hate christianity, how can you hate any philosophy that preaches we should all love our neighbours? It's some christians interpretation of that instruction that bothers me. sai-diva
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Mon 24 Dec 12

J B Blackett says...

sai-diva wrote:
J B Blackett wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
esilvester wrote:
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.
We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too.
If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false?
The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart.
As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.
Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks.

I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people.
So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality.
I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there?
Or alternatively, those who shout loudest.......
I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?
How could you say such a thing . Please wash your mouth out.
Because it's true, men sometimes like to use the ''back door'', and some women enjoy it too, it is also a very effective contraceptive.
'Go and wash your mouth out''..... price less!
Well I'll be bu**ered ; I never knew that.
[quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J B Blackett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]esilvester[/bold] wrote: When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.[/p][/quote]We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too. If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false? The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart. As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.[/p][/quote]Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks. I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people. So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality. I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there? Or alternatively, those who shout loudest....... I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?[/p][/quote]How could you say such a thing . Please wash your mouth out.[/p][/quote]Because it's true, men sometimes like to use the ''back door'', and some women enjoy it too, it is also a very effective contraceptive. 'Go and wash your mouth out''..... price less![/p][/quote]Well I'll be bu**ered ; I never knew that. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Mike Henson says...

sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?
Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.
Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.
Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''
Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing.
And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.
''It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave''
Oh so a group of men who determine what makes a christian then?
Of course I don't know what jesus would do, I don't have the answer but then neither do you, unless you profess to know the word of god.
I do not twist your words, this is called a ''discussion'' something those who 'believe' have trouble doing.
You say
''I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian."
Really? do you never watch TV,Proud to be christian may not be being shouted but plenty of parades of christians all over the place, from adverts on buses, to the house of lords to the very unpleasant Westboro baptists.
Can you please point out where i have insuted you? Again I feel it is the other way around, but I get used to it.
I don't hate christianity, how can you hate any philosophy that preaches we should all love our neighbours? It's some christians interpretation of that instruction that bothers me.
As usual sai-diva, you're absolutely spot-on.

Utopia is a world without religion.
[quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter Cyprus[/bold] wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?[/p][/quote]Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.[/p][/quote]Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.[/p][/quote]Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''[/p][/quote]Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing. And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.[/p][/quote]''It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave'' Oh so a group of men who determine what makes a christian then? Of course I don't know what jesus would do, I don't have the answer but then neither do you, unless you profess to know the word of god. I do not twist your words, this is called a ''discussion'' something those who 'believe' have trouble doing. You say ''I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian." Really? do you never watch TV,Proud to be christian may not be being shouted but plenty of parades of christians all over the place, from adverts on buses, to the house of lords to the very unpleasant Westboro baptists. Can you please point out where i have insuted you? Again I feel it is the other way around, but I get used to it. I don't hate christianity, how can you hate any philosophy that preaches we should all love our neighbours? It's some christians interpretation of that instruction that bothers me.[/p][/quote]As usual sai-diva, you're absolutely spot-on. Utopia is a world without religion. Mike Henson
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Mon 24 Dec 12

J B Blackett says...

And there is no room for Utopians , non-believers and various sexual practices in Heaven - allegedly
.
However everything ( meaning Everything) is permitted in Hell - apparently.
.
It's all foretold and explained in great detail in The Book(s) - but only for the edification and reassurance of the believers , you understand.
And there is no room for Utopians , non-believers and various sexual practices in Heaven - allegedly . However everything ( meaning Everything) is permitted in Hell - apparently. . It's all foretold and explained in great detail in The Book(s) - but only for the edification and reassurance of the believers , you understand. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Mon 24 Dec 12

sai-diva says...

Mike Henson wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?
Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.
Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.
Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''
Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing.
And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.
''It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave''
Oh so a group of men who determine what makes a christian then?
Of course I don't know what jesus would do, I don't have the answer but then neither do you, unless you profess to know the word of god.
I do not twist your words, this is called a ''discussion'' something those who 'believe' have trouble doing.
You say
''I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian."
Really? do you never watch TV,Proud to be christian may not be being shouted but plenty of parades of christians all over the place, from adverts on buses, to the house of lords to the very unpleasant Westboro baptists.
Can you please point out where i have insuted you? Again I feel it is the other way around, but I get used to it.
I don't hate christianity, how can you hate any philosophy that preaches we should all love our neighbours? It's some christians interpretation of that instruction that bothers me.
As usual sai-diva, you're absolutely spot-on.

Utopia is a world without religion.
Thank you, and i can only agree.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter Cyprus[/bold] wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?[/p][/quote]Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.[/p][/quote]Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.[/p][/quote]Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''[/p][/quote]Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing. And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.[/p][/quote]''It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave'' Oh so a group of men who determine what makes a christian then? Of course I don't know what jesus would do, I don't have the answer but then neither do you, unless you profess to know the word of god. I do not twist your words, this is called a ''discussion'' something those who 'believe' have trouble doing. You say ''I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian." Really? do you never watch TV,Proud to be christian may not be being shouted but plenty of parades of christians all over the place, from adverts on buses, to the house of lords to the very unpleasant Westboro baptists. Can you please point out where i have insuted you? Again I feel it is the other way around, but I get used to it. I don't hate christianity, how can you hate any philosophy that preaches we should all love our neighbours? It's some christians interpretation of that instruction that bothers me.[/p][/quote]As usual sai-diva, you're absolutely spot-on. Utopia is a world without religion.[/p][/quote]Thank you, and i can only agree. sai-diva
  • Score: 0

10:10am Tue 25 Dec 12

Edgar Brooks says...

Mike Henson wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?
Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.
Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.
Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''
Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing. And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.
''It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave'' Oh so a group of men who determine what makes a christian then? Of course I don't know what jesus would do, I don't have the answer but then neither do you, unless you profess to know the word of god. I do not twist your words, this is called a ''discussion'' something those who 'believe' have trouble doing. You say ''I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian." Really? do you never watch TV,Proud to be christian may not be being shouted but plenty of parades of christians all over the place, from adverts on buses, to the house of lords to the very unpleasant Westboro baptists. Can you please point out where i have insuted you? Again I feel it is the other way around, but I get used to it. I don't hate christianity, how can you hate any philosophy that preaches we should all love our neighbours? It's some christians interpretation of that instruction that bothers me.
As usual sai-diva, you're absolutely spot-on. Utopia is a world without religion.
He's not even close; Utopia would be a world in which humans do not twist their "religions" to suit their own desires.
And just think, without religion you couldn't get "married" in church, which makes your whole argument worthless.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Henson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter Cyprus[/bold] wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?[/p][/quote]Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.[/p][/quote]Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.[/p][/quote]Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''[/p][/quote]Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing. And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.[/p][/quote]''It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave'' Oh so a group of men who determine what makes a christian then? Of course I don't know what jesus would do, I don't have the answer but then neither do you, unless you profess to know the word of god. I do not twist your words, this is called a ''discussion'' something those who 'believe' have trouble doing. You say ''I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian." Really? do you never watch TV,Proud to be christian may not be being shouted but plenty of parades of christians all over the place, from adverts on buses, to the house of lords to the very unpleasant Westboro baptists. Can you please point out where i have insuted you? Again I feel it is the other way around, but I get used to it. I don't hate christianity, how can you hate any philosophy that preaches we should all love our neighbours? It's some christians interpretation of that instruction that bothers me.[/p][/quote]As usual sai-diva, you're absolutely spot-on. Utopia is a world without religion.[/p][/quote]He's not even close; Utopia would be a world in which humans do not twist their "religions" to suit their own desires. And just think, without religion you couldn't get "married" in church, which makes your whole argument worthless. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree