NYTimes article
I'll let y'all have fun with that one. We'll see how it influences the church's stance on gay marraige.
I'll let y'all have fun with that one. We'll see how it influences the church's stance on gay marraige.
Episcopal Church approves gay bishop.
- Thread starter ohio
- Start date
I bet Jesus is spinning in his grave 
Why?Originally posted by Silver
I bet Jesus is spinning in his grave
Oh man,
Dis church gunna split bra!
Dis church gunna split bra!
Not sure if I really care if the church gives a high-up position to an openly gay guy simply because I try not to get involved w/ religion whatsoever. However, it shows signs that some people are opening up a little and realizing that we're all just people and deserve some level of respect from each other right off the bat. So, good for them (particularly because christianity has always been one of the most closed-minded religions on earth).
as compared to....
I dont see it as a sign of progress at all. I see it as a sign of fear of ridicule and lawsuit.
I thought it worked on a couple of different levels myself. I'm usually better at sarcasm and left-wing rants than jokes, but this one, it came to me in a vision.Originally posted by LordOpie
dude, that was a joke and the best joke Silver's made to date
Perhaps Chirst is spinning on his cross :devil: I think that's a new ride as Disney
Thanks LO!
Dude! You know those motorized suckers they make for kids who are too lazy to lick their own candy...Originally posted by LordOpie
Perhaps Chirst is spinning on his cross :devil: I think that's a new ride as Disney
Jesus Pops! We'll sell them right next to the WWJD bracelets. What do you think?
Well, let's see here....Budhism, Taoism, non-fundemental forms of Islam...actually, non-fundamental forms of any religion. And perhaps I should rephrase my statement....extremist versions of any religion are bad from any viewpoint (besides the followers). It just seems to me that there are a lot more bible thumbers trying to convert me, failing to do so, and then telling me that I'm going to burn in hell for it, than there are in other religions.
And why is it a fear of lawsuit and ridicule?? Gays ridiculing the church?? That'd be a new one.
Its very in the public eye. It looks bad to keep gays out of anything these days. Clearly you can see that?
Originally posted by LordOpie
stop it... I don't want to like you or think you're funny
"WWJD for a BJ" bracelets? Could sell 'em to the gay priests!
C'mon....we could make millions. I like the bracelet idea, I think we could move those. Of course, you'd also need Moroni pops and Mohammed pops and Moses pops to maximize your target market. Anyone know if Mormon kids eat a lot of candy?
I've got some slogan ideas...
Jesus doesn't suck, but you can.
Let Jesus sweeten up your life.
Don't let your life spin out of control.
:devil:
Well, perhaps the glass is half-empty, but I doubt their main reasons for electing this guy is fear of ridicule and lawsuit. It was bound to happen eventually being one of the slightly more liberal branches of christianity (it's grouped in with liberal Protestantism).
Most religious gays and lesbians I've met have been Episcolpalian.
I say it's all a marketing scam.
I say it's all a marketing scam.
What I would like to know: If this bishop is a Christian, how does he reconcile what the Bible says about homosexuality, or even sexual immorality (as defined by the Bible not society)? Does he just ignore that part, I'm curious as to thought process there. It seems to be contradictory (sp?).
Any way, I don't get it (surprise, surprise) It's lind of like saying your a muslim and eating pork (or something like that).
Any way, I don't get it (surprise, surprise) It's lind of like saying your a muslim and eating pork (or something like that).
Clearly I can see that and clearly I think it's a good thing.
J
Very few Christians that I know actually follow the whole Bible. Now, as far as I can remember, homosexuality is condemmed in Leviticus and by the Apostle Paul mostly.
Well, if you are going to use the Leviticus texts, there is a whole bunch of arcane and just plain weird rules to follow. NOBODY today who identifies as a Christian follows all of those, so by definition they are ignorning parts of the Bible.
Same thing with the Apostle Paul. Very few churches out there would tell women today to keep quiet and subservient to their husbands, and to have their hair cut off if they don't cover their head while praying. So, same thing, Christians ignoring parts of the Bible.
And the whole Sodom thing, with the angels and Lot? Claiming that a condemnation of homosexuality is disingenous at best, that passage is clearly about hospitality, not sexual orientation.
Ok here goes: The Leviticus texts (chapter 18 i think you're referring to) are God telling the Israelists not to partake in the activities of the Egyptians (where they just came from). So the arguement could be made that if you are a Christian (every bit a child of Abraham by faith as a "real" Jew is by birth), that the text in Lev 18 is still applicable. All those "rules and regulations" in the books of Moses are no longer nessecary (i.e. the cerimonial law, with all the sacrafices and such) to adhere to. BUT, does that make the things that required those sacrafices (the sins) not sins anymore, NOPE. Jesus took care of the need for observing all those sacrafices.
Regarding the Apostle Paul and his writings. I think you would be surprised the number of churches that adhere to them, like "real live normal churches" not freakish cults. Actually most of the stuff he wrote on as "rules and regulations" (I hate using that phrase, because that's what this faith is NOT about), finds it's roots in the Old Testament law, which is not a surprise because prior to his conversion he was a rabbi and would have been knowledgeable in that stuff.
Ignoring the issue of this guy being a homosexual, and what the Bible says about homosexuality. The Bible is however very clear on what sexual immorality is. The cliff notes definition could be summed up, "any sexual gratification you get outside your marriage (the Biblical definition of marriage, man and a woman)". So that said, so he would be guilty of sexual immorality, according to the Bible.
So I still would like to know his line of thinking.
I won't argue that many Christian ignore the Bible. I would also say that what looks like ignoring a certain subject or writing of the Bible, is after having studied that text and understanding the context, it was not meant for a particular circumstance. That is not always the case however.
No one can fully follow the Bible to a "T", we are humans and imperfect. There are some basic doctinal tenants though that would need to be adhered to be considered a Christian.
My example, if you don't beleive in Jesus, then your not a Christian, even if you say you are. That's a pretty basic foundation of that faith.
So to have a lifestyle and attitude that is contrary to some basic foundational ideas of the Christian Bible and be a leader in a chruch, I don't understand that. That's why I would like to know where he is coming from, and how he reconciles that.
So why don't you ask him?
I won't argue that many Christian ignore the Bible. I would also say that what looks like ignoring a certain subject or writing of the Bible, is after having studied that text and understanding the context, it was not meant for a particular circumstance. That is not always the case however.
No one can fully follow the Bible to a "T", we are humans and imperfect. There are some basic doctinal tenants though that would need to be adhered to be considered a Christian.
My example, if you don't beleive in Jesus, then your not a Christian, even if you say you are. That's a pretty basic foundation of that faith.
So to have a lifestyle and attitude that is contrary to some basic foundational ideas of the Christian Bible and be a leader in a chruch, I don't understand that. That's why I would like to know where he is coming from, and how he reconciles that.
because of 24 damn it 24!!!
Many of them are also Presby.
Ah, the imperfect cop-out. It's not that a few things get left by the wayside, there are parts of the bible that get ignored or otherwise overlooked all the time.
I also never got the impression from reading the bible that it was obsessed with homosexuality or that being heterosexual was one of the tenets of faith.
Many of the bible's followers on the other hand seem to have an odd obsession with homosexuality, I'm just not sure where it comes from.
That's my exact question about this Bishop. Throwing the homosexual "argument" out the window, the issue of sexual immorality (as defined by the Bible) still remains (that would apply to a hetrosexual relationship outside of marriage also).
You're right, the Bible is not "obsessed" with homosexuality, but it is clear as to it's permissibility (if that's a word). Again, if you're looking for Scripture references, homosexuality would fall under the "sexual immorality" in the Bible. Paul makes many references to that.
You're also right that it does not hold being heterosexual as being a "tenent of faith", it does however clearly define what a "Biblical" marriage is (one woman & one man).
As for the odd obsession about homosexuality, I can't answer that.
I would ask my orginal question to this Bishop if he were say: an open heroin addict, or addulterer, or alcoholic, or (fill in your sin of choice here). So my issue is not with his sexual orientation, rather how he reconciles a blatantly anti-Bible lifestyle, with being a leader in a major Christian denomination. Side note: Jim Baker seems to spring to mind.
He probably reconciles it the same way you reconcile not killing an adulterous couple with a spear, or telling slaves to obey their masters.
Different mores for different times.
Different mores for different times.
He said Presby!
: The Cheese
The couple I think you're refering to are in the Old Testament, and I don't think there is anything in the Old testament Law regarding that.
If you're a Christian you suppose to obey your "earthly" authority, be it the president, police, or if you're a slave your master. I guess I didn't get your point there, sorry.
"Different mores for different times."
That's my exact point. If (and I stress IF) you claim to be a Christian, how do you reconcile contradicting something (the Bible) that has not changed in thousands of years. The basis of different mores for different times, is pretty flimsy from the Christian perspective. I think that same mindset permiated the Israelites as they wandered through the dessert for 40 years, also the time of King Solomon and after when the kingdom divided.
The Bible is also pretty clear about twisiting it to say what you want to suit your own needs or mores of the time (i.e. Jesus with the Pharisees, Nehemiah.....).
Let me be clear, I am not condeming this Bishop, it's not my place to. My whole interest in this issue is the logic behind his thought process. And maybe it's not just limited to him, maybe the Episcopal's as a whole (or not) have a loose, relativistic interpretation of the Bible. And if so, great, that's their choice, I just don't understand it.
Weren't the many denominations founded because of differing interpretations of the Bible? Like the Methodists vs Baptists vs Lutheran?
The Cheese
The Cheese
I think (and I may be wrong) those differences boiled down to differences on how to "have church" rather than major doctrinal differences. If you go to the official websites of those denominations you mention, I think you'll find on their "statements of faith" area, they are pretty similar.
What if said homosexual priest is not having sex with another man but still considers himself to be a homosexual?
I know many guys who are not getting any sex at all but still consider themselves heterosexual...
Is it the mind or the physical act that determines your label?
Remember when Jimmy Carter admitted to "lusting in my heart"...
I know many guys who are not getting any sex at all but still consider themselves heterosexual...
Is it the mind or the physical act that determines your label?
Remember when Jimmy Carter admitted to "lusting in my heart"...
"!Originally posted by SuzyCreamcheese
He said Presby!
The Cheese
:" isnt that a contradiction?
I'm not near my bible right now, so I don't want to comment on the first part and be wrong, but I'm 99% sure that the OT prescibes death as a punishment for adultery. It also tells parents that rebellious children must be stoned to death. And the slave thing, of course.
My point is that NO mainstream christian today would advocate stoning a child who is disobedient, or the death penalty for adulterers, or advocate slavery. So they are making judgements based on the different social mores of the time. I'm making the argument that social mores are changing to a point where homosexuality is not as big a deal as it was, and that churches are going to start changing accordingly, just like they did when children stopped being stoned, witches stopped being burned, and owning slaves was acceptable.
uhh, i think his point is that the church is no longer following the bible and if they're not following the bible, how can they call themselves Christians? The bible is static... it's not supposed to change with the times.
Stop arguing oranges while he's arguing apples.
Supposedly, the only group truly following the bible is Mesianic Jews (Jews for Jesus).
Yeah, but my counterpoint is that there is no church that I'm aware of that follows the bible either. Everyone picks and chooses what they are following.
Andyman was wondering how this bishop can reconcile being gay with being a christian. I'm arguing that it's quite easy, the bishop probably does it the same way other people rationalize other things in or out of their religion.
No, I don't think that this priest considers himself a hypocrite any more than a christian who goes out to eat on a Sunday or doesn't follow ceremonial laws do. They all have a way of rationalizing certain things in and out, and I don't think homosexuality is much harder to rationalize out than a lot of other stuff. Hell, you want something hard to rationalize? I'm sure a lot of molesting priests consider themselves to be faithful servants of God that make an oops now and then. But I'm sure they find a way to rationalize their behaviors to themselves.
There is the off chance, I guess, that this bishop is a complete hypocrite, but I prefer to take the less cynical view.