Pot/Kettle...

[Scouse]

Whilst we all know that the Anglican church is a load of tosh started by fat old 'enry VIII, I still find this a bit rich:

Archbishop of York has condemned proposals in Uganda to put to death gay

Lets face it. If it wasn't for teh bible gays wouldn't have been persecuted down the ages, and certainly wouldn't be facing life in prison for a bit of bumming.

Of course, this is a nice little PR exercise by the Anglicans, who realise that anti-gay sentiment now hurts rather than helps boost their numbers.

The catholic church, however, has shown that it's quite happy with the situation. (It's said something now of course, in an oblique way, just so it can cover it's ass from bad publicity).


Now, I'm not going to ask why people believe in the obvious crock of shit that is christianity. What I'm going to ask is why God hates bummers?

 

[Raven]

The church would still be against it if they could get away with it. In a semi-reasonable western world it just wouldn't work though. They would have even less followers than they do now.

 

[Raven]

Can't edit. This isn't putting gays to death, its putting gays who have sex with a minor to death.

 

[Krazeh]

Can't edit. This isn't putting gays to death, its putting gays who have sex with a minor to death.

Oh, if they're only putting the gays that have sex with minors to death then that makes it all alright. /sarcasm

 

[Raven]

That depends entirely on your views on capital punishment.

 

[noblok]

The Anglican curch has a gay and a lesbian bishop if I'm not mistaken. Sure, not everyone is equally comfortable with it, but they haven't been excommunicated or anything. I wouldn't have expected anything else from them. The catholic curch is more conservative than the anglican curch in these matters, but they are also very much opposed to the death penalty, so it makes sense that they too don't agree with this proposal.

As to why God doesn't like homesexual relationships (at least according to the official doctrine of the catholic church, there is nothing wrong with gay persons, but only with homosexual acts): it's supposedly because it goes against the order installed in Genesis. In creating the earth God brought order to the chaos and he did so by dividing and classifying. This is why not only homosexual sex is consdidered 'impure', but also ruminating animals who but don't have split hooves (camels e.g.) or animals who have split hooves but don't ruminate (pigs), "fish without scales" etc. I'm just explaining, here, not saying I agree with it as is probably obvious from the other examples of impure things I gave. You'll find very few christians nowadays who refuse to eat pig because it's impure, but plenty of them still cling to the prohibition on homosexual acts even though it's from the same book (although there are many christians nowadays who don't have a problem with it).

Also, the text on which it's all based says that "a man must not lie with a man as with a woman," or something along those lines, I don't know the English text by heart. It doesn't explicitely mention sex, whereas it does in the case of bestiality. This could lead one to assume that the intended meaning was to stress the difference between men and women, between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, without necessarily condemning homosexual relationships.

 

[Scouse]

Can't edit. This isn't putting gays to death, its putting gays who have sex with a minor to death.

Hey, it's Christmas!

I'm just doing what journo's the world over do - pick the most salacious bit of the story and twist it slightly. Got the response I wanted

But yes, they're putting gays who have sex in jail. And they're not killing straight folk who have sex with minors.

And the important part of the story is: the church agrees.


And:

The Anglican curch has a gay and a lesbian bishop if I'm not mistaken.

Token. I mean, seriously token. The church knows it's dying in the west, but it's still on the rise in Africa. And it hates gays there. Hates 'em.

And remember - it's the same church

 

[Scouse]

Also, the text on which it's all based says that "a man must not lie with a man as with a woman" or something along those lines...........

...............It doesn't explicitly mention sex

Only a religious person could write that in the same paragraph

It's pretty fucking explicit noblok.

 

[noblok]

Actually, you're right. I meant to say something else than I actually said . I meant it says a man shouldn't lie with a man as with a woman. It doesn't say a man shouldn't have sex with another man, just that it's different compared to sex with a woman. Obviously, the conclusion that it means "homosexual sex is wrong," is the more obvious one, but when you compare this to the prohibition on bestiality, which explicitely states "A man shan't have sex with an animal," (at least in the Dutch translation) you can't help but notice the different phrasing. It seems possible that this different phrasing has a certain significance which begs for theological explanation. One possible theological explanation - although, I admit, not the most orthodox one - could be that there is a difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships without condemning either of them.

I really don't know enough about the church in Africa to say anything about that specific situation, though. I just thought I'd answer your original question and clarify that the church, at least in the West, isn't as bad as it's made out to be. I know plenty of catholics who don't have a problem with homosexuals, even with practising ones and the death penalty for homosexuality certainly goes against the official doctrine of the church.

 

[gohan]

actually jews still cling to the old testiment (or torah) and don't eat pig ect

christians live by the new testiment and jesus said somthing along the lines of no animal i give to you will be unclean or sometihng to that affect so no animal is prohibited from being eaten by christians


as for the gay thing i think it's retardedly hypocriticla for thier to be gay bishops, im not religious but my theory is god's like "gays are wrong" and the church is like "nah thier ok now get with the times god"



fairly sure god will falcon punch them soon


even if it will make the church even more unpopular they need to stick to thier beliefs or they just look flimsy and completly fake (which ofc they are xD)

 

[gohan]

Only a religious person could write that in the same paragraph

It's pretty fucking explicit noblok.

maybe its like an instruction manual



its not saying men can't lie with men


just that they need to face the other way (man can't lie with man the same way they do with women)



was jsut god giving helpful hints and it was misinterpreted

 

[Turamber]

Now, I'm not going to ask why people believe in the obvious crock of shit that is christianity. What I'm going to ask is why God hates bummers?

Who said he hates them? In any event if everyone were to be homosexual there would be no human race.

 

[Scouse]

In any event if everyone were to be homosexual there would be no human race.

:lol:


Yep. You saw it here first!

 

[nath]

Who said he hates them? In any event if everyone were to be homosexual there would be no human race.

I dont see why that's relevant, after all if everyone were celibate there'd be no human race but I don't see the church disapproving of celibacy. Who ever suggested/implied everyone should be gay?

 

[Turamber]

:lol:

That smiley should be reserved for your claim that it is only religious people who hate gays. You can be a very sensible guy as long as you're not talking about Liverpool or religion ... as soon as those subjects are mentioned your IQ halves and all sorts of bollocks appears in print.

 

[DaGaffer]

Who said he hates them? In any event if everyone were to be homosexual there would be no human race.

Not anymore. Although if you had shares in turkey basting manufacturing you could make an absolute killing.

 

[Scouse]

I'm sorry Turamber. Just checking - but did you go back and check why I may have used that smiley?

Just a hint, but nath hit a nail on the head in his last sentence...