Bishops Put Boot into Brown's Promises & Policies

nickmason

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

<vague memory time>

OH was talking about this a while ago. I think vicars etc aren't employees at all., In law, I think they may work for God, and the Church just hands them a few quid to keep body and soul together. It's not a wage.

This is a vague memory, though, don't rely on it!

Sounds familiar - some reliance on the concept of being "called to God".
Come to think of it, does being called to the bar have the same effect?:D

beingjdc

nickmason wrote: »

Sounds familiar - some reliance on the concept of being "called to God".
Come to think of it, does being called to the bar have the same effect?:D

My experience of being called to the bar, Nick, was that it was more a case of "Get thee behind me Satan*", than a message from God.

Oh right, different bar. Sorry. I'll go to bed now.

*He did, and you know what, he pushed me in!

neverdespairgirl

beingjdc wrote: »

My experience of being called to the bar, Nick, was that it was more a case of "Get thee behind me Satan*", than a message from God.

Oh right, different bar. Sorry. I'll go to bed now.

*He did, and you know what, he pushed me in!

My bar was more, "Miss NDG, I call you to the degree of the Utter Bar".

<shake hands with random blokes>

<sign book on table made from the Golden Hind>

<leave>

neverdespairgirl

nickmason wrote: »

Sounds familiar - some reliance on the concept of being "called to God".
Come to think of it, does being called to the bar have the same effect?:D

My Dad used to say he wanted to go into the Church, but decided money wasn't everything, and joined the criminal Bar.

nickmason

beingjdc wrote: »

My experience of being called to the bar, Nick, was that it was more a case of "Get thee behind me Satan*", than a message from God.

Oh right, different bar. Sorry. I'll go to bed now.

*He did, and you know what, he pushed me in!

I think I've just woken the household with a belly laugh on reading that!!

beingjdc

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

My bar was more, "Miss NDG, I call you to the degree of the Utter Bar".

<shake hands with random blokes>

<sign book on table made from the Golden Hind>

<leave>

Yours is undoubtedly the more profitable bar to which to be called, though I bet it never had Jaegermeister for 10p a shot.

neverdespairgirl

Free port and wine on call night! :money:

beingjdc

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Free port and wine on call night! :money:

I'm on my way!

iolanthe07

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

<vague memory time>

OH was talking about this a while ago. I think vicars etc aren't employees at all., In law, I think they may work for God, and the Church just hands them a few quid to keep body and soul together. It's not a wage.

This is a vague memory, though, don't rely on it!

Vicars are not employees. They are "office holders" which means that none of the employment legislation applies to them. They are expected to work longish hours and be available day and night, so probably do earn less than the minimum wage. Because they work from home and their home telephone number is usually the same as their office number, they do tend to get called at all times of the day and night, often for a trivial reason. In return they do get a free house, which can be a bit problematic when they come to retire. Some of them have spouses who earn enough to buy one, sometimes they inherit one, but usually they throw themselves on the mercy of the Church Pensions Board which will try and find them somewhere to rent. About half of them are 'freeholders' which means that they can stay in their job and house until they're 70, so that is quite a perk.

I don't know why there is such hostility towards them here. Perhaps people can no longer understand the concept of service for its own sake without much material reward. How sad.

iolanthe07

tradetime wrote: »

Interesting choice of phrase, who said irony was dead. Well let's see, "sanctimonious" would be based upon personal experience of those I have encountered, not all I must admit, but most, and thus a generalization, unfair on some no doubt, but I suspect that was not the part of my comment you took most dislike to.
That would leave us with blasphemy, which I'm afraid is not so subjective. If you adopt a position as one who teaches the "Word of God" and you profess to follow the teachings of the bible, then you put yourself in a rather precarious position, if indeed that is not what you do. Take some of the mainstays of modern Christianity, the celebration of Christmas, or Easter, these festivals, however much fun they are, are not from the bible. Similarly the adoption of Sunday as "The Lord's day" not in the bible. So, it follows that if you teach things claiming they come from God, then to me that is blasphemy. Now I may not be religious, and therefore as damned as the rest, but at least I'm honest about it.

This is so silly, I'm not even sure it deserves a response. If you think Easter is not in the Bible try reading Acts 12:4. Christmas was an adoption of the pagan Saturnalia, but so what? How is this blasphemous? Sunday became the Christian Sabbath probably as early as the first century because Sunday, the first day of the week, was the day that the Lord was first seen after his resurrection. The early church adopted it without argument because it was logical and sensible to do so. I don't know any clergy who treat the Bible as some kind of sacred idol. It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies - much of it is just plain weird. That doesn't mean that none of it has any value, and theology is the fascinating art of sifting the wheat from the chaff. Criticising the Bible is only blasphemous if you believe the Bible to be God, and that would be idolatry. I'm not sure you've really thought any of this through properly, have you? And I still think your comment about the clergy was venomous and unfair.