Gay Bishop?

[ufcrusher]

What do you think about the fact that there is a new gay bishop? Just so everyone knows...I am jewish so I might not recognize some of the issues that some of you might feel.


Personally, i think that there is no problem with their being an openly gay bishop so long as it doesnt effect his ability to do his job. Although I think it probably goes against the tenets of the religion, so it is probably a VERY fine line that he is walking. (Once again, I dont know the tenets so this is just speculation).

I dont know if that sect is celibate or not, but if he is then what difference. If he isnt then there it is a bit more problematic.

[xsiled2]

i dont think he should get the postition only because of his being openly gay, that is a role that needs no sexual prefrance, so in either cause weather a bishop is gay or not they should keep it to them selves, if they care so much about their part in religious practice they shouldnt make them selves a gay bishop but rather a bishop that is gay.


there is a difference, initial identification is the important role.

similar to:

a black teacher versus a teacher that is black

or a muslim politition versus a politition that is muslim

the first of each put itself within a minority group where thats how they view themselves versus the second that is the role, which is the important part as all are created equal and should have no rights that another cannot have, because their merit is based within position instead of race, religion, or sex as many pull as their ticket into fame.

so in the end i think that if he cared about his church he wouldnt be so selfish and make his personal prefrence an issue and his acceptance, but his qualifications.

sorry for the spelling errors its late and im buzzed, first day of school tomarrow ;)

[mojo]

gay bishop? dunno. now a gay rook can be a problem...

[molecularfire]

Kinda sad, but I actually don't think he should get the job. The religion (I'm assuming that he's christian... if I'm wrong please tell me) is against it, so it would be hypocritical of them to hire a gay bishop.

[le_stick]

Gay bishop???
Gay in the military???

Oh well, what the heck, he/she/it can be whatever he/she/it wants
as long as it does not cost me any money......:D

[blueindian]

Originally posted by xsiled2
if they care so much about their part in religious practice they shouldnt make them selves a gay bishop but rather a bishop that is gay.

he didn't, the media did.



Originally posted by molecularfire
[B]The religion (I'm assuming that he's christian... if I'm wrong please tell me) is against it,[B]

i cann't say you are wrong, nor can i say you are right. whether or not homosexuality is against christianity is a farily hotly debated topic.

there are some, like the bishops who voted to confirm, who believe there is nothing of the sort in the bible. there are others, like the ones who voted against, who strong belive that there is.

in the end, i think it comes down to ones interpretation of the bible and utimatly which version you read and of course whether or not you believe it is a literal, historical document or more of a parable.

i voted yes :)

[molecularfire]

True... true.

[ufcrusher]

Apparently he is Episcopalian. I am sure most people know that he was accused of making unwanted sexual advances during his confirmation which delayed it for abit. Then the claim was found to unwarranted and he was confirmed.

[cheapie]

this is so stupid. i have no problem with him being gay. however, it's ridiculous for people to act like there is some sort of gray area in the bible regarding homosexuality. if you are a leader of an organization claiming to follow the bible, you can't be gay. if you don't follow the teachings of the bible, it's no problem.

it's like appointing a pot head to the lead the dea. the two points are diametrically opposed.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
this is so stupid. i have no problem with him being gay. however, it's ridiculous for people to act like there is some sort of gray area in the bible regarding homosexuality. if you are a leader of an organization claiming to follow the bible, you can't be gay. if you don't follow the teachings of the bible, it's no problem.

it's like appointing a pot head to the lead the dea. the two points are diametrically opposed.

where in the bible does it say that homosexuality is wrong? i ask in all seriousness. i've just started reading the bible in the last week, so i'm only in genesis.

[johnnymk]

The OLd Testament states in Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind. It is an abomination."

The New Teastament states in Corinthians 6:9,10 " Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolatters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Also. Romans 1:26-29 " For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."

[topane]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
this is so stupid. i have no problem with him being gay. however, it's ridiculous for people to act like there is some sort of gray area in the bible regarding homosexuality. if you are a leader of an organization claiming to follow the bible, you can't be gay. if you don't follow the teachings of the bible, it's no problem.

it's like appointing a pot head to the lead the dea. the two points are diametrically opposed. That depends on if you think the Bible is the Literal Word of God™ or not. The people who wrote the stories were influenced by their societies. You also will not find any sect who follows the Bible 100% to the letter.

Besides, the Bible only makes a few admonishments against homosexuality (and a couple of those are questionable). It makes tons against straights. Now tell me who Yahweh is more concerned about ;)?

[ski]

One difference between denominations of Christianity is how closely they interpret the bible. As a Catholic, we don't nitpick at the exact things they say in there. We get the general idea and go from there (in the most basic and crude way to explain it). Our church believes that if you're gay, you are welcome to come to our church. Rapist? Murderer? A woman who has had an abortion? Come on in! Of course, what you do once you come in is a whole other story, so we won't get into that!

But other denominations such as Southern Baptist and a few others interpret the Bible practically verbatim, and if you do it that way, that's certainly cause for outrage (for them; just trying to understand the uproar).

[johnnymk]

Timothy 3:2-7 " A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, able to teach;
not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre,; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
one that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
For if a man knows not how to govern his own house, how shall he take care of the church?
Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by topane
That depends on if you think the Bible is the Literal Word of God™ or not. The people who wrote the stories were influenced by their societies. You also will not find any sect who follows the Bible 100% to the letter.

Besides, the Bible only makes a few admonishments against homosexuality (and a couple of those are questionable). It makes tons against straights. Now tell me who Yahweh is more concerned about ;)?


my intent is not to argue whether or not the Bible is true, to be taken literally, or even relevant. my point is that you cannot legitimately lead a religion that claims to embrace the teachings of the Bible while blatantly disregarding what it says.

i'm not sure i understand your last paragraph. the Bible does rag on being gay a few times, it doesn't do the same about being straight.

[slaus]

I actually believe he deserves to get the job if he was the most qualified. I think his parishoners recommended him when the other bishop retired or something. Plus theres nothing that says a religion cant change. Catholicism has changed a couple of times to adapt to the times.

[raimin]

He's says he's gay fine. He's a sinner like the rest of us. Is he actiely persuing homosexuality. I'm not sure, but if he aint having sex, he aint sinning anymore. If he can keep his mind on the job, who cares. A sins a sin

[CornMonkey]

i thought i read somewhere that he has a partner...

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
it's like appointing a pot head to the lead the dea. the two points are diametrically opposed. Hey, Nixon made Elvis a DEA agent, so why not?

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd



my intent is not to argue whether or not the Bible is true, to be taken literally, or even relevant. my point is that you cannot legitimately lead a religion that claims to embrace the teachings of the Bible while blatantly disregarding what it says.

i'm not sure i understand your last paragraph. the Bible does rag on being gay a few times, it doesn't do the same about being straight.


There is a difference between disregarding what it says and interpreting it. And because of the different version, different translations and the 200 or so years it took to write it, the Bible has been always open to interpretation.

[RichSPK]

Exactly! Heterosexual clergy don't tell us their sexual preferences (and no one, at least in public, discusses it) so why do we even know that he's gay? Sometimes I think "don't ask, don't tell" actually makes sense.


Originally posted by xsiled2
i dont think he should get the postition only because of his being openly gay, that is a role that needs no sexual prefrance, so in either cause weather a bishop is gay or not they should keep it to them selves, if they care so much about their part in religious practice they shouldnt make them selves a gay bishop but rather a bishop that is gay.

[Apex]

It completely depends on the beliefs of the church. There are plenty of churches that take the cafeteria approach to Bible belief (pick and choose what you want to believe). This is one of those cases.

If this church believes that homosexuality is not a sin & church unity is not important, then there should be absolutely nothing wrong with ordaining this gay bishop.

[LPMiller]

I remember when wearing jeans was a sin for women. My mother was told she would burn in hell for not wearing a dress when she was a teen.

Anything can be called sin. But God gets the final say in the matter, so folks should really let him do his job.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by LPMiller
I remember when wearing jeans was a sin for women. My mother was told she would burn in hell for not wearing a dress when she was a teen.

Anything can be called sin. But God gets the final say in the matter, so folks should really let him do his job.

this is a perfect illustration of my point. my sisters were told the same thing. you know why this is ridiculous? because the Bible doesn't have multiple specific references to women wearing jeans.

it does however refer directly, in virtually every translation, to homosexuality.

my concern is everything is fluid now. if you believe there is nothing wrong with being gay, that's fine. if you claim to be a Christian and believe the Bible, that's also acceptable. just don't try to feed me a line of bull that the Bible is ambiguous on this topic and that it shouldn't matter if one of the head representatives of a religious organization lives his life in direct contrast to a major tenant of that religion.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by johnnymk
The OLd Testament states in Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind. It is an abomination."

The New Teastament states in Corinthians 6:9,10 " Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolatters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Also. Romans 1:26-29 " For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."


Could these passages be interpreted to mean that only people who have gay sex are sinners? It always talks about those who taketh it in the ass and not about those who dreameth of naked men.

But that's besides the point. I'm with Apex on this one. Let the church do what it wants to do. If you think it's sinning, don't go there. It's pointless to argue what is "right" and what is wrong because we all have different values.

Also I think it should make little difference if one is openly gay or in the closet. I think it says something good about someone's character if they are willing to say "hey i'm not going to hide anything." Heterosexual people don't tell us their orientation because with them we assume. But again, it's besides the point.

[Tag]

I have noticed that people who are confident in themselves and their beliefs are more accepting of others. Those who are not confident in themselves and their beliefs are those who are NOT accepting of others.

It's OK to disagree > just respect other people's choices.

Just my thought for the day :cool:

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
just don't try to feed me a line of bull that the Bible is ambiguous on this topic and that it shouldn't matter if one of the head representatives of a religious organization lives his life in direct contrast to a major tenant of that religion.

I think a majority of religious leaders do live their lives in direct contrast to a major tenant of their religion. Lets us look at exhibit A, the Catholic church...plenty of sins in that dept.

[Apex]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing



Could these passages be interpreted to mean that only people who have gay sex are sinners? It always talks about those who taketh it in the ass and not about those who dreameth of naked men.


Much of this is beside the point of the OP, but yes, you are correct here. The bible is only talking about gay sex, not about homosexual tendancies. That's just a small clarification. We're all born with the tendancy to lie. You do not need to teach a child how to lie, they can do so instinctively. The tendancy itself is not a sin.

[avlena]

Originally posted by Apex


Much of this is beside the point of the OP, but yes, you are correct here. The bible is only talking about gay sex, not about homosexual tendancies. That's just a small clarification. We're all born with the tendancy to lie. You do not need to teach a child how to lie, they can do so instinctively. The tendancy itself is not a sin.

Though actually, i believe that Jesus later classified a sinful thought as a full blown sin, thus it's just not about having the act of gay sex, but also having thoughts about having gay sex. *shrug* so you have to pure of mind AND body :)

also, it's been awhile since i read the bible, but wasn't soddom and gomorra (sp?) destroyed partially because of homosexuality? i remember being shocked hearing the story, because the father doesn't want the guys banging on his door to sexually assault his guests, so he offers up his daughters instead. :hmm:

[Apex]

Originally posted by avlena


Though actually, i believe that Jesus later classified a sinful thought as a full blown sin, thus it's just not about having the act of gay sex, but also having thoughts about having gay sex. *shrug* so you have to pure of mind AND body :)


Yes, that is correct as well. I'm talking about "genetic predisposition".

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Tag
I have noticed that people who are confident in themselves and their beliefs are more accepting of others. Those who are not confident in themselves and their beliefs are those who are NOT accepting of others.

It's OK to disagree > just respect other people's choices.

Just my thought for the day :cool:


i think you're missing the point. i don't care if this guy is gay or not. i don't care if he rubs green jello on himself and runs naked down the street.

i accept him AS A PERSON. however, his position as a biship is incongruous with his lifestyle. you want to be gay? great! just don't expect to be a leader in the Christian church.

[sbp]

This is not your Father's church anymore (http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/opinions/story/962050p-6741500c.html)

An Episcopalian friend of mine, reacting to the elevation of an openly homosexual priest to the office of bishop, said to me, "If you're a heterosexual clergyman and you're having sex outside marriage, you can be expelled. But if you're a homosexual clergyman having sex outside marriage, they rejoice."

Most denominations that call themselves Christian take the Bible as their text for spiritual and relational instruction. Some in the Episcopal Church take a liberal view of the Bible, just as some do of the U.S. Constitution - it must be constantly updated to suit cultural trends. This view lends itself to constant misinterpretation and confusion. Eventually, it leads to religious or political heresy.

Ancient Scripture sets out the parameters for all human sexual expression. In order to get around the restrictions that limit sexual activity between a man and a woman within a marital bond, liberal theologians have had to construct a theology that says the Bible does not really mean what it clearly says. It is the same with the Constitution, which is interpreted by liberals to allow for the use of God's name in vain as an act of protected speech, but prohibits the favorable use of His name under the same First Amendment.

If Scripture is to be circumvented in the matter of homosexuality and not disqualify one who seeks the office of bishop, what about divorce? The newly approved bishop, V. Gene Robinson, who had been described by The New York Times in deliciously politically correct language as "the gay bishop-elect," left his wife and two children to take up with a man.

In what is regarded by most Christians as the job description for high church office, Paul the Apostle wrote to his young protege Timothy that an "overseer" (or minister) must be "above reproach, the husband of one wife," and "must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect." Paul then asks an important question: "If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?" (1 Timothy 3:2-5)

Members of the Episcopal Church, who give their money and their presence in the pews, are being asked to accept a bishop who is not qualified for the office (nor even for the priestly one he holds). Does the Episcopal leadership (and the leadership of the parent Anglican Church) want to send the message that the Bible says only what some people want it to say? Some of Robinson's supporters call him a "holy man." What could that possibly mean since "all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" (Romans 3:23)? Perhaps holiness, like the word "is" during the Clinton administration, depends on what one means at a given moment.

People who regard Scripture as having passed from God to man without error have warned for years what happens when these texts are treated as something less than accurate. Once compromises are made (and I'm not talking about stoning adulterers, though such a practice might be one way to implement term limits in Washington), all things become not only possible, but probable.

If God is not God and if man says God didn't say what He has said, then what standard is to be used to judge anything? It is more than a slippery slope. It is slippery theology with potential consequences that are eternal. Who gets to decide, God or man? If man, then man becomes God and God is diminished, at least in man's eyes.

If a practicing homosexual priest who divorced his wife and walked out on his children is deemed a fit leader for the Episcopal Church, members are going to have to ask themselves a serious question: Does their denomination represent the will of their God and, if not, why don't they abandon a church that has clearly abandoned Him?

[Hoser]

I suppose this is a stupid question, but I'll post in anyway.

If you love someone, does it matter if they're the same sex as you?

If he (or she) can fulfill his obligations to the church, it shouldn't matter what his (or her) sexual orientation is. I don't have a problem with this.

I have a problem with the Catholic church protecting all their pedophile priests. Their attitude is that if we close our eyes and send these priest somewhere else, the problem is corrected! I hope that all the lawsuits bankrupt them, they deserve it.

[johnnymk]

In the book of 2Timothy it is written:

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
Preach the word; be instant in season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.

For the time shall come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but AFTER THEIR OWN LUSTS SHALL THEY HEAP TO THEMSELVES TEACHERS, HAVING ITCHING EARS; AND THEY SHALL TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH, AND SHALL BE TURNED UNTO FABLES."

[Apex]

Originally posted by Hoser
I suppose this is a stupid question, but I'll post in anyway.

If you love someone, does it matter if they're the same sex as you?

If he (or she) can fulfill his obligations to the church, it shouldn't matter what his (or her) sexual orientation is. I don't have a problem with this.


The problem with this argument is a flaw in the logic. It's like asking "can people drive?" Well, the answer is, "it depends."

The first question you asked depends on your beliefs. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, then yes, it definitely matters if they are the same sex as you. If no, than it depends on what specifically you do believe in.

For the second question, again the most basic question is if the Episcopalian church believes that the Bible is the word of God. The answer is either a yes or a no, and it is only for them to decide.

If yes, than they would view (the act of living in) homosexuality as a sin:

No way can he (or she) fulfill his obligations to the church because, quite obviously, he or she is living in unrepentanting sin.

If no, they don't believe the Bible is the word of God, than:

Yes, He can/should be ordained holding constant such things are their beliefs in unity.

[Cantacuzene]

Ultimately it comes down to the church attendents. If people in the anglican church dont liek and it go somewhere else then it was a failure, if they don't care then it doesnt really matter.

I am not anglican so it really does not affect me. I'm sure this will only make the inevitable catholic arguement over female priests all the more vitriolic when it happens.

I really want to go through the process of formally converting to greek orthodoxy. I wish I had the time to pursue that.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Apex


The problem with this argument is a flaw in the logic. It's like asking "can people drive?" Well, the answer is, "it depends."

The first question you asked depends on your beliefs. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, then yes, it definitely matters if they are the same sex as you. If no, than it depends on what specifically you do believe in.

For the second question, again the most basic question is if the Episcopalian church believes that the Bible is the word of God. The answer is either a yes or a no, and it is only for them to decide.

If yes, than they would view (the act of living in) homosexuality as a sin:

No way can he (or she) fulfill his obligations to the church because, quite obviously, he or she is living in unrepentanting sin.

If no, they don't believe the Bible is the word of God, than:

Yes, He can/should be ordained holding constant such things are their beliefs in unity.


couldn't have said it better myself. this is not a debate about the legitimacy of gay men to hold positions of authority. it's whether or not it is against the doctrine of the Episcopalian church.

[ski]

I stand corrected to what I said earlier -- we had a guest priest at mass (Catholic) tonight, and he said some pretty edgy things about the Episcopalian church -- that members of that denomination will cross back over to Catholicism "just like they did in the 70's when they let women into the clergy." One of the girls I knew from high school walked out in the middle, and I found out later from running into her brother that it really bothered her the way he handled discussing it. :eek: