Question for the Christians

(344 Posts)
hiddenhome Sat 31-Mar-12 17:35:32

Just wonderin' 'n' musin' like. Do you ever get fed up or feel uncomfortable with the amount of blasphemy on the main boards? I've been noticing it more and more recently. I don't know why people think that this isn't offensive or unpleasant. I don't think they'd do it to other religions sad Makes me wonder why people are so vehemently anti Christian, then keep making these references. Also, can't understand why people can't equate a religious person's love for God to an atheist's love for their family and children. They wouldn't like to be insulted over their love for their dcs, but quite happily take the pee and dish it out to the faith people. Sometimes they're even hostile and aggressive about it. I find the boards quite slack liberally minded, but don't know why they don't extend this liberalism to everyone. If you truly choose equality, doesn't it mean that the equality should extend to those you don't agree with and even actively dislike?

I know we're supposed to take it as part of being a Christian, but was just wondering how others felt really.

headinhands Fri 08-Feb-13 21:57:39

You notice the disrespect of your god because you're a Christian. And because you're in the UK. Confirmation bias.

headinhands Fri 08-Feb-13 22:01:15

But isn't there a difference between an individual and the law. I don't like the smell of oily fish. I wouldn't like people to cook it in my kitchen if I could help it but to stop people cooking in any kitchen because I don't like it. Really? It sounds like you're upset that you're being discriminated against for discriminating. The government aren't going to force you into a same sex marriage are they.

headinhands Fri 08-Feb-13 22:04:18

Who has said you can't have your views? Your views should not be able to stop people doing what they want within the law of course, but when it comes to your views, fill your boots!

cjel Fri 08-Feb-13 22:27:11

the church states marriage is between a man and a woman. The law is now overruling the church. the government are forcing the church to change their meaning of marriage? I don't get heated one way or another but from the side of the church the christian views are slowly being erroded. We are being less and less allowed to hold our views, I see it as the government saying I can't cook oily fish in my church!!! Would they say that someone couldn't play golf at their golf club? Why should church not be allowed to do what they want in their church. As someone said before people seem afraid to speak out about muslim or hindu beliefs just look at all the councils who won't have christmas or easter. Why can't we have christmas, easter divali etc etc?

headinhands Fri 08-Feb-13 22:33:13

The church doesn't own marriage though.

headinhands Fri 08-Feb-13 22:35:06

You can still hold the same views. It just means gay couples can also marry. You can still go on not being chuffed and not being married to someone of the same sex

It's more that people are objecting to the fact that the church don't have to cook oily fish in their kitchen when they don't want to. They aren't stopping anyone else from cooking oily fish! It's less discriminating than the blanket flaming of all Christians for a personal view that they hold. As far as I'm concerned, it's between you and God what you believe. And if you don't believe in God then you can't be bothered about what God may think.

HouseOfTinsel Fri 08-Feb-13 22:47:03

"the government are forcing the church to change their meaning of marriage?"

How is the church being forced to do anything?

I thought the whole point of the new law was that the established church continues exactly as it has always done (ie they will be unable by law to marry same sex couples)?

HouseOfTinsel Fri 08-Feb-13 22:54:11

"It's less discriminating than the blanket flaming of all Christians for a personal view that they hold."

The thing is, the 'blanket flaming' has to do with politics. As long as the established church is intertwined with the politics of the nation, then it must accept that they will attract political criticism, just like any other politician or political party does.

cjel Fri 08-Feb-13 22:56:57

If thats the case then why make a law at all? The church doesn't own it and that is why you can get married outside of a church, The church just believes in a version of marriage that is between a man and a woman and the state has decided they have to try to change that

DioneTheDiabolist Sat 09-Feb-13 00:07:55

Cjel the law was not passed as an attack on you or the church. It was passed because it was the will of the people.

cjel Sat 09-Feb-13 10:26:45

Thank you Dione, I don't feel attacked but really not sure it was the will of the people!! Which people? It wasn't in manifesto and I missed the referendum. I haven't spoken to anyone straight or gay, christian or not who thought it was urgent. The view of 'the people'I meet at work, college etc is that they can't understand why its happened in such a rush without people pressure!!

DioneTheDiabolist Sat 09-Feb-13 13:16:42

Cjel, you are correct it wasn't in the manifesto and there was no referendum, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't the will of the people. Nor does it mean that legal process was not adhered to when passing the bill.

When Civil Partnerships were introduced many people thought that they afforded gay people the same rights under law as legal marriages. This was not the case and this legislation seeks to redress that. It was a free vote, therefore MPs were allowed to vote in accordance with their conscience and the will of their constituents, rather than be forced to vote in accordance with party principles.

Marriage in this country is a legal point, not a religious one. This law was passed because all people of the UK are subject to the law, therefore the law should apply to all citizens. If the law is to afford legal rights to all citizens regardless if colour, religious views, or sexual orientation. It is discriminatory to have one law for one group and another for a different group.

I take your point about it being rushed through and my personal opinion is that it has less to do with urgent need and more to do with a rather unpopular party trying to improve its image. Sooner or later this change would happen. It has just happened sooner.

cjel Sat 09-Feb-13 15:09:31

I think that the problem with the fact it was rushed through was exactly that although it was a free vote there was not time for mps to find out what the views of constituents are. Agree about all being under the law and as a christian it is part of my belief that I abide by the rules of law, I think it may have been better to amend the law on civil partnership because although marriage may be a legal not religious point it is seen as religious and even this law has discussed not making churches, mosques etc carry them out if they don't want. If it wasn't a religious point this would have been uneccessary. Also agree about unpopular party but that should have made more of before the vote and the reason for this haste explored more.

DioneTheDiabolist Sat 09-Feb-13 18:19:48

Cjel, while it was rushed through in parliamentary time, in real time we have known about it for quite a while. It has been in the papers, on the news and in the pulpit. Religious leaders have given their thoughts on it and congregations have given it thought and made up their own minds. Anyone opposing this has had ample time to lodge their objections. There was no significant opposition to this law because the majority of the people don't oppose it. The majority of people in this country are fine with this.

What we are talking about is a legal contract under law. There is nothing forcing anyone to recognize it as approved by god. Civil Partnership is seen as legal marriage by the majority of the people, now it will be legal marriage.

David Cameron did this because he knew it would be an easy way to increase his ratings.

DioneTheDiabolist Sat 09-Feb-13 18:20:44

That's democracy.

cjel Sat 09-Feb-13 22:39:40

trouble is in prarice ther is no gurantee that churches won't be made to marry people against their wishes. Is the bold type shouty or intimidating I don't follow the need for it, the language speaks for itself. I read it all not just the bold. The emphasis seems a bit rude

DioneTheDiabolist Sun 10-Feb-13 01:45:43

Sorry if you find the bold a bit shouty.blush. I use it to emphasize. I thought that capitals meant shouting.blush. I certainly didn't mean to be rude.

I am sorry for any offense.

cjel Sun 10-Feb-13 11:05:57

Oh my goodness, please don't worry!! just not used to mumsnet etiquette and was trying in my clumsy stayed up too late again way to clarify, but just read what I wrote back and it does sound like a telling off. I'm sorry too.!!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now