Reader comments · Head of the Church of Scotland linked to anti-gay film · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Head of the Church of Scotland linked to anti-gay film

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The Inland Revenue needs to look into this.Tax payers are not supposed to be paying for something, which the manse was otherwise meant to be for. It doesn’t matter if the company using the premises is non-profit making or not. It is being funded illegally by the Church of Scotland.
    Another criminal offense being swept under the carpet?

    1. Non-profit and not-for-profit are to very different things, but in either case an organization like this is going to be more trouble than it’s worth. I just hope Rev. Bogle is ready for the fallout when it comes…not that he won’t deserve it when it does. *snikr*

  2. If the Inland Revenue was serious about collecting unpaid tax, it could do worse than to visit the Charities Commission website. There are literally HUNDREDS of ‘religious’ charities which only seem to exist as a mean of providing an income for their officers. They make NO donations to ‘charity’. Indeed, many of them are expressley forbidden by their Charter from doing so. I wonder if I established The Peter Panists as a religious charity would I be allowed to keep all my income, tax free? This ridiculous deference for all things ‘religious’ HAS to stop.

    1. Jane McQueen 19 Mar 2013, 1:43pm

      Personally i would remove charitable status from all religious bodies from the off. If they want to set up a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter or something like that then have them set it up as a charitable organisation in its own right and grant that charitable status.

      But the idea that a church should get charitable status just because it is a church is laughable in this day and age.

    2. Hear, hear. Over two centuries into the Enlightenment and we are still indulging shamans like this. With a fair tax regime I think it’s a safe bet that lots of these pious foundations would vanish overnight.

  3. The Moderator of the General Assembly is NOT the ‘Head of the church of Scotland’ Jesus Christ is!.

    1. Pffffffffftt!

    2. Can you show us the contract of employment?

    3. He IS the head of the organization in its manifestation amongst men. Therefore he is responsible for what happens in and with it. He can claim to be following “The Lod’s Word”, but we all know he is just looking to get their opinion shoved down everybody’s throats. Sorry, but I’m the who chooses what enters my throat, thank you very much!

    4. Spanner1960 20 Mar 2013, 6:36pm

      Is Companies House aware of this?

  4. GulliverUK 19 Mar 2013, 2:28pm

    “The important thing to remember is it is quite explicit within the New Testament that homosexual practice is not to be condoned.”

    Where exactly? Because other Christians take a different view of the same text. And Dr Rowan Williams, back in 1989, before he was told compromised by his position, said;

    “a church which accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous texts, or on a problematic and non-scriptural theory about natural complementary, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures.”

    If they don’t say which texts they are referring to and why they have interpreted it that way – they must be ignored. They can’t even prove there was a person called Jesus, or that God exists.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Mar 2013, 2:54pm

      It’s the Leviticus 18:22 verse that all of them use to justify discrimination.

      1. GulliverUK 19 Mar 2013, 3:01pm

        Only the really thick ones who don’t understand that the New Testament is the ‘New Covenant’, and the Old Testament doesn’t apply, because it’s been fulfilled. Although fundamentalists, who aren’t thick, will certainly take the whole thing, and say that every word is the word of God, that it is inerrant, and that every law must be observed. But, … we’ve actually outlawed a large number of those Old Testament laws .. because they don’t represent a modern civilised society, they don’t represent fairness and justice.

        But, I think we both agree, the Bible is a load of old crap, made up, mostly fictional, with a little distorted historical content. Made-up, twisted, mistranslated, misinterpreted, bollocks. (<- don't know if I'm allowed to say that ! ) :D

        ps. They can't even translate Lev 18 22 correct !!

        1. By even entering onto a discussion about this legitimises the erroneous belief that the bible is NOT a work of fiction. IT’S A NOVEL! It has no more legitimacy that Peter Pan. Except it’s older and has been used to persucute anyone who went against those using it to further their own ends. The age of fear and deference towards organised religion is over. Thank god (pun intended).

          1. I know that truth and accept that point. My interest is not in upsetting every single Christian on the planet by ripping up their beliefs, but by asking them to look very closely at those passages used by some to condemn others, and whether they actually mean what they seem to think they do. Without understanding the context of the culture at the time, seeing a proper translation, and being able to see a reasoned interpretation, they might be condemning people without any justification.

            I know it’s a work of fiction, in my view, and even Peter Pan was more believable to me, but that won’t resonate well with Christians who are supporters of equality and equal marriage. Giving them information which they can use to challenge the fundamentalists within their churches is, I believe, a better way.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Mar 2013, 3:13pm

      Also, the first appearance of condemnation of ‘homosexuality’ in the New Testament appears in Paul’s letter to the Romans 1:18-27. This is the one christianity tends to hold on to, especially the Anglican and Roman cults.. Orthodox Judaism and some evangelical christians cults often resort to Leviticus.

      1. GulliverUK 19 Mar 2013, 4:03pm

        There is a very comprehensive interpretation here;

        Got to admit I’m still to shock and awe that we’re still discussing this tripe in 2013. We don’t have the originals, only copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies, and we know much has been mistranslated, added, deleted, changed, over more than a thousand years ago, in a culture from a far-far away place, in a time we can barely comprehend, and for which little is really know with any certainly. It’s clear these biblical texts were for another culture, another people, at a different time from our own, and one of the few reasons it gained any traction was that these were pretty much some of the few texts that survived from ancient times.

        Yet we know those were barbaric times, even for Christians, with incest, slavery, unlawful killings, no justice system, barbarism, war. We don’t want to model modern society on that !

  5. GulliverUK 19 Mar 2013, 2:31pm

    Found it;

    ‘Facing the Reality – Can Someone in a Same Sex Relationship be a Christian Minister?’
    30min video.

  6. The new teastament is also clear that glutony is a sin but doesn’t stop them from ordaining all those lard-arses!

    1. Yes, I find it amazing how many members of the clergy, most of whom are supposedly sworn to poverty, chastity and etc, for the most part seem to have a very “well-rounded” profile. You’d think that there would be more of these men on the thin side, wouldn’t you?

  7. Love the lady minister quoting the Bible against homosexuality.
    Presumably she hasn’t noticed all that NT stuff rejecting female authority?
    Hilarious and grotesque at once. And they seriously seem to think no-one else bothers to read the mad book they so selectively quote.

  8. GulliverUK 19 Mar 2013, 3:07pm

    Ok. I’ve watched it all.

    I’d say that it is effectively a bunch of people talking about what they thought, it was cleverly done to give the impression that it’s a very fair and very balanced set of views, but I’m note sure that’s true.

    Their argument is that because they can’t find anywhere that it says God is pleased by same-sex relationships, that therefore people in same-sex relationships can’t be right. As I said, it is very cleverly done, and you certainly won’t be able to able to shout bigot at the screen, because they’ve been very careful in how it’s presented. Nonetheless, it is by orthodox Christians to present traditionalist views. 36mins not 30 as I originally said.

  9. garry Cassell 19 Mar 2013, 3:13pm

    Just a bunch of greedy biggoted scumbags…all under the disguise of religion…No church should get tax charity status…bogus….

  10. Homosexuality or Gender Variance was not understood in Biblical days any more than nuclear fusion was. Condemnation of same sex acts in the Bible seem always to be connected to promiscuity, rape, or idol worship. The only story that relates to same sex love is Jonathan and David from the book of Kings and God was apparently pleased with their relationship. While we are not told if their relationship is sexual, it is certainly beyond platonic. David claims his love for Jonathan is greater than for any woman. Hello?
    Another interesting story is from the New Testament when Jesus speaks to the Roman Centurian and his companion, a eunuch. A eunuch is the closest example from the Scriptures of a transsexual. Jesus did not shun or condemn them at all. Both stories provide a clear contradiction to the historical Christian attitude towards same sex love and transsexuals.

    1. GulliverUK 19 Mar 2013, 4:05pm

      You are sooooooo right :)

  11. Guglielmo Marinaro 19 Mar 2013, 4:26pm

    I see what that woman minister means. I also struggle to see how a practising minister with a savings account and paying into a clergy pension scheme – both of which accumulate interest – can address particular texts in scripture, saying, “Although the Bible says that accepting interest on a loan is wrong, my lifestyle says I don’t think it’s wrong.”

  12. Athanasius 19 Mar 2013, 7:22pm

    Interesting that a FEMALE minister is keen to stop gays being ministers. The very Bible on which she claims to base her bigotry says that WOMEN are not even to speak in Church never mind hold office. Presumably this is a bit of the Bible that she (in her self-interest) is prepared to overlook. Selective reading and double standards as usual from these people.

  13. Athanasius 19 Mar 2013, 9:03pm

    I knew the Rev Dr Alistair May at University when we were studying Theology together. He was rather narrow-minded, self-opinionated and ungenerous then. It seems that he hasn’t changed much.

  14. Reverend Wilma Pearson, an associate minister in Glasgow, later says: “I struggle to see how a practising homosexual minister can address particular texts in scripture saying although the Bible says this is wrong, my lifestyle says I don’t think it’s wrong.”

    Yes Reverend WILMA, how can a gay man do that?

    Let me introduce you to two verses in the SAME BIBLE that forbids homosexuality:

    1 Corinthians 14

    34) Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35) If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

    Perhaps NOW you can understand how a gay man might be able to do that.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.