Gay bishop gets nod...
 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/bishop/index.html

Read through if ya like, pretty self explanitory. I myself don't know what to think. I think in a sense it was a poor move. This isn't on the grounds that he was gay, but the fact that he is openly gay, which means practicing. He is not a cool dude, he divorced his wife to go be with his "partner" (breaking up his family) back in the 80's. As far the Anglican church is concerned I wonder what they are smoking, they just spat on the christian institution.

All in all doesn't suprise me though, the GLBT's are crawling out of the wood work these days it seems, and making a push.

Anglican church, bet quite a few people are irate.

Re: Gay bishop gets nod...
 

So you think it's OK that the church protects pedophiles from the law, but you don't like that they approved a gay bishop. Shit dude, I'll bet that more than half of the dudes involved in churches are gay men. Gimme a break. Churches are dumb! Why does anyone give a shit who this guy bangs?

Next thing they will approve is women Bishops. Bastards...
Ahh crap they did that last year.

Re: Gay bishop gets nod...
 

It seems to me that this (the divorce) is between him and his wife/family, and not something that should disqualify him from being a bishop. It's not like he had an affair and left her for another woman. He discovered something about his identity that made it a big fat lie for him to stay married, and I'm sure it was a hard choice for him as well.

Quote:

All in all doesn't suprise me though, the GLBT's are crawling out of the wood work these days it seems, and making a push.

...to be accepted as human beings and treated fairly? How dare they! /sarcasm

I'm Episcopalian, and I have 0 problem with it...

when you use human reasoning everything mise as well be approved

I don't understand why any homosexual would want to have anything to do with these anti-gay religions.. :\

the church is thinking...wow! never thought i would see that in my lifetime.

Thinking of what though? Are they planning on reaching out to a new crowd? The church almost has to pander to certain people, there's no way joe faggot is going to read the bible and be ok with half the things in it. Meanwhile, they lose a big chunk of their following from people disgusted with their descision.

I think it's a very bad move. But officially I don't actually care.

maybe thinking wasnt the right word, how about "evolving to the time"

I find this offensive, not just for your choice of epithet, but because you assume that you know what "joe faggot" is like. I know a lot of very religious gay people who find a lot of meaning in the Bible. There's a lot of compassion and wisdom in it, and for those who aren't uncomfortable thinking that times change and interpretation of scripture can comfortably change with it, there's no contradiction at all in gay people being Christians. In fact, most of the gay Christians I know are much better Christians than most of the closed-minded, hate-filled Bible-thumpers I know.

If the church alienates anybody because they're uncomfortable with gay leadership, then so be it. A lot of churches lost parishioners in the 60s because they stood up for racial equality. Did that make it a bad decision because they alienated the racists?

Yeah lots of compassion in the old testament when it says God hates gays. I guess its ok to overlook that though, and the pedophellia, buy hey, they must be great people, its the church!

If there wasn't already a lesbian in the ELCA I'd convert...I'm very proud of that church!

Ditto.

I don't believe it says "God hates gays" anywhere in the Bible. And we've been down this road before about a dozen times on the boards so I'm not going to quote scripture at you about all of the other things that the Old Testament says that we don't take seriously; so why should we take this part seriously? Most Christians believe that the New Testament "trumps" the Old Testament anyhow. Granted, Paul had a few things to say about homosexuality but he also has a lot to say about other issues that many modern Christians interpret liberally.

Quote:

I guess its ok to overlook that though, and the pedophellia, buy hey, they must be great people, its the church!

The pedophilia in the Bible? I hope that's what you're talking about because I wouldn't want to think you were so ignorant as to equate homosexuality (sexual attraction to one's own gender) and pedophilia (sexual attraction toward children). Pedophilia actually occurs at a higher rate among heterosexuals than homosexuals.

Eh, whatever, dudes. I say let the man be bishop. Good for him! and for all the people who hate it, isn't it better the evil you know than the evil you don't?
And I don't know why this made the news all of a sudden, the nominations for bishop went public last April. Why is it a big deal a week before the vote? If people didn't care enough to find out back then, they really can't say shit now.

I'm not a practicing episcopalian anymore, but it's the church i was raised in...and i'm still very proud of it. For those who remember Lambeth, and the very narrow defeat there, this is a very sweet victory indeed.

a quote from kathleen norris in her book, "amaxing grace" sums up my reaction nicely...
"I refuse to be shaken from the fold. It's my God, too, my Bible, my church, my faith, it chose me. But it does not make me "chosen" in a way that would exclude others. I hope it makes me eager to recognize the good, and the holy, wherever I encounter it."

and a linky for those who state that one cannot be both GBLT and Christian:

"Paul assures us in Romans 8: 38-39: "Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

What liberating words! NOTHING separates us from God. Not homosexuality, not disbelief in certain creeds, Bible passages, litanies or opinions of other believers. Not sin, not death, not anything."

http://www.whosoever.org/faq.html

Edit...i forgot to mention that his family that Mojo claims he "broke up" supports him...there's a picture of his daughter giving him and his partner a huge hug in the papers...

Jonsgirl -

It is a big deal because just recently - July 23rd to be exact, the American Anglican Council (a group that consists of many of the most conservative elements of the Anglican communion) met in Virginia to pre-emptively discuss their strategies for opposing the vote to confirm Bishop Robinson, not to mention their planned action should he be confirmed. This is a large, and in some cases very key faction in the Anglican community that publicly, to the press, in writing declared their intention to oppose this confirmation. Already we have seen the reactions of the Anglican leaders in other countries/continents. I don't know how to make a link, but this is the address for this statement of the AAC:

http://www.aplacetostand.org/dspnews.cfm?id=5

their main site is
http://www.americananglican.org

Myself, I have mixed feelings about these developments. I was raised Episcopal, and nothing has made me more proud of that than them being the first mainline faith to confirm a nomination for an openly gay bishop. I see this as a move towards the future, not to mention being consistent with the core of their own teachings. What saddens me is the vitriolic nature of the reactions of those who opposed this move. I truly didn't expect to see a church group bring up accusations that, in retrospect, seem like a smear campaign to stop a vote that looked likely to go through. I only hope that Robinson will not be pressured to step down as Jeffries (an Englishman in the same position) was, and that the Episcopal church practices a little unilateralism and stays with what they have decided is the right decision, despite international pressure.

*edit* I guess I did know how to make a link :cool:

I also grew up Episcopalian. I don't really want to digress into doctrinal debates here. Despite one's personal belief, however, there is no possible way to construe Paul's words or the doctrines of our faith to allow homosexuals who maintain sexual relations to hold leadership in our church.

The scripture is extremely clear that homosexuality is a sin and, furthermore, that one must not continue to do that which he (or she) understands to be a sin.

I wasn't opposed to the nomination on the grounds that he claimed he and his friend did not engage in sexual activity. Obviously, while I can't be opposed to same-sex agape love if these two men harbor sexual thoughts about one another then he shouldn't be the bishop.

Of course, that isn't for me to determine and if he claims that they aren't, then we should accept that statement.

My point isn't based upon "vitriolic" reponses to a deviant lifestyle, however. I would say the same in regards to a man who desired to have sexual relations with a woman (lusting).

What I do not understand is, why would anyone feel the need to profess their sexual preference?

I can not remember the last time is said "I love women".

If they promoted him to bishop more power to them, It should have been on merit anyhow, but I am still lost on the logic of making it a sexual issue.

Chavos, speaking as a humanist I find your post inspiring. Although I don't personally believe in a god, I do come from an evangelical background and your attitude and interpretation of scripture is most refreshing.

Peace. :cool:

Good for him. I'm sure there are now and have been many gay Bishops over the years. Why should admitting he’s gay make any difference?

Well, splck, I don't have a problem with someone "being gay." For me, this is more of an issue over whether people who continue to "live in sin" (according to the tenets of the denomination) should be leaders in the church.

My understanding is that this requirement appies to everyone--liars, thieves, adulturers, and everyhing else Paul (and various other biblical writers) listed as sins. This is not to state that such people are not or will not be saved. But the requirement is clearly for someone to renounce one's sinful past and lead a new life without sin.

I don't believe that is possible for me and I suspect the same holds true for the people posting in this thread who are/were Episcopalian--that could be the reason we don't practice that particular faith anymore.

But I also don't believe that our claim that living sinlessly is impractical or impossible is an appropriate rationale for not following the tenets laid out in the "rulebook." If one says he or she honors and desires to live by the book, then one should do so rather than attempting to justify one's lifestyle or else quite claiming to respect the book.

EDIT: But I also maintain that I support this person for bishop on the grounds that he claimed he doesn't entertain sexual impulses or engage in them.

I am not claiming that homosexuality is immoral but I am stating that practicing Episcopalians believe the bible tells them it is immoral.

Clearly my epithet was completely accurate and hilarious.

Compassion and wisdom towards whom? Racial equality, sure, that works with the bible well enough. Not gays though, the bible says homosexuality is an "abomination" to god, and that the penalty for such actions is "death." Now, before you go digging around for scriptures contrary to this one, as I'm sure you will, you should ask yourself why joe faggot would want to be a part of a religion that 1: Says this in the first place, and 2: Says something later completely contradicting itself. A strict disciplined lifestyle is good, I applaud that, but the bible is most certainly not the only place to learn morality.

I think most people know this, and they're not going to join the church because gays are allowed to go. I know what most people are like, they don't much care for you telling them you're an abomination and you're going to kill them. But I'll put money on a lot of people switching denominations because of this, it is not a good move.

God loves Adam & Steve too. ^_^

From tonight's Daily Show:
"Jesus has two Daddies."
People who are bigoted, whether against gays, blacks, women, Jews, whatever, they sure make things easy for me. No need to feel bad about thinking their opinions are poorly considered and ignorant any more!

Maybe his choice of words are a bit harsh, but that's exactly what the majority of poeple who go to church think. Sure, deny all you want, but it's true. Here's a story to back it up too. All the christians that I work with did nothing other than call this guy a stupid faggot for the past 2 days. This coming from a bunch of guys who do drugs, drink, beat their wives/kids, and cheat on their wives. Yet somehow it's OK for them to do that. I guess the church and god don't have a problem with that because they go to church and are forgiven for their sins, but a guy can't fuck another guy? WTF!? Religion is far worse than any drug on the planet and I sure am glad I'm not addicted to any of that crap. I'll never get how gay people can believe in a faith that absolutley hates tham. It's all rediculous to me.


LINKY

I think this situation demostrates clearly how "hypocritical" organized religions tend to be. A religion that doesn't condone the gay lifestyle but allows a gay individual to become a Bishop is apparently a new paradigm.

And here is confirmation that gay is a "lifestyle" for some people. He was previously married and has 2 children from that marriage, he now has a male partner. While he is now "openly" gay, he has played for both teams . . .

Does anyone actually think he is the only gay bishop?
I'm sure there are thousands of them hiding in their closets and pray for the day they can come out.

The next time you go to church don't forget about all the pedophiles that the church has been hiding for years!

I know enough about the bible to know homosexuality is frowned upon, I don't really go to church though. Didn't have to after I was old enough to leave home =).

Faggot is also more of a neutral term in my neck of the woods as well. That's not to say I don't like homosexuals, the issue here is that the church congrigation doesn't like homosexuals.

sixate, phaenx-you can say "all christians are homophobic" and use all the personal stories you like, but the problem is that you're wrong. Not only do a significant number of Christians themselves identify as GBLT (as witnessed by the link i posted...www.whosoever.org/index.shtml), but a significant number consider themselves allies. They are moved to state that all are welcome, and that the love that calls them to the church is not bound by sexual orientation. There is a significant amount of theological work done in this area, most famously by an other Episcopalian, Bishop J. S. Spong who wrote "Living in Sin?" The number of churches that identify as being welcoming to GLBT members is growing steadly in many denominations. The claim that the religion "hates" them is two sided. There are those who do harbor unreasonable and degrading hatred or fear towards GBLT persons...and do so in the name of Christ. But when the message is accepting, reconcling and steadfast love to "whosoever believes"...it's hard to claim that the religion inheiriently proclaims hatred to GBLT persons. (John 3:16).

There is so much more to Christian faith than a few verses... These were human works, written by human authors. It is impossible, IMO, to contest that. Whether there is hidden in the missteps and obscurity, a divine truth...that is a matter of faith. But it is quite clear that a reasonable interpretation of scripture does not place undue weight on a few scant passages. God's love and forgiveness are proclaimed over and over again...the condemnation of GBLTs takes but a few words. I'm inclined to see the real message in the majority, not the exceptions.

Moreover, most churches believe in continued revelation, that God is still expanding our understanding of our nature and of God. Overturning one legalism is hardly new to the church...this one just has a lot more emotion around it than not eating meat on fridays.

Lurkette: Amen...i second your assertion that it is not right to judge someone's belief system out of a sentiment of "knowing what's best for them." The movement for open acceptance of GBLT Christians is not self hatred adherance to a lifeless law, but a reflection of a deep and life giving faith. Your analogy to civil rights is very apt...the religion that was used to justify slavery was also the beginning of the faith that lead men and women to fearlessly proclaim their equality. Then, and now...there are prophets that call upon the Church to do what is right.

Druhim: Thank you...

I see all you christian haters exposed in this thread. It was amazing this big push against the catholic church because of a few pedophiles. They assume among the population its 2%, where in the actually population its more like 8%. It was all a big push to discredit the church by anti-religion liberals.

The church doesn't hate gays either. In fact as far as I understand the christian religion there should be no problem with gay bishops/priests/lay people, for the sin is in the act/lifestyle not just by merely being gay. Priests are supposed to be celibate straight or gay alike, so it really isn't an issue.

It seems like you people are well on your way to changing our cultures norm of how we view homosexuality, which you know what I don't rally have a problem with. However I do have a problem when you people go after the church and those who don't agree with it, they have the right to not agree with it... In fact they have the right to HATE, and thats cool aslong as the hate doesn't turn into physical harm or discrimination.

Speaking as an avowed atheist, I find Catholicism hard to love, and other Christian denominations only slightly less so. I think my problems with Catholicism started when they forced Galileo to recant, and it's only gone downhill from there. No, Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in specific are really very easy to hate.

Are you saying that the pedophilia scandal wasn't a problem? They serially molested young boys for years, and the Church covered for them! The Vatican actually took steps to protect them! And you think this is somehow right?!.

Two points. First off, it doesn't take much to discredit the Catholic Church. Here, I'll show you. Since the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church has clung to the notion of papal infallibility. Basically, it says that the Pope speaks for God, so the Pope is always right. Well, long long ago, the Pope forced Galileo Galilei to recant his belief that the Earth actually circled the Sun, which was in direct contrast to the officially Church-sanctioned dogma that the Earth was the center of the universe.

Now, of course, we know better. Which means the Pope was wrong. But the Church, I think, has never admitted it. It has never actually said it erred, because to do so would shoot papal infallibility right in the foot. Well, shit. There goes the Vatican's credibility. And that's just for openers.

I'm sure you're right in general principle, but it's telling that this is the first openly gay bishop in history. It's equally telling that the message from so-called Christians of all stripes, all over the world, is that gays are all headed straight to hell. Example: The Reverend Fred Phelps and his entire congregation, just for starters.

Not every Christian strain requires its priests to be celibate. Celibacy, by the way, means that the priest cannot marry. Chastity is probably the word you're looking for. So in other words, you're allowed to be gay, but you can never ever take the mate you choose, nor can you ever consummate a relationship in the same way a straight priest would be able to (sect dependent, of course). That, sir, is outright bigotry.

This is only the beginning. I just can't wait to hear the screams of anguish when gay marriage is legalized. And the best part is that I'm not even gay. But I'm very gratified to know that steps are being taken to eradicate this particular form of bigotry.

You mean hate and discrimination like that which gays have been subjected to for so long? A reckoning is coming...

Very good points Ctem. But don't be so harsh on the catholic church if it weren't for them we would probably all be muslims speaking spanish. The church was extremely fucked up back in the day, I'll be the first to admit that as a catholic. Thing is they had to much power, they were the political force of the world... that is never a good thing, just look at the world of Islam and all of its woes. Another thing religion is allowed to utilize bigotry, if you don't agree with it thats too bad. As far as gay marriage goes, it may happen in a few of the more liberal chruches. Obviously civil unions will get passed, and good its about time.

I never said all, but I will say about 80% are like that, and I don't care if you want to believe it or not it just doesn't matter to me. If the church doesn't hate gays then why was this such a big deal. There are a ton of christians who are against this. There are a ton of christians who are against gay weddings. Sounds like a lot of hate to me. These same christians won't say anything when you bring up the point that the church has been protecting a lot of pedophiles from the law.

I hate all religion equally so don't think it's only one religion that I don't like.

I couldn't let this go by without responding. I also live in Columbus and "faggot" is NOT a neutral term here. I do not wish anyone to get the impression that Columbus is like that. I reside in German Village, which is the part of town with a high homosexual population, and I can assure you that "faggot" is not a neutral term here or anywhere else in Columbus, Cleveland, or Cincinnati.

Phaenx, I respect a lot of what you have to say, but I have to call you on this one.

I think you just called Sixate a Liberal... :D

Just goes to show how much he pays attention, huh?

I was talking about myself, my friends, and my family (in large part), but it also applies to most everywhere now that I think of it. I hear spades of people use it in Columbus, even in other cities. Go hang out with some young folks who aren't at work, they use it constantly. Older folks use it as well. Doesn't mean they're trying to be hurtful or derogative, though the word certainly can be used derogatively, hence the neutrality.