G*y Christians Banned From Cathedral
esuna
Rock Bottom Join Date: 2003-04-03 Member: 15175Members, Constellation
Rock Bottom Join Date: 2003-04-03 Member: 15175Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">A news story.</div> Ok, i didn't want to post this into the OT forum, because it'd be nuked since it's a bit "sensitive". But i'm not entirely sure of the amount of discussion that can be weened from it. But it is a subject that people will have strong opinions of, so i'll post it anyway.
As reported on the news as i speak, a cathedral in Manchester (England) has withdrawn permission for the LGCM (Lesbian and G*y Christian Movement) to hold a service there.
You can read the whole story <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3079952.stm' target='_blank'>here</a>.
The point being, i figured that Christianity, on the whole, (i'm not that well versed in the religion, so feel free to shoot me down on this) was supposed to be accepting, loving and open-minded. But is such an outright act of homophobia, and essentially discrimination, acceptable from such an institution.
And yes, i am WELL aware of the bible's opinions on homosexuality, but i have been greatly lead to believe that the Christian beliefs were supposed to be about love and forgiveness, not hatred and isolation.
As reported on the news as i speak, a cathedral in Manchester (England) has withdrawn permission for the LGCM (Lesbian and G*y Christian Movement) to hold a service there.
You can read the whole story <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3079952.stm' target='_blank'>here</a>.
The point being, i figured that Christianity, on the whole, (i'm not that well versed in the religion, so feel free to shoot me down on this) was supposed to be accepting, loving and open-minded. But is such an outright act of homophobia, and essentially discrimination, acceptable from such an institution.
And yes, i am WELL aware of the bible's opinions on homosexuality, but i have been greatly lead to believe that the Christian beliefs were supposed to be about love and forgiveness, not hatred and isolation.
Comments
"You can't worship an "all-forgiving" god here kthxbai"
Heretics at its best <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm abundantly aware of that fact. I am in no way saying this is obviously the beliefs of all Christians. The only thing is, these are figureheads of the religious community, and whether they like it or not, their personal opinion does get seen and, unfortunately, reflects on the whole religion. For example, this is on national news (since i live nowhere near Manchester) and has struck a wrong chord with me.
Bibically speaking, they did the right thing.
God is far from "all-forgiving", He is forgiving, but not "all" forgiving. Especially of homosexuals. He eradicated Sodom and Gomorrah for thier homosexuality and incest. He used the harlot, prostitute, and homosexuals as the epitomy of sinners. I'm not saying Christians should do so, not at all, but to disallow them from thier place of worship is something that is totally up to them. For the same reason that many organizations disallow Christians from having services in thier auditoriums, they don't want to be associated with them.
There is a good and grand side to all of this, you'll just have to read the Bible to find it. It's huge, and beyond the scope of this discussion. I guess, if you'd like to discuss it, tell me.
We're talking about an agreement from five months ago (when said chruch apparently decided they were not to judge what's a bad fruit) that was retracted now due to the controversy about homosexuality that currently shakes the Anglikan church. This has little to do with the Bible - it's a simple example of institutional policies, which in this case have to be described as 'hypocritical'.
We're talking about an agreement from five months ago (when said chruch apparently decided they were not to judge what's a bad fruit) that was retracted now due to the controversy about homosexuality that currently shakes the Anglikan church. This has little to do with the Bible - it's a simple example of institutional policies, which in this case have to be described as 'hypocritical'. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The hypocrisy has to be weighed against something. Institutional policy has to be detirmined by some standard. Even if it is some single person's standard, it is still one.
In Christian beliefs, that standard is (should be at least) the Bible. That is why I brought all that up.
If a professing Christian (those that believe in the Bible and profess faith thereof) said that being a homosexual Christian was fine, that would be a standing hypocrisy. I don't understand how disallowing homosexual Christian's to use your "Christian" facility is hypocritical.
We're talking about a concluded agreement that was now broken by one side, not by the citing of a biblical verse, but simply a controversy. I can easily weigh the (non-theological) foundation of that argument against the precessing agreement.
But my reasoning would hold for why they shouldn't have allowed it in the first place. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes lets hate people and destroy them just because their different, and then complain because we want to achieve world peace, and the silly religious zealots are bombing the crap out of each other.
Not necessarily, as one might argue that the strict biblical rejection of homosexual relationships stems mainly from the intention of the early Christian (and contemporary Judaistic) communities of differentiating themselves from the Roman-Greek society where homosexuality was common practice, that this condamnmend of homosexuality is thus nothing more than a relic of the first era of Christian policy.
As I said, don't get me started <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Otto: So what? Most people know that, and most people know why A.D. started at 0 for some reason at a point in history. And that there was a B.C. that came before A.D. And that B.C. means "Before Christ." And that would mean "Before Christians" as well.
Let me quote in context. My mistake. That is what I was replying to.
"So what? Most people know that, and most people know why A.D. started at 0 for some reason at a point in history. And that there was a B.C. that came before A.D. And that B.C. means "Before Christ." And that would mean "Before Christians" as well. "
In the case of whether they are banned from the Cathedral I believe is incorrect, it shows little grace and further disenfranchises their moral case, however, I do believe that is perfectly correct to withdraw permission to use the church for LGCM services. Honestly, the beliefs of the LGCM probably fall into a warped view of Christ, which would fall under an idol, since the LGCM believes that they can simultaneously lavish themselves in which is biblically a sinful nature as they put on a facade as that of a Christian.
My conclusion is that they cannot be Christians if they are unrepentant homosexuals, that is directly defying and denying Christ's sacrifice, being a Christian is much beyond saying a one line prayer for forgiveness. It is a lifestyle in which a person <i>daily</i> sacrifices and denies their wants and desires.
So to further conclude my opinion, I believe that it is incorrect to demonize them as a group, or to ban them from a church because it makes a bad case for Christ. However, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with preventing them from using that cathedral from spreading their message of the LGCM.
Yes lets hate people and destroy them just because their different, and then complain because we want to achieve world peace, and the silly religious zealots are bombing the crap out of each other. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me reply to the rest of that as well.
- Most people form thier own opinion reguardless.
- To die a practicing homosexual, yes, in the Christian belief that would put you in hell. But wait, since you don't believe that, why do you care?
- The Bible states in Eph. 2:8-9 that it is by God's grace and our faith that we are forgiven and that it is not by earthly works.
- I'll wadger that more than 40% of all church-goers are probably not going to be seen in Heaven, so no, not every "skumbag" that goes to church will see it.
"Church" or "Organized Religion" is man's attempt to bring men together and fellowship in the same faith. Yes, there is a problem when such an organization becomes corrupt and loses it's original purpose.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes lets hate people and destroy them just because their different, and then complain because we want to achieve world peace, and the silly religious zealots are bombing the crap out of each other.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't remember ever saying that and I'm not against world peace neither are most Christians other than the implications. But I just believe it impossible as long as there is humanity left in humans. See <i>Equilibrium</i> or read Revelations in the Bible.
The fact that some of them might be new to you while you grew up with others doesn't qualify one as wrong or the other as right.
In the same way that hardcore musicians, politicians, and gamers are the first to offend.
The fact that some of them might be new to you while you grew up with others doesn't qualify one as wrong or the other as right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*bows* <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
*edit* btw nem, I want to see some alternate interpretations of the Bible that say that homosexuality is fine
Sorry did I ever say I was athiest or agnostic? I dislike organized religion. I'm spirtual, not religious. I don't agree with a LOT of what the bible says. And youre right most people don't. But because I shun away from organized religion I'm just fragbait for teh devil I suppose.
Christianity as viewed by society probably contains some truth.
My point is that by philosophy, the LGCM cannot be a Christian organization regardless of their name, the LGCM is trying to take two opposites and make a truth out of it. I'm not trying to be offensive, they can make whatever organization they want, or they can make a homosexual religious group, but I ask, please, don't attach yourself to Christianity if you don't believe in one hundred percent of Biblical text.
It wouldn't make much sense for a political group like the NAACP to say that they were straight on Conservatives now would it ?
Nem, once again reinforcing my example with the NAACP. On a basis of Biblical Christians*, those whose faith is based solely on the Bible and not that of society or politics. It would not be <i>accurate</i> to align yourself with such a group, because the LGCM's beliefs are in direct conflict with that of Christianity. Ergo, for them to do so wouldn't not be prudent by any means because by definition, their behavior as a "saved" Christian cannot be snonymous with that of genuine faith. Christianity is not a belief in which is is here to please everyone, it is what it is, it's not susceptible to change, and to put it harshly if your definition of a Christian is different from that of the Bible than you are wrong. I'm sorry, but to change what Christianity means would be to poison the water and destroy Jesus' sacrifice if people think that just because they like to do something a certain way, or behave a certain way that the definition of what Christianity is should change.
*Biblical Christian meaning Christianity in purely biblical form, the only true accurate definition of what Christianity is. Just as Mormonism is sometimes labeled as christianity, it most certainly is not.
Sorry did I ever say I was athiest or agnostic? I dislike organized religion. I'm spirtual, not religious. I don't agree with a LOT of what the bible says. And youre right most people don't. But because I shun away from organized religion I'm just fragbait for teh devil I suppose. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay....whatever the case, you're at least flamebait.
You got a short form in my previous post. As with the "The woman be silent in the church" in St.Pauls letters, it's impossible to understand the true meaning of the verses without of knowing the historical context.
[edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My point is that by philosophy, the LGCM cannot be a Christian organization regardless of their name, the LGCM is trying to take two opposites and make a truth out of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if you see your philosophical stance as the only true Christian. Yet, there'll be a number of things clearly stated in the Bible (take for example the exact descriptions of how sacrifices should be held) you are not following. Conversely, there can be Christian groups with a philosophy not following the ban on homosexuality.[/edit]
[edit2]Crazy, sorry for not responding sooner, but the thread grew too fast.
You can of course use the Bible as basis of your argumentation, but you will have to accept that others (those others including myself) treat the book differently than you. If you can accept that I'm not a complete heretic for asking how the Bible developed, I'm looking forward to an interesting discussion.[/edit2]
-----Edit-----
Alrighty. You're right, this is growing quickly.
-----Edit 2-----
Gah, I have my nose in a pile of code. Please excuse the spasticness of that statement. I was replying to:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You got a short form in my previous post. As with the "The woman be silent in the church" in St.Pauls letters, it's impossible to understand the true meaning of the verses without of knowing the historical context.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As an addendum: Historical context is good, but you need Biblical context as well to detirmine what Paul meant by that statement.
I'm speaking on terms of Christianity on terms of what the Bible says, I do not trust the relative opinion of people, people are foolish, people make poor decisions, it would be imprudent for people to philosophize on what it means to be a Christian since it's clearly stated Biblically the terms of what it means.
I'm sorry to say this, and I know I will draw some heat, but Christianity based on anything but the Bible is a lie, it's not Christianity by any means.
[edit] I have a feeling I am about to be called a bigot within moments, but understand that I'm very sensitive to people destroying the Bible and changing what it means, instead of changing their lifestyles [/edit]
Agreed, but in this special case, we're reading a nearly 2000 years old book, written by multiple dozen authors who never met each other, lectored by a few hundred people never agreeing with each other, and translated with political intentions. Thus, it's no longer sufficient to read the chapter - one should always also try to find the context on which this chapter was based.
[edit]It seems we agree here <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->[/edit]
[edit2]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm speaking on terms of Christianity on terms of what the Bible says, I do not trust the relative opinion of people, people are foolish, people make poor decisions, it would be imprudent for people to philosophize on what it means to be a Christian since it's clearly stated Biblically the terms of what it means.
I'm sorry to say this, and I know I will draw some heat, but Christianity based on anything but the Bible is a lie, it's not Christianity by any means.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fully agree with you in that "I do not trust the relative opinion of people, people are foolish, people make poor decisions", but the fact of the matter is that the Bible didn't fall from the heavens, it was written by, you guessed it, people. It's unfortunately a topic not known very well, but the actual creation of the assembly of books we call 'Bible' nowadays was the product of a number of big meetings and disputes amongst contemporary religious leaders who decided what became hard lore and what landed in the apocryphes. Uncomfortable though it may be, the Bible isn't the Ten Comandmends, passed to us directely by Himself, it's a human product, and as such faulty like any human product.
[/edit2]