Gay bishop gets nod... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-05-2003, 11:04 PM

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.

Phaenx · 08-05-2003, 11:33 PM

Anglican church, bet quite a few people are irate.

sixate · 08-06-2003, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
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.

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?

JBX · 08-06-2003, 05:13 AM

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

lurkette · 08-06-2003, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
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.

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

Sparhawk · 08-06-2003, 07:05 AM

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

sportsrule101 · 08-06-2003, 07:15 AM

when you use human reasoning everything mise as well be approved

ninety09 · 08-06-2003, 08:02 AM

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

The_Dude · 08-06-2003, 11:14 AM

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

Phaenx · 08-06-2003, 11:35 AM

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.

The_Dude · 08-06-2003, 11:46 AM

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

lurkette · 08-06-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
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.

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?

TheKak · 08-06-2003, 02:34 PM

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!

Ralvek · 08-06-2003, 02:44 PM

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

Lebell · 08-06-2003, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
I'm Episcopalian, and I have 0 problem with it...

Ditto.

lurkette · 08-06-2003, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheKak
Yeah lots of compassion in the old testament when it says God hates gays.

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.

Jonsgirl · 08-06-2003, 03:19 PM

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.

chavos · 08-06-2003, 04:45 PM

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...

ubertuber · 08-06-2003, 05:02 PM

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

smooth · 08-06-2003, 06:26 PM

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).

reconmike · 08-06-2003, 06:36 PM

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.

druhim · 08-06-2003, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chavos
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...

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.

splck · 08-06-2003, 06:47 PM

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?

smooth · 08-06-2003, 07:03 PM

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.

Phaenx · 08-06-2003, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
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?

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.

seretogis · 08-06-2003, 07:22 PM

God loves Adam & Steve too. ^_^

Kadath · 08-06-2003, 07:45 PM

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!

sixate · 08-06-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
I find this offensive, not just for your choice of epithet, but because you assume that you know what "joe faggot" is like.

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

Quote:

Election of Gay Bishop Prompts Walkout

Episcopal conservatives protested the election of the denomination's first openly gay bishop by walking off the floor of their national legislative meeting Wednesday as they called on Anglican leaders worldwide to intervene in what they called a "pastoral emergency."

Some delegates turned in their convention credentials and left for home. Others refused to attend voting sessions. Another group dropped to their knees and prayed as one of their leaders denounced the confirmation of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson.

Robinson was confirmed Tuesday after he was cleared of last-minute misconduct allegations that threatened to delay the vote.

The number of protesters Wednesday was unclear. Donald Armstrong, who turned in his credentials, said about 100 people out of more than 800 clergy and laity in the House of Deputies planned to do the same, but far less than that number could be seen leaving the session.

Although conservatives and like-minded overseas bishops have said confirming Robinson would make them consider breaking away from the denomination, the protesters Wednesday insisted they remained within the Episcopal Church and were simply protesting the General Convention vote.

In an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press, Robinson said he hoped his critics would not leave the church, though he disagrees with their view that gay sex violates Scripture.

"I think they're wrong about this," he said. "I think they'll come to know that they are wrong, in this life or the next one."

But Robinson said he values diversity within Anglicanism and hoped his critics will, too.

Bishop Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island, who voted for Robinson, cautioned against interpreting the protests as a sign that a split in the church is imminent.

"Patient waiting is essential without jumping to any conclusions about who will and who will not remain in the Episcopal Church," Wolf said.

Bishop Stephen Jecko of Florida, a conservative who opposed Robinson, refused to participate in the House of Bishops session Wednesday. He said one of his 77 parishes told him that they will withhold their donation to the diocese because part of the money goes to the national church.

"My main priority now is to keep my diocese together," Jecko said.

After Tuesday's 62-45 vote, more than a dozen conservative bishops walked to the podium of the House of Bishops, surrounding Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, who read a statement saying he and the others felt "grief too deep for words."

Some convention delegates who opposed Robinson left the meeting in tears.

"This body willfully confirming the election of a person sexually active outside of holy matrimony has departed from the historic faith and order of the Church of Jesus Christ," Duncan said. "This body has divided itself from millions of Anglican Christians around the world."

The Episcopal Church, with 2.3 million members, is the U.S. branch of the 77 million-member global Anglican Communion. The American Anglican Council, which represents conservative Episcopalians, planned a meeting in Plano, Texas, in October to decide their next move.

Duncan called on the bishops of the Anglican Communion and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the communion, to intervene in "the pastoral emergency that has overtaken us."

"May God have mercy on his church," Duncan said. Eighteen other bishops signed his statement.

The leader of the Anglican Church of West Malaysia, Bishop Lim Cheng Ean, said Asia's bishops might consider cutting their ties with the U.S. church because of Robinson's appointment. But the head of Australia's Anglican Church, Primate Peter Carnley, considered a liberal, said he didn't think it would be "a communion-breaking issue."

Williams issued a statement saying it was too soon to gauge the impact and appealing to opponents not to react rashly.

"It is my hope that the church in America and the rest of the Anglican Communion will have the opportunity to consider this development before significant and irrevocable decisions are made in response," he said.

Gay rights advocates, meanwhile, claimed Robinson's confirmation as a major victory. Robinson said he attended a gathering of gay Episcopalians Tuesday night where some were in tears, saying their gay children had called to tell them they would now return to the church.

"I was blown away for what this meant to those who were gathered there," Robinson told the AP.

Later this week, the Episcopal convention is expected to consider a measure on drafting a same-sex blessing ceremony.

The church has been debating the role of gays for decades. In 1998, a worldwide meeting of Anglican leaders approved a resolution calling gay sex "incompatible with Scripture," but the denomination has no official rules - either for or against - ordaining gays.

The confirmation of Robinson, a 56-year-old divorced father of two, was nearly derailed by allegations that surfaced at the last minute.

David Lewis of Manchester, Vt., e-mailed several bishops, saying Robinson had inappropriately touched him. Bishop Gordon Scruton, who investigated the claim, said Robinson briefly put his hand on the man's back and arm while engaged in a conversation at a church meeting in public view.

Robinson, who helped write church procedures for dealing with such allegations, has apologized if he made Lewis feel uncomfortable, and Lewis said he did not want to file a formal complaint.

The other concern was an indirect link from the Web site of an outreach group for gay and bisexual youth that Robinson helped found. Scruton said the clergyman ended his association with the organization in 1998 and "was not aware that the organization has a Web site until this convention."

If conservatives do decide to break away, it was unclear what that would mean for the Episcopal Church. Some parishes could split from their dioceses and refuse to recognize clergy who support homosexuality, but stop short of a complete separation.

A full schism would trigger, among other things, bitter fights over parish assets and undercut the global influence of the U.S. church.

Bishops from Africa, Asia and Latin America, representing more than a third of Anglican Communion members worldwide, severed relations this year with a diocese that authorizes same-sex blessings - the Diocese of New Westminster, based in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Gorgo · 08-06-2003, 08:12 PM

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 . . .

sixate · 08-06-2003, 08:26 PM

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!

Phaenx · 08-06-2003, 08:36 PM

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.

chavos · 08-06-2003, 10:14 PM

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...

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-06-2003, 10:32 PM

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.

ctembreull · 08-06-2003, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I see all you christian haters exposed in this thread.

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.

Quote:

It was amazing this big push against the catholic church because of a few pedophiles.

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?!.

Quote:

It was all a big push to discredit the church by anti-religion liberals.

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.

Quote:

The church doesn't hate gays either.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

It seems like you people are well on your way to changing our cultures norm of how we view homosexuality,

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-06-2003, 11:46 PM

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.

sixate · 08-07-2003, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chavos
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.

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.

JumpinJesus · 08-07-2003, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx

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.

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.

Charlatan · 08-07-2003, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
It was all a big push to discredit the church by anti-religion liberals.

I think you just called Sixate a Liberal...

sixate · 08-07-2003, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlatan
I think you just called Sixate a Liberal...

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

Phaenx · 08-07-2003, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JumpinJesus
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 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.

08-05-2003, 11:04 PM	#1 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-05-2003, 11:33 PM	#2 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Anglican church, bet quite a few people are irate. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-06-2003, 05:13 AM	#4 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	Next thing they will approve is women Bishops. Bastards... Ahh crap they did that last year. __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

08-06-2003, 07:05 AM	#6 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	I'm Episcopalian, and I have 0 problem with it... __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

08-06-2003, 07:15 AM	#7 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	when you use human reasoning everything mise as well be approved __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

08-06-2003, 08:02 AM	#8 (permalink)
ninety09 Flavour of the Weak Location: Canada	I don't understand why any homosexual would want to have anything to do with these anti-gay religions.. :\

08-06-2003, 11:14 AM	#9 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	the church is thinking...wow! never thought i would see that in my lifetime. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-06-2003, 11:35 AM	#10 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	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. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-06-2003, 11:46 AM	#11 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	maybe thinking wasnt the right word, how about "evolving to the time" __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-06-2003, 02:34 PM	#13 (permalink)
TheKak Insane Location: Virginia	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! __________________ Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

08-06-2003, 02:44 PM	#14 (permalink)
Ralvek Crazy Location: MN	If there wasn't already a lesbian in the ELCA I'd convert...I'm very proud of that church! __________________ Ban country music, it promotes inbreeding.

08-06-2003, 03:19 PM	#17 (permalink)
Jonsgirl Semi-Atomic Location: Home.	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. __________________ Someday, someone will best me. But it won't be today, and it won't be you.

08-06-2003, 04:45 PM	#18 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	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... Last edited by chavos; 08-06-2003 at 04:48 PM..

08-06-2003, 05:02 PM	#19 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	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 __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam Last edited by ubertuber; 08-06-2003 at 05:24 PM..

08-06-2003, 06:26 PM	#20 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	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). __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

08-06-2003, 06:36 PM	#21 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	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. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

08-06-2003, 06:47 PM	#23 (permalink)
splck it's jam Location: Lowerainland BC	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? __________________ nice line eh?

08-06-2003, 07:03 PM	#24 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	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. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 08-06-2003 at 07:08 PM..

08-06-2003, 07:22 PM	#26 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	God loves Adam & Steve too. ^_^ __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

08-06-2003, 07:45 PM	#27 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	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! __________________ it's quiet in here

08-06-2003, 08:12 PM	#29 (permalink)
Gorgo Tilted Location: Tampa Bay, Florida	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 . . . __________________ Will Code for food . . .

08-06-2003, 08:26 PM	#30 (permalink)
sixate Registered User Location: Somewhere in Ohio	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!

08-06-2003, 08:36 PM	#31 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	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. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-06-2003, 10:14 PM	#32 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	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...

08-06-2003, 10:32 PM	#33 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 08-06-2003 at 10:40 PM..

08-06-2003, 11:46 PM	#35 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.