|How could you approve a gay Bishop?||ClydeTri|
Aug 6, 2003 5:06 AM
|Homosexual sex is a sin in Christian based religions. Thus, how could you vote for a bishop who is practicing gay? Nobody is perfect and all of us do things that are wrong, but, to be "person of the cloth" you should try to quit committing "sins" correct? Any minister, preacher, priest etc who openly admits that he/she practices in something his own religion says is wrong, and that minister/preacher/etc doesnt try to stop that practice logically disqualifies himself/herself correct? If I was a minister of a religion, any religion, wouldn't I at least attempt to not commit any sins as recognized by that religion?
If a person who is homosexual wants to be a minister of the Christian faith, it seems to me the only route is that done by Catholics, to give up sex. A non-practicing homosexual would not violate the religion it seems.
This logic does not just pertain to homosexuality, but any "sin" under any religion. How could any "holy person" admit they violate the religion's tenets and say they dont care and wont stop. That is an affront to the religion they purport to love.
|same way they can let women preach, even though...||dr hoo|
Aug 6, 2003 5:46 AM
|... the bible CLEARLY says women should NOT speak in church! Heck, i bet them wacky episcopalians let people who eat lobster be ministers.
They ain't fundies, that's how. They are considering sanctioning a denomination wide service for gay committment ceremonies. They are a "spirit of the law" not "letter of the law" church.
How can some christian churches ban drinking alcohol, even though jesus liked to drink so much he kept the party going by turning water to wine? That just ain't logical!
Of course, logic need not be applied in the irrational realm of religion. There's your answer.
Jesus: drank, hung with whores, vandalized businesses and attacked the owners... my kind of guy!
|I am a logical thinker....||ClydeTri|
Aug 6, 2003 5:50 AM
|I also understand that given translations from language to language meanings of words change. Also, even in one language meanings of words change over hundreds of years. However, if a religion has a clear "tenet" how can you just decide to blow that one off for convenience? You either believe or you dont. I have never heard the rationale for alcohol being a sin , or gambling either. Abuse of either could be as abuse of many things could be. I just dont understand generically how you can pick and choose in religion, you either buy the whole package or not.|
|Please detail||Captain Morgan|
Aug 6, 2003 6:03 AM
|Where in the Bible (specifically the New Testament) does it state that women should not speak in church??
Jesus did drink wine, but scholars disagree whether such wine had any alcoholic content. Even if it did, are you insinuating that he got drunk??
"Hanging with whores" is hardly a sin. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
"Vandalized businesses and attacked the owners" -- that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it??
I realize your post was exaggerated in order to try to get a rise out of the Christians on this board. I think your intent was probably to criticize organized religion, as opposed to attacking the concept of Christianity.
|I am not a biblical scholar, so...||dr hoo|
Aug 6, 2003 7:32 AM
|... take what i say with a grain of salt on this. I've read it, and the koran and lots of other holy books, but not studied them.
"Where in the Bible (specifically the New Testament) does it state that women should not speak in church?? "
It says it in Corinithians, for reference. OT, sure. But I was not aware that the new testament mentioned ANYTHING about homosexuality. When xians talk about the sin of homosexuality they refer to the OT, so why pick and choose?
If you have a NT quote on homosexuality, i would be happy to read it.
""Vandalized businesses and attacked the owners" -- that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?? "
Moneychangers in the temple. I think that is a literal description of his actions. Not a stretch at all. Keep in mind that Jesus was a radical.
There are many flavors of xianity, and they all point to the same bible. White separatists (xian identity movement) use the bible to prove that non-whites are devil spawn. So yeah, I was exagerating, but not by much. I was simply pointing out that every denomination has biblical support for their doctrine, and I am sure the Epis have a well spelled out reasoning for their ordination of gay ministers, and every other thing they do.
So how can they do it and still call themselves xians? They make it up, just like every other FAITH.
Aug 6, 2003 7:42 AM
|See my post below for specific NT passages on homosexuality. Thanks.|
|Two things here:||dr hoo|
Aug 6, 2003 8:09 AM
|First, the Epi position on this:
Feel free to wade through that link to find out the details of how they justify their decisions in light of scripture.
Second, others use the same bible you use to justify racism. Are they wrong? I can make a great case that it is easier to be a communist and an xian than a capitalist and an xian by citing scripture. Does that mean what they say on the 700 club about making money is wrong?
From the outside, the bible is a book. A book written by human beings full of contradiction. Compounded by translation errors and political spin. Take for example this small list:
One specific example is the death and resurection of jesus. If the four gospels can't agree on what happened here, a CENTRAL part of xianity, how accurate can the rest of the stuff be?
If you know anything about logic, you know that if there is a contradiction in a logical argument you can derive ANYTHING from that argument. So, the bible is full of contradiction, and you can make an argument to prove anything from that.
THAT is what I am saying. Start with nonsense, you can get to nonsense. GIGO.
That being said, I have met a very few people who try to live like Jesus did, and they are pretty cool. Ditto for Buddha. That is a SMALL minority of xians though. Most are closed minded, petty, hateful of others, self rightious pricks. Just like the rest of humanity.
|Hard to debate circuitous arguments||Captain Morgan|
Aug 6, 2003 9:23 AM
|First you ask for specific NT scriptures, so I posted them. Now you discount those same scriptures you requested. Its hard to debate that.|
|Hard to debate irrational people.||dr hoo|
Aug 6, 2003 9:44 AM
|Note that I gave you a link to the HISTORY of epi debate on the subject. Did you read that? Obviously not. It's a good read, including arguments AGAINST gay clergy as well as for. It is a tracing of the debate in the church. They deal with scripture in a far more comprehensive way than I could, or would want to.
Let me summarize it for you, since you clearly don't want to find out the answer on your own. The gay bishop elect says, in summary, that the scriptures were written at a time when everyone was assumed to be straight, that the notion of sexual orientation is less than 100 years old, and that the scriptures are not dealing with monogamous long term relationships when they discuss homosexuality.
Yes, i personally see the bible as a book and nothing more. That is why i provided you with a link to the epi debate. This is something you can and should engage if you are trying to understand how that denomination could do this thing which you don't understand. That you refuse to do a lick of research on the topic speaks more to your insular mindset than to my "circuitous" argument. To quote "The Princess Bride" ... "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
Yes, the second half of my post denies any "truth" to scripture. I thought it might be a good idea to give you my PERSONAL position as well as the EPI position. I can separate the two, and you should be able to as well.
Ah, but that would require logic.
|Yes it is||Captain Morgan|
Aug 6, 2003 10:12 AM
|I viewed the link, which had about 50 sub-links. I would just recommend that when validating your arguments, you do so via specific quotes. For instance, my saying "here's the Bible, it discusses this issue" would not be very helpful. That is why I quoted specific passages. I recommend you do the same.
Regarding your summary, I find it odd that scriptures were written when everyone was assumed to be straight, yet the word "homosexual" is used numerous times.
Also, personal attacks show me the kind of person you really are. For all my so-called "conservative" viewpoints, I try to refrain from personal attacks on this board. If you need to try to portray me as unintelligent/illogical to make yourself look smarter, then I guess you win.
|You need to read more carefully.||dr hoo|
Aug 6, 2003 12:20 PM
|"I viewed the link, which had about 50 sub-links. I would just recommend that when validating your arguments, you do so via specific quotes. For instance, my saying "here's the Bible, it discusses this issue" would not be very helpful. That is why I quoted specific passages. I recommend you do the same. "
The main question of this thread is "how could they confirm a gay bishop given the bible"? The answer is not simple. It is actually a rather complicated process rooted in doctrine, debate over the nature of the doctrine, and historical events. In fact, I could talk about the influences about the political structure of the Epis and how it took place around the formation of the USA, but that would be a bit overboard.
For this reason I gave you a link to the historical procedings of the Epi faith. If you are really interested in HOW they came to this point, and how they justify their position, you should be thanking me for providing you with a very solid link that would expand your knowledge on the subject.
Simple minds seek simple answers, even when reality stubbornly keeps being complex. <--- note, NOW i am infering that you are simple!
Read carefully. Before that I did not call you stupid or unintelligent, but rather irrational, and you are. Religion, which requires faith, is inherently irrational in that it cannot be tested like other claims (eg scientific) can. It cannot be falsified. My position is that those who believe in god are irrational and I can defend that position pretty well. They are not inherently stupid, for example Jesuits tend to be pretty darn sharp. But then the Jesuits are big on logic.
"Regarding your summary, I find it odd that scriptures were written when everyone was assumed to be straight, yet the word "homosexual" is used numerous times. "
Modern, english translations use the word. From what I have read the word is not cotemporaneous with the writing of the bible, but it is rather a more modern invention.
The summary is not MINE, btw, but rather what the new bishop elect said in his 30 second summary of the topic on CNN. He said that only AFTER saying that it is a long and complicated topic that does not lend itself to quick summaries. I am sure you can find more detailed discussion of the position.... but then that would require work on your part.
|CHALLENGE: Find an agrument that||Captain Morgan|
Aug 6, 2003 9:39 AM
|Can you (or anyone else for that matter) list a scripture passage which could be used as an arguement IN FAVOR of homosexuality?? After all, you said that there is a lot of contradiction in the Bible.|
|Challenge: Find an anti-slavery argument||dr hoo|
Aug 6, 2003 10:06 AM
|Since the bible is pro slavery, xians should support slavery. Do you support slavery? How can you NOT support slavery since it is a christian thing?
Same logic. But then, logic has no place in religion, does it?
Enjoy your comfort of faith. I'll stick with reality, thank you very much.
|OK, tell us the truth:||OldEdScott|
Aug 6, 2003 10:31 AM
|Is this czar and Steam arguing under aliases?|
|Here you go||Captain Morgan|
Aug 6, 2003 10:38 AM
|Interesting point, but not valid. Does the Bible really advocate slavery, or does it just acknowledge its existence? If I write about the existence of drugs, does that necessarily mean I am for the legalization of drugs?
There are, however, passages which admonish slavery: 1 Corinthians 7:20-24; Galations 3:28.
Aug 7, 2003 10:40 AM
|All right. I finally got around to looking this up on the biblebot.
first cited passage:
Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
How does that speak AGAINST slavery?
Second cited passage:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Seems to be saying that everyone is equal in the eyes of jesus. Again, does not say slavery is wrong.
That's some serious stretching. If you want to pull some biblical interpretation to show how those passages are speaking to the issue that slavery is WRONG, go ahead. I'll read it.
Aug 8, 2003 6:28 AM
|First, it depends on the translation/version. I think the New American Standard Bible is more used now than the old King James. The NASB text is as follows:
Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.
Some interpret this as a specific anti-slavery passage. Others claim that this does not pertain to slavery. What appears to be the most prevalent view among scholars, however, is that the NT did not speak out more specifically on the issue of slavery because it certainly would have meant an end to the lives of the authors and the church. With millions of slaves in the Roman Empire, they knew they could not spark a revolt. Instead, they tried to do it in a roundabout way.
Still others I have read state that the "slaves" referred to in the Bible are not slaves in the common view, but that the original translation is "servants," and servants were paid personnel.
I have no idea which interpretation of history is correct. However, I do know that your view that the Bible is "pro-slavery" (your words) is generally not accepted. It may not have been as "anti-slavery" as people would have liked, but it isn't "pro-slavery." The Bible mentions slavery because it existed socially and politically, not because they necessarily agreed with it.
|I am not a biblical scholar, so...||Duane Gran|
Aug 6, 2003 10:27 AM
|There are many flavors of xianity, and they all point to the same bible. White separatists (xian identity movement) use the bible to prove that non-whites are devil spawn. So yeah, I was exagerating, but not by much. I was simply pointing out that every denomination has biblical support for their doctrine, and I am sure the Epis have a well spelled out reasoning for their ordination of gay ministers, and every other thing they do.
So how can they do it and still call themselves xians? They make it up, just like every other FAITH
I've seen some pretty fierce debates between physicists about the nature of the universe. I've also seen Biologists disagree about fundamental issues that split them into different camps. If I'm consistent with your assessment above, I should conclude that Physics and Biology are a farce because everyone can't agree all the time.
|there is a difference, as i am sure you know.||dr hoo|
Aug 6, 2003 12:01 PM
|I would point to the philosophy of science. Karl Popper came up with the criterion of demarcation of science as being that of falsifiability. Scientific statements and theories must be able to be falsified. So, when scientists disagree they try to come up with tests and experiments that will show one theory to be stronger, or falsify some aspect of the alternative theory.
On the other hand, there is NO evidence that will falsify religion. Which is right, Odin or Zeus or Jesus? How do you test?
|Please don't press dr. hoo on this subject||moneyman|
Aug 6, 2003 7:34 AM
|He will wear you out. Guaranteed. Save it for another thread, and I am sure he will enthusiastically engage you in a discussion.
|Did I see you at Starbucks last weekend??||PaulCL|
Aug 6, 2003 6:09 AM
|Let's not forget that the "conservative" branch of the Episcopal church is threatening to leave the church over this ordainment.
I think churches, particularly the liberal side (not politics), are willing to bend or change rules to include more people. Churches are big on getting more and more members. The cynical of us would say the church will bend its' rules for new members so as to raise more cash. I'm sure that's part of it. The believers of us would say they bend the rules to bring the word of God to more people. Who knows? Rules must change with the changing times.
Though I agree...how can you listen to the word of God from someone who actively breaks it on a regular basis??? I would do what I do every Sunday morning - go ride my bike!
|no, and you never will.||dr hoo|
Aug 6, 2003 7:46 AM
|I frequent the independant local coffee shop, the one that allows smoking, and is located next to the tattoo/piercing shop. Coffee shops are supposed to be DEVIANT, not corporate!
Besides, starbucks espresso is nasty.
dr (buy local and suport your neighbor) hoo
|It bothers me too||Duane Gran|
Aug 6, 2003 6:06 AM
|I am having a difficult time figuring out how they came to this conclusion as well. I think one of the challenges is to discriminate between the social norms espoused in the bible and the doctrine. Most people have concluded that social norms during the founding of the early church made it commonplace for women to be excluded. To the best of my understanding, this isn't doctrine.
Matters of sin, on the other hand, seem to be a clear cut matter of doctrine. There is some debate about the biblical stance on homosexuality, but on the whole the bible takes a disapproving position and identifies it with sin. Although everyone sins, it stands to reason that an official in the church makes an overt effort to avoid sin. I don't understand how they could have confirmed this person.
|Just a little, tiny sin though.||OldEdScott|
Aug 6, 2003 6:07 AM
|Sexual sins are relatively minor in the sin heirarchy. And as both Jesus and the church say, we ALL sin, relentlessly. It's the human condition. If you disqualify sinners from serving, the church would have no officials.|
|you missed the point olded...||ClydeTri|
Aug 6, 2003 6:13 AM
|yes, we all sin, but, to be a "holy person" you should try not to correct? This bishop is effectively saying that he will continue to committ this sin and not try to stop. To be consistent with his own religion he should attempt to give up homosexuality, or the practice thereof at least.|
|I guess the other possibility is||OldEdScott|
Aug 6, 2003 6:19 AM
|the Anglicans are making a statement here, that they do not consider homosexuality or homosexual sex per se a sin anymore. Wouldn't surprise me. I'm not sure the New Testament has much interest in the issue. And the Old Testament is full of all manner of madness churches have chosen to ignore over the years.|
|but old ed...||ClydeTri|
Aug 6, 2003 6:28 AM
|how can one just decide to change their religion? If a religion is truly set by their god of choice, then, how can a human change it? Changes must come from above? The point of my original post was just that. That it is not logical for religions to change their doctrine willy nilly. If their doctrine is truly "divine", then it is set in stone, correct?|
|Doesn't seem to be. Religions change their||OldEdScott|
Aug 6, 2003 6:42 AM
|doctrines all the time. But your point is well taken -- it sort of calls the 'truth' of church doctrine into question when it's flexible that way.|
|Doesn't seem to be. Religions change their||ClydeTri|
Aug 6, 2003 6:47 AM
|exactly..if people can change doctine for political purposes, then, is it truly divine?|
|The Bible and homosexuality!||Captain Morgan|
Aug 6, 2003 6:44 AM
|Not to intend sounding like a Bible thumper, but it is VERY clear that the Bible, particularly the New Testament, states that homosexuality is a serious sin.
First, the most well-known scripture espousing (pun intending) the concept of man/woman marriages is Matthew 19:5-6, which says "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined by his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
Regarding the seriousness of homosexuality, I Corinthians 6:9-10 states explicitly: "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Lastly, I Timothy 1:9-11 reiterates this point: "This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."
|Should have said JESUS doesn't seemed much concerned.||OldEdScott|
Aug 6, 2003 7:03 AM
|He never mentions it. Hard to believe he'd fail to mention it if it was a big deal to him. He covered a lot of ground in his few but extremely well-chosen words.
I don't read Timothy, Corinthians, etc because they're nothing but hearsay, interpretation, and early church politics. I pretty much stick to the five gospels. (Huh? Thomas.)
I WILL say, in response to your Corinthians citation, that Jesus said: 'If any man therefore sets aside even the least of the Law's demands, and teaches others to do the same, he will have the lowest place in the kingdom of Heaven.'
WHich seems to contradict Paul, and say minor sinners still get to heaven. They just don't get the luxury accomodations of the Pure.
|Hard to tell||Captain Morgan|
Aug 6, 2003 7:17 AM
|Only a minscule amount of what he said and did are actually in the Bible. Who knows how common homosexuality was back then? Anyway, he seemed to focus a lot on the positive (what you should do), not the negative (what you shouldn't do).
And by the way, one could argue that they are all hearsay, including the gospels, which were written down long after the death of the authors.
|Which is why the Jesus Project is so interesting.||OldEdScott|
Aug 6, 2003 7:26 AM
|And the Gospel of Thomas (Jesus' sayings). It's all fascinating.
One thing I've noticed (as an editor and someone who recognizes 'voices' in writing and speaking styles): You can usually tell when it's really something Jesus said, and when it's words others put in his mouth. He had a speaking style that was incredibly recognizable, unique, unsentimental, and right to the heart of the matter. He was, simply as a thinker and orator, just amazing. The added stuff stands out like a sore thumb, obvious by its general mush-headedness, which was apparently the most common character trait of the Apostles.
Aug 6, 2003 7:23 AM
|They stay in the Holiday Inn, instead of the Royal Crown Mariott? :~)|
|Motel Six. Pretty Spartan stuff. And they don't get the||OldEdScott|
Aug 6, 2003 7:28 AM
|Twelve Virgins, or whatever. Wait, that's a different Heaven ...|
|God just needs our help to become "hip".||Spoiler|
Aug 6, 2003 6:09 AM
|These churches feel they have to spruce up God image in order to attract new members. In the past, the church believed God's message was that homosexuality was an abomination. the only possible reason for change is that they believe God needs to change with the times. Kind of ironic, considering many churches believe God CREATED the times.
What I don't understand is why someone would worship a God they feel they have to enlighten. If I'm going to worship a God, he'd better be all-powerful and all-knowing from the get-go. What self-respecting person would worship a fickle God?
Isn't stability one of the attractions of worshipping a higher power? Isn't God supposed to be perfect and unchanging? Now the church has to deal with an unstable God. If he can change his mind on homosexuality, maybe he'll change his mind once you arrive at the pearly gates.
|How do you know God changed his mind?||Len J|
Aug 6, 2003 6:18 AM
|The Bible is a document created over time by Human beings interpreting and codifing beliefs about God & the world. Some would contend that the Bible is the word of God and therefor must be taken literally. If that were true, many things that are done within organized religions are in violation of God's word.
What is changing (IMO) is Man's interpretaion of the message of Christ, broading it to include his fundamental message in all its beauty...."Love thy neighbor." Is commited love between two men (or woman) any less a manifestation of this than between a man and a woman? It seems rediculous on the surface to argue that it is any less.
|How do you know God changed his mind?||Spoiler|
Aug 6, 2003 7:34 AM
|I don't think God changes his mind. I think God created sex as a means of procreating. If a man and women happen to have fun while procreating, so be it. When two guys twist sex around to suit their desires, they're f'n with nature and God. If the two men don't believe in God, they have no reason to change. Just my personal beliefs.
What they do is between God and them. But when they make their business the churches business, it's time to cut bait.
|Exactly my point.........||Len J|
Aug 6, 2003 7:52 AM
|these are all about personal beliefs.
Most of the "selection" of what went into or not into the new testament occured 100's of years after Christ died (I think at the Nicea confrence or something like that). The decisions were made by men, based on what doctrine would be most amenible to the Roman culture at the time. The Church was most interested in survival not docturnal purity. It's where the decision was made to move Christ's birthday from March (which is where most scholars think he was born based on the timing of Herods decree) to December to coincide with the Roman Solstice feasts (just one example).
To extrapolate that to "The Bible is the absolute word of God" is for me quite a reach. There was too much politics involved.
|The only people that it should bother....||MR_GRUMPY|
Aug 6, 2003 6:10 AM
|are those who are not sure which way their gate swings.|
|re: How could you approve a gay Bishop?||Captain Morgan|
Aug 6, 2003 6:11 AM
|That would be like voting for UBL as the head of the UN.|
|By literalist logic then only Jewish fisherman may preach the Gospel. Right?||128|
Aug 6, 2003 6:42 AM
|After all, those were his disciples.
Wouldn't it be fun if the second coming brought us a gay Messiah?
Then, after struggling to get into the Judeao-christian club they'll be making arguments to split from it.
They'll write their own book, have a gay enlightenment, breakfeast cereal. The whole shabang.
|Matthew was a tax collector so IRS agents are also allowed. NM||jtolleson|
Aug 6, 2003 6:48 AM
|no, not at all..||ClydeTri|
Aug 6, 2003 6:50 AM
|but logically any "holy person" of a religion should attempt to the best of their ability to follow that religion. Whether one likes it or not, homosexuality is a sin in the Christian relgion, thus, ministers/preachers/etc who are active homosexuals should not be ministering. Any holy person should attempt to live by the rules of their own religion.|
|Depends on your interpretation.||Turtleherder|
Aug 6, 2003 6:54 AM
|You first have to accept the interpretation of the bible that states that homosexuality is a sin. If you don't subscribe to that theory than it's not a sin, end of story. If you wish to choose the sin interpretation then what about all the other readings of the bible? How far do you go? Personally do you cut your hair? Eat shellfish or pork? How about stoning the mouthy kids or prostitutes? Hey, I'm always up for a good festive night of snake handling!|
|Would you agree...||ClydeTri|
Aug 6, 2003 6:57 AM
|Would you agree with the suposition that if a "church" believes homosexuality is a sin, then that praciticing homosexuals would logically be eliminated from being bishops of that church?|
|Would you agree...||Captain Morgan|
Aug 6, 2003 7:26 AM
|Its not just that he is a homosexual. Nobody is free from sin. If he were to be silent on his sexuality, it might be a different story. However, by being openly gay, he specifically legitimizes the exact thing that the church condones.|
Aug 6, 2003 7:32 AM
|not condone... meant condemn.|
|think you mean condemns..not condones.. nm||ClydeTri|
Aug 6, 2003 7:32 AM
|I hope that wasn't a Freudian slip! (nm)||Captain Morgan|
Aug 6, 2003 7:40 AM
|suppose it's their church, they can do anything they want nm||DougSloan|
Aug 6, 2003 7:06 AM
|Here's the part I don't get||mohair_chair|
Aug 6, 2003 9:06 AM
|Gay bishops don't bother me, nor do gay people. What bothers me is that a religion puts its beliefs up to a vote. What is that about?
The Catholics (I was raised one) got it right. There is the Pope, and basically he makes the rules, because supposedly God talks to him. Don't like the rules? Tough. Find another religion. There's no vote.
I don't see how a religion or sect can vote on what they deem appropriate. It's one thing that I agree should be black and white in this world. Don't like the rules? Tough. Find another religion. But to vote to change your beliefs lessens those beliefs in my eyes. Who's to say that what you believe in now won't change next year? What if the Jews took a vote and decided that Jesus really was the Messiah? Wouldn't that mess things up?
I think if you want to be a gay bishop, form your own sect where that is allowed. Make it legal. But don't try to take an existing sect and change the rules. Relgions have to stand for something, and putting the rules up to a vote just cheapens and degrades the whole thing.
|Do muslims go through this?||Spoiler|
Aug 6, 2003 10:47 AM
|Great points. Religion isn't a democracy. I get the idea that the gay community views religion as just another sect of society they have to gain a foothold, or REPRESENT themselves in.
Religion isn't a democracy, or a target for diversification. It's a dictatorship. God dictates the rules. People may disagree on what God has dictated, but any changes should at least have the appearance of coming from above, not by popular demand.
Maybe it's about time Catholicism changed to accommodate muslims and satanists and athiest. Religion should be inclusive, afterall.
|Yes, every religion does.||dr hoo|
Aug 6, 2003 12:42 PM
|Sometimes they split, sometimes they alter things. The catholic church has changed the rules MANY times. Meat on friday is a sin. OOPS, not anymore!|
|Re: There is no vote||kilimanjaro|
Aug 6, 2003 2:01 PM
|How was it decided what should be included in the original "New Testement"? Don't remember the name but there was a conference of Christian Bishops who decided. Are you sure there was no vote?
How was the Hebrew bible (what Christians call the Old Testement), put together? Jewish scholars and researchers (I imagine mostly non-Orhtodox) will tell you that a group of priests put it together. Why does voting cheapen a religeon? It suggest to me that the decision is so important that no single indidvidual, however holly, should bear sole responsibility to make it.
Jewish relegious law (I forget the name) which is supposed to guide an individual's daily life was decided precisely by a court of judges. They interpret the Torah to cast a decision. There are even majority and minority opinions. I know you did not intend to label the basis of moder Jewish faith cheap and degrading. Sorry, just could not help myself.
|Process Theology, that's how||Leroy|
Aug 6, 2003 10:55 AM
|Progressives, as they call themselves, believe in themselves and their agendas. They are basically politicians posing as clergy. I actually heard an Episcopal priest - may have been a Bishop - from San Francisco - say she knew better than St. Paul about all the sexuality issues, since St. Paul never had to worry about this. Is that arrogant, or what? They are not really interested in what the Bible says. They want to tear pages out of the Bible until it says what they want it to say. They regard real faith as naieve; as ignorance. That's how this priest can politic his way into bishop, and the church be damned! These types do not believe in sin, so who needs a savior, say they. They are basically socialist unitarians, in my opinion. The Episcopal Church USA is in for a rough time because of this. The african and asian church, fastest growing in the anglican communion, don't see homosexual practice as normal. Many others of us Episcoplaians do not see it that way either. I have nothing against a non-practicing/celebate gay priest; just like a non-practicing adulterer, thief or serial killer. I see this as satan's attack on the church. I am glad it finally came to a head so we can sort it all out once and for all. Just my 2 cents.|
|To quote from an old suspense movie...||jesse1|
Aug 6, 2003 12:02 PM
|..."And then there were nine". The Commandments that is. I wonder what the next one is that will fall by the wayside.
BTW-I think the movie was called "Ten little indians".