Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

Vicar 'refuses to baptise' baby of lesbian

aimi leggett baptise lesbion baby reverend george gebauer

  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#91    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 7,635 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 15 September 2013 - 04:43 PM

View PostMichelle, on 15 September 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

They were not part of the congregation, one of their parents were. Contrary to what you believe no one can walk into any church, that they aren't a member of, and expect them to preform any kind of ceremony.

We know a girl that recently married a Catholic guy. She had no particular religious affiliation, but she does believe there is a God, and had to take classes for months to learn about the Catholic faith before his priest would preform the ceremony. Do that to a gay couple and all of a sudden you have case of discrimination or homophobia.
I have given up with shadowhive on this one, he will start twisting your words soon and basically you WILL BE the devils child.
Posted Image

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#92    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,641 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 16 September 2013 - 12:13 PM

This is one of the bigger non-issues I've seen make the 'hit parade' on UM. A fill-in priest, perhaps confused. contributed to a misunderstanding, there was a dispute resolved quickly, legally and in a theologically sound fashion. Finis. (See post #5).

@Leonardo: Baptism is not an individual service rendered just to the one to be baptized; it is a communal sharing in a millennia-old act believed to be ordained by JC involving promises made by the parents, godparents (or 'sponsors') and the Church, represented by the local congregation, relating to the Christian education, upbringing and support of the one baptized. In fact it's a very communistic sort of thing, done correctly.

@Shadowhive: Some of your posts impute to the first priest, who tried to deny the baptism, some degree of malice or bad intentions (you mentioned he "abused" his position). I didn't read that in the OP. The most logical, and therefore probable, conclusion is that he was not a very creative or quick thinker, and this situation bounced off his insular cognitive and/or faith capacities. The clearer cleric prevailed.

Problem solved, before any of us ever posted anything.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#93    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 26,439 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... Gorram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Make it so!

Posted 16 September 2013 - 02:13 PM

It seems that someone is always portrayed as the Big Bad Wolf. In this case we have two contenders:

1- the Lesbian couple! They are "forcing" religion to accept them.

2- the Priest! He showed hate to a minority group.

It seems that depending on your outlook on life the chances are you've already chosen a side. And just as likely you've acknowledged the alternative and chosen to chalk the alternative up as an attempt at shifting blame from where you think it truly belongs.

Perhaps seeking to lay blame is not in anyone's interest and we can then simply deal with the fact that at the end of the day, both parties had their needs met. Why try and turn this into either a- gays forced our hand, or b- the church is hostile to gays? Surly such dualism is counter productive.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#94    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 16,067 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 16 September 2013 - 04:44 PM

View Postszentgyorgy, on 16 September 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

@Leonardo: Baptism is not an individual service rendered just to the one to be baptized; it is a communal sharing in a millennia-old act believed to be ordained by JC involving promises made by the parents, godparents (or 'sponsors') and the Church, represented by the local congregation, relating to the Christian education, upbringing and support of the one baptized. In fact it's a very communistic sort of thing, done correctly.

If you are speaking of the ceremony, you are correct. If you are speaking of the sacrament of baptism (which is what I mentioned), you are wrong.

So, does the church care more for the ceremony, or the sacrament the ceremony is supposed to represent?

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#95    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,641 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 16 September 2013 - 11:23 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 16 September 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

If you are speaking of the ceremony, you are correct. If you are speaking of the sacrament of baptism (which is what I mentioned), you are wrong.

So, does the church care more for the ceremony, or the sacrament the ceremony is supposed to represent?

No, sir. I am referring to the sacrament itself--which, I thought, was clear from my plain English. The very fact that the Church local (in an ol' retired duffer's opinion) hesitated, then corrected itself (in the form of the sensitive supervising priest) says it all. Even the monolithic, 'unbending,' male-dominated antiquated Church can----make a good decision once in awhile!.

The sacrament is not "individual," as you stated; some one-on-one individual process or situation.. It is a communal relationship involving parents, godparents (sponsors) and the congregation, representing the Church universal.

Perhaps you do, but if you don't, go to a church some day (Catholic, Anglican-Episcopalian, Lutheran, Orthodox, Presbyterian, or other traditions which baptize infants) and ask the pastor/priest/minister about this non-issue, resolved. Don't go to most Baptist' Assemblies of God or other conservative, fundamentalist Christian groups, because they will simply say: "We don't baptize infants."

Research awaits. Sing a hymn for me. Thanks.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#96    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 18 September 2013 - 11:50 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 14 September 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

The service being performed, was for the benefit of the child (according to the belief, anyway) - not the parents. The sacrament of baptism says nothing about what gender the parents (or legal guardians) should be - that was imposed upon the ritual by prejudices held elsewhere in the belief.

Wether it is an officially written Doctrine or not, the church of "God" does not believe in homosexuality being acceptable. This is a sin to them, and simply saying "this isn't for the homosexuals just a kid they have" is pointless. They would still be required to stand in a church. Do you understand the concept of letting an abomination stand in the very presence of their God? That's like demanding that they allow the devil himself because he's still an angel, a fallen angel but an angel nonetheless... THIS MAKES NO SENSE.

If you know a church/faith hates you and considers you an abomination or anything of that sort why in the bloody hell are you still wanting to be a part of this faith? This is borderline Massocism, and nobody should be allowed to force their own beliefs upon another faith. Simple enough, you fit the faith or you don't. If you don't, then find another faith, but forcing them to change for your own needs is complete and utter bullsh**.

PS- Same works vice versa. The church of one faith should not have the authority to decide what a church in another faith should be allowed to do or not. For example, christian churches should not be able to say that gay marriage is disallowed all-in-all, because maybe someone from my faith would marry homosexuals under their God...

Edited by xFelix, 18 September 2013 - 11:54 PM.

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users