Promoting a gay priest to bishop

[spiritman51]

"I'm afraid that the Bible quoting Christians are not the only group who can not be reasoned with at times. Nor are they the only ones who doggedly attempt to force society to comply with their wishes and way of thinking. "

I wish you would plainly state "the other group of people attempt to force society to comply with their wishes". I think I know since this thread is about the promotion of a gay priest to a brishopric. I believe you're talking about gay people and their allies. No one impossed the elevation of Bishop Gene on the Diocese of New Hampshire. He was elected and approved by a majority in both the house of Bishops and the House of Laity. In America Gay people have no real power except to say We are here and we have the right to all the rights afforded by the Bill of Rights

"Tolerance is one thing, and in great abundance in the United States. However the tolerance is a practiced behavior that has to be consciously reinforced during particular times. It can only go so far when the majority of people have a natural revulsion to somthing and are forced into close proximity for long periods of time."

For a long time white people in America had a "serious revulsion" toward blacks. Virginia in the 1920's stated anyone with one drop of African blood
was forever tainted and unfit to marry "white". White people hated blacks so much they hung and shot them for sport. White Americans can no longer do this to the Blacks, because the law of equal protection under the law has forced the majority race , regardless of revulsion, to treat blacks as full citizens.


"Finally, if no positive benefit can be seen towards a certain behavior (such as strengthening, nuturing and reinforcing society's cohesiveness), then society as a rule defends itself by rejecting the behavior. Those that insist on continuing the behavior in such a fashion that it appears to disrupt society's cohesiveness are in fact cast out, or shunned."

America is made up of many societies. However, the body politic should be free of emotional and religious biases and treat each citizen fairly and equally under the law. For example; the Federal Government just overturned the antiquated sexual laws and removed a potential criminal conviction from over the heads of gay people in 15 states.

"Pardon the cliche, but the needs of the many out-weigh the needs or wants of the few..."

I think in America the desires of the Rich out-weigh everything else.

[Ben57]

I have just been reading this thread and can readily tell that this is a subject that gets to people.


It is true that God does not desire any to be destroyed but desires us all to attain repentance. (2 Pet 3:9). So the way is open for all of us to gain life, including those that are "gay".

However God does set some "rules" for us to abide by. These "rules" are for the good of the group. For example take the traffic laws of the country you live in. Why do we have them? So that every one can travel the roads in "safety". Why are there accidents that cause deaths? Mainly because some choose to do their own thing. They chose to speed, or run red lights or travel on the wrong side of the road or not maintain their vehicles in a road worthy manner etc etc.

If we break those laws we should expect a punishment. Those that complain that there are too many radar traps say that it is a fund raising issue fore the government, and are usually the ones that try to speed. For those that do not speed they see it as justice to fine those that do.

So God sets rules for the benefit of the all. Some of these rules include no sexual relations out side of marriage. That means no pre marital sex for young ones no extra marital affairs, and no homosexual activity. Those rules are set for the good of the whole group, us, the human race.

Does God accept homosexuals? Of course he does as long as they are not practicing. (1 Corinth 6:11) Isn’t that unfair on them? It is no more unfair on them as abstaining from sex for all those that are not married. So how does that help the group as a whole? If you believe in the Bible and claim to use it as the basis of your belief system then you must realize that God created the family unit of husband, wife and children. There is a reason for this. The “traditional” family unit is the best environment for children to be raised. (Yes this goes horribly wrong at time because we as humans generally do not like being told what or how to do things, but when a family adheres to Bible principles whether it is intentional or not, there are very few problems in a marriage)

History shows that when the family breaks down so does society as a whole. A good example is the Roman empire.

So it might sound harsh for a gay person to be told that if they want to live in an active gay life style they cannot be friends with God, because that kind of lifestyle is something detestable to him. If they do not worry what God wants from them eg not trying to be a practicing Christian then they are free to live their life the way they want to. For those that believe the Bible as being Gods word for mankind then they have to accept that God does not tolerate any sexual activity outside the marriage arrangement. No matter how much we want to live the way of life that pleases us, God requires a strict control of our lives.

Ben

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by spiritman51

I wish you would plainly state "the other group of people attempt to force society to comply with their wishes". I think I know since this thread is about the promotion of a gay priest to a brishopric. I believe you're talking about gay people and their allies. No one impossed the elevation of Bishop Gene on the Diocese of New Hampshire. He was elected and approved by a majority in both the house of Bishops and the House of Laity. In America Gay people have no real power except to say We are here and we have the right to all the rights afforded by the Bill of Rights

For a long time white people in America had a "serious revulsion" toward blacks. Virginia in the 1920's stated anyone with one drop of African blood
was forever tainted and unfit to marry "white". White people hated blacks so much they hung and shot them for sport. White Americans can no longer do this to the Blacks, because the law of equal protection under the law has forced the majority race , regardless of revulsion, to treat blacks as full citizens.

America is made up of many societies. However, the body politic should be free of emotional and religious biases and treat each citizen fairly and equally under the law. For example; the Federal Government just overturned the antiquated sexual laws and removed a potential criminal conviction from over the heads of gay people in 15 states.

I think in America the desires of the Rich out-weigh everything else.

I think you just emphasised my point. And your attempt to place yourself (you admitted to being homosexual, hence the you), alongside non-white subjugated people is ridiculous.

Better re-read the "Book". It makes allowances for having slaves (though we have grown past that terrible time, or have we?) It makes no allowance for homosexual behavior, none what so ever. A person can not change the color of their skin (except by medicine). Black people were SOLD into slavery by other black people. They were the conquered. "White" people did not go into Africa and round up blacks for servitude. White people picked them up at the dock after paying Black tribal leaders for the "bounty" received.

Once freed, the previous captors did not know what to do with them, and the previous captives did not help matters much. They didn't know what to do either. That is a sorry state of matters, but has nothing to do with homsexuality.

Anyone with an agenda that is considered destructive to society (and there is only one society at large), who demands that everyone change their way of thinking to accomodate their way of life, is thinking assinine. You have rights. You have every right under the sun that any other person in America has. THAT'S IT. No one has the right to overide other's rights, nor demand special privilige. No one has the right to enforce their views over mine or anyone elses on how children are raised. And no one has the right to change the definition of what God said marriage should be.

Homiphobe, isn't that what people like me are called? Not hardly. I love my brother in law (loved), he's dead now from HIV. And I dearly love a cousin of mine. I just don't care for the company she keeps. They treat her badly. I have neighbors and classmates that are homosexual, and I care for them deeply.

You, I don't know, but you sound aggressive. So can I be, very.

I'm very sorry your family could not accept their perception of your "flaw". My father in law initially went through the same stages of denial when confronted with his son's declaration. But in time they came back together in love (well before his death).

But I will never forget his words, when he said he hated being gay, but could find no way to get out of it.

I just don't think there is anything healthy about living that way, personally, socially, or spriitually. But, You explain to me otherwise, and I will consider it. (explain means logical arguement, not belittlement or condenscending rhetoric, which I will not tolerate).

In the mean time, the Bishop has been cast out of the main church body, and the second Bishop has lost credibility, by the "majority" of the parishners. Because they counter the social norm. 10 percent of the population is not going to change the minds of the remainder. It was tried once (by the nazis), what a success that was. 37 states have ratified laws prohibiting gay marriage and 11 states have laws pending on the books. That leaves 3 states you can live in and be "married or domestically partnered too". Hardly a majority, sir. Of course all of Canada legally allows for same sex partnership. Perhaps they will welcome your citizenship as well. Last time I checked though, Canadians don't like US citizens in the long term, only their money and temporary vacation time. I should know, I lived there for a long time.

You are not hated, but what you stand for is hated. Have I made myself clear now, sir?


v/r

Q

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Ben57

So God sets rules for the benefit of the all. Some of these rules include no sexual relations out side of marriage. That means no pre marital sex for young ones no extra marital affairs, and no homosexual activity. Those rules are set for the good of the whole group, us, the human race.
n

I think that's a very important point raised, and one that properly gets to the heard of the argument, despite the usual polarised arguments.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Are you sure you want that much controversy on your comparatively baby board, Brian?

We American Episcopalians beat you Brits to it by a few days -- the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson was elected Bishop of New Hampshire. a diatribe denouncing the election.

Minor nitpick: Anglicans believe in the threefold ministry: deacon, presbyter (priest), and bishop, each of which is a separate ordination to the job. So it's not a "promotion" in the sense of "working for the old firm but getting a better job there" but rather the two men have been chosen and will be set apart for a different ministry.

Most of us Episcopalians do not see a gay man in a committed relationship as sinning by virtue of his sexuality or his sex life. Obviously, we're in the minority in this view among Christians.

Polycarp tells us -- is he still on leave of permanent absence? "Most of us Episcopalians do not see a gay man in a committed relationship as sinning by virtue of his sexuality or his sex life. Obviously, we're in the minority in this view among Christians."

Prescinding from the statistics of U.S. Episcopalians siding one side or the other whether active homosexuality is sinning or not, we have here a very conspicuous example of taking liberties with the Bible.

I said somewhere here about getting some very learned biblical scholars of language and history but without any religious partiality to draw up a tabulation of doctrinal and preceptive statements of the Bible, and to assign each a ranking from 1 to 10, with 10 the highest, meaning the one that is most clear and explicit.

Not that I have anything at all against gay people engaging in their gay sex acts -- and the day has come where society is comfortable with any way people use their regenerative apparatus any manner they care and it's their business, but my acquaintance with the New Testament which I must confess is not exhaustive but just the same better than the average man in the street, homosexual acts are certainly sinful in the New Testament.

On the other hand, I am happy for mankind that people like Polycarp are taking a less and less literal attention to the Bible. Then we will have fewer characters like those brethren of the al-Qaeda cabal, or personalities like Jerry Falwell.

Pachomius2000

[Susma Rio Sep]

Re: Promoting a gay priest to bishop

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben57

So God sets rules for the benefit of the all. Some of these rules include no sexual relations out side of marriage. That means no pre marital sex for young ones no extra marital affairs, and no homosexual activity. Those rules are set for the good of the whole group, us, the human race.
n


I think that's a very important point raised, and one that properly gets to the heard of the argument, despite the usual polarised arguments.
__________________

The way I see it, there is a correlation between technology and religion, specially in the ethical impositions of a religion.

This way: the more the technology the less the religious doctrines and specially moralistic constraints.

Preachers who keep pounding about the necessity and sanctity of marriage, and the religiously right usages and purposes of the regenerative apparatus will more and more be like John the Baptist in the urban environment and also fall behind in the march of ideas and fads, becoming indeed voices crying in the wilderness.

Safe and effective contraception has made of human sexuality only as embarrassing as asking for the bathroom. I can foresee a day when people ask casually: Where is the bedroom?

Pachomius2000

[spiritman51]

Jesus is silent on the subject of homosexuality. I wish his followers would follow his example. The latest up date on the American side is that The American House of Bishops met so there could be a some sort of dialogue between the Conservative and Liberal camps on the "gay issues" facing the church. Well, I believe the Conservative leaders didn't show; refusing to be in that body which elevated Gene Robinson to Bishop. Now the Americans are waiting to see what the Lambeth Conference will say on the subject.
In response to me becoming a Canadian. Trying to get rid me and my ilk. Not a chance. USA is a secular republic ruled by laws. Laws not based in religious dogmas, but upon a Constitution and a Bill of rights. The Supreme Court did away with the sodomy laws because they violated the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution. The Bible says "Slaves obey your masters". In America slavery is illegal. American society has evolved. The Bible has not. Also, I don't understand the little passage about the Nazi 10%...??? is that innuendo.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by spiritman51

Jesus is silent on the subject of homosexuality. I wish his followers would follow his example. The latest up date on the American side is that The American House of Bishops met so there could be a some sort of dialogue between the Conservative and Liberal camps on the "gay issues" facing the church. Well, I believe the Conservative leaders didn't show; refusing to be in that body which elevated Gene Robinson to Bishop. Now the Americans are waiting to see what the Lambeth Conference will say on the subject.

In response to me becoming a Canadian. Trying to get rid me and my ilk. Not a chance. USA is a secular republic ruled by laws. Laws not based in religious dogmas, but upon a Constitution and a Bill of rights. The Supreme Court did away with the sodomy laws because they violated the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution. The Bible says "Slaves obey your masters". In America slavery is illegal. American society has evolved. The Bible has not. Also, I don't understand the little passage about the Nazi 10%...??? is that innuendo.

No sir, Jesus was Not Silent on sexual promiscuity! Not by a long shot. He told the woman who's life he saved to go and sin no more (she was about to be stoned, but he pointed out that none are righteous...). You remember that sir, do you not?

I'm not trying to send you or anyone else to Canada. You will not determine how our society will function in the future either. The Supreme Court of Texas did away with Sodomy sir, not the Supreme Court of the United States (which I believe never had issue with that act). About slavery. That is our national shame, not subject to being a pawn in your game, and absolutely nothing the homosexual "society" can claim similarity to. American society has disolved, the Bible has not. About the Nazis. 10 percent tried to rule over 90 percent, but eventually failed. There is nothing subtle in what I've said.

Q

[kiwimac]

Actually Quahom,

The words " and sin no more" do not appear in the earliest manuscripts, they appear to be a scribal gloss inserted by someone embarrased perhaps by Jesus steadfast refusal to judge such an obvious sinner.

More to the point, a Centurion comes to Jesus and says that his 'beloved servant' is dying and if he could just speak the word he would be healed. Jesus praises this centurion for him faith and NEVER comments on the fact that the centurion and the servant are likely having a relationship.

Perhaps it would do the church some good to simply eschew judgement and do as Jesus did and accept all folk?

Kiwimac

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

Actually Quahom,

The words " and sin no more" do not appear in the earliest manuscripts, they appear to be a scribal gloss inserted by someone embarrased perhaps by Jesus steadfast refusal to judge such an obvious sinner.

More to the point, a Centurion comes to Jesus and says that his 'beloved servant' is dying and if he could just speak the word he would be healed. Jesus praises this centurion for him faith and NEVER comments on the fact that the centurion and the servant are likely having a relationship.

Perhaps it would do the church some good to simply eschew judgement and do as Jesus did and accept all folk?

Kiwimac

Thank you Kiwi. I did not realize that about the phrase insert, and did not consider the possibility of the centurian's relationship with his servant, though I did know that was a common practice of the day.

Normally I don't let my emotions over ride common sense, and accept an arguement that should be left alone.

I apologize Spritman for being so vehement. You did not deserve that from me.

No one is perfect in this world...and I'm a perfect example.

I was told once that there are three astonishing revelations that we feel when we get to Heaven

Those that we thought would be there, are not.
Those that we didn't think would be there, are.
We are actually there to be astonished by the first two.

Peace.

v/r

Q

[spiritman51]

Dear Quahom, I accept your apology. These are hard times and hard questions. We all have beliefs which are being tried. That's the reason this forum is so important.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Can some very knowledgeable people with easy recall of Biblical verses tell me where I have read about "their women have abused their natural faculties, women doing shameful deeds with women...", etc.
And also analogous or implicated verses in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament?

What about some kind of tabulation of doctrines and precepts of the Bible as can be drawn up with citations of verses where such doctrines and precepts can be deduced, with ranking from 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest.

I really need such a tabulation for my own instruction and guidance; so that if and when I am wondering whether an action is allowed in the Bible, I would know by consulting such a tabulation how strong the prohibition against the action contemplated be, specially compared to possible options.

Or do I have to consult the Jesuit casuist who can tell me how to argue myself to a satisfactory resolution and do the act I do want to do? (No offense to Jesuit casuists, of course.)

I really need some dis-abusing of my understanding of some moral tenets of the Bible in regard to sexual abominations and the opposite, sexual exemplifications: like women with women doing mutual manipulations with their genitals and limbs and fingers for libidinous ends, and implicitly also men, for the first; and chastity and fidelity and not spilling seeds on the ground, for the second?

The more I read about what things are not forbidden in the Bible the more I am now inclined to maintain that for really cognoscenti of the Bible, nothing is forbidden in the Bible.

What do you guys say?

Please give me some updating on my biblical knowledge.

Thanks.

Pachomius2000

[Kaldayen]

To set things straight (sorry for the pun), Canada as a whole doesn't recognize same-sex mariage. It is recognized in 5 provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, and Nova Scotia) and in the Yukon territory.

The country's Supreme Court has being asked to look at the issue and should give an answer in 6 months or so...

Kal

[I, Brian]

I have to admit, I find the complexities of the whole debate a little strange. It's almost as a if a "pick and choose" Jesus is introduced according to what any individual's preference to "pick and choose" is. Perhaps the liberal approach to Christianity is that the texts should be questioned and the will of God through Jesus be done - but the fact is that the foundations of Christianity clearly proscribe against homosexuality, amongst other things.

Which makes it all the more amazing that gay people seek to work organised Christianity towards their own worldview. When Christianity is seen to enter other groups in America, it's seen as invasive and an act of aggression. Yet when liberal political ideology enters Christianity, it's not regarded as an act of aggression. In my personal opinion, that's becoming close to being a dangerous double-standard.

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Originally posted by Quahom1
The Supreme Court of Texas did away with Sodomy sir, not the Supreme Court of the United States (which I believe never had issue with that act).

I beg to differ. The Supreme Court sat on two different cases, one a few years ago and the other last February [at least, they agreed to sit in decision] I think.) I'll be more than happy to find out if anybody wishes.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine