New Hampshire Epsicopalians Nominate Openly Gay Bishop

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Tom Head, Jun 7, 2003.

Loading...
  1. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

  2. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

  3. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Dennis, while you're looking at links, you might click on the Anglicans Online URL I included above. You might find it interesting.

    I find the "relevance" criterion amusing because there's no objective way of measuring it; it's basically a way of saying "the church isn't relevant to me anymore," which is certainly a valid position. For my part, I tend to believe that any denomination that ostracizes today's Samaritans while defending Samaritans of first-century Palestine might have a relevance problem of its own.


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2003
  4. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    But you DO believe that she IS going to Hell, right?
     
  5. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    I feel compelled to once again cite this wonderful column by Orson Scott Card:
    http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/18/story_1816_1.html&boardID=2221

    For my part, I would not at all consider it a cop-out if North were to say that he's entirely comfortable leaving such decisions in the hands of a just and merciful God.


    Cheers,
     
  6. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    So the people at God Hates Fags are doing the right thing (they're only trying to save people from eternal damnation, after all), and the people who think that this group is repugnant are intolerant. Now I get it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2003
  7. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    Re: Re: :(

    Gay and Catholic - talk about a warm welcome.:cool:

    My only point, and I am not sure I have a point, is that a religion without rules is a boring social club that serves really small drinks.
     
  8. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    *sigh* Jeff, why is it necessarily to break everything down into an easy-to-digest battle between good and evil? Of course Card wasn't defending the likes of GHF (and I don't see how that could be construed from the paragraph you quoted, out of context though it may be); even Pat Robertson, who won't be winning GLAAD awards any time soon, has called Phelps "a first-class kook." What makes GHF repugnant is not their theological belief that homosexuality is sinful, but rather what they do with that belief.

    Let me give you an analogy: In strict Theravada Buddhism, it is considered unskillful to drink alcohol. Someone who regularly enjoyed vodka tonics would not be eligible to become a Theravada priest. I'm sure that you don't find this offensive, and we would both criticize as intolerant anyone who ostracized strict Theravada Buddhists on that basis. But if one ultra-conservative Theravadin started up a Westboro Baptist Sangha at www.godhatesdrunks.com, picketing funerals of anyone who died alcohol-related deaths and the like ("Elvis Presley has been in the hells for #,### days..."), I think we'd be pretty riled up, wouldn't we? Now, how is this situation any different?


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2003
  9. Oherra

    Oherra New Member

    Maybe I just like good old fashioned cat fights, but issues such as this are one of the reasons I admire the Episcopal Church.

    “It is not easy to see God's will or to know God's way. The Episcopal Church not only recognizes this, but encourages each person to wrestle with tough issues and not accept easy answers. We believe that serving God involves the mind together with the heart and the soul. We believe that God is in classrooms as much as in church buildings.
    Because of this, Episcopalians disagree, often vehemently, on many issues, but we try, at the same time, to remain "in communion." That is, we try to recognize that while faithful people may disagree, God is greater than our limited knowledge (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/welcome/belief/reason.html).”


    I was raised in and still reside in the southern part of Georgia and this is an extremely rural society and I find that most of the churches here are extremely closed minded and judgmental. I am not talking about things as issue-pushing as homosexuality, but things such as basic questions about science or current events. I remember distinctly one evening my mother had her pastor over for dinner and I’m not sure how we got on the topic but at the time the price of lettuce was rather high due to a drought. During the conversation I said something about human evolution, I didn’t mean that humans had evolved from primates but I was referring to things such as our evolution from an agrarian society to an industrial society. From the pastor’s reaction to my comments you’d have thought I was nailing the spikes into the cross, naturally my mother followed suit and scolded me and wanted me to repent on the spot.

    As I got older I kept having more and more run-ins of this sort and eventually became discouraged. I felt as if the entire church sat in judgment of me simply because I refused to accept an easy answer about things, I wanted to know why… to understand. However, I was always doing something sinful, watching the wrong movie, reading the wrong book, and my personal favorite having “impure thoughts” (and tell me what teen doesn’t). Because I was constantly told that this was somehow immoral or sinful, I resigned myself to the fact that I was going to burn anyhow and just stopped going to church.

    Being a “back sliding” heathen I won’t presume to know if homosexuality is right or wrong, but I do think that God would not want us heathens to sit in judgment of anyone. After all, wasn’t the example Jesus gave us “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
     
  10. StevenKing

    StevenKing Active Member

    Good evening, everyone. I have read these posts with interest mainly because it speaks volumes to my own "evolution" as a Christian.

    I realize that I haven't been much of a participant in these boards, of late...but I do read posts that jump off the page at me.

    The irony of the tension here boils down to differences in human nature. As a semi-conservative Christian, I see no problem with restricting, if you will - the offices available to gays in the Church. It follows the same logic, for me, as was quoted earlier about the corpulent Aerobics instructor being dismissed because he didn't fit into the marketing scheme. I don't believe this position makes me unqualified to speak to the issue---I happen to believe that the Bible does not uphold the gay lifestyle.

    This being said, however, I would NEVER endorse the maltreatment of someone because of their sexual orientation. Its inconsistency with the clear message of a "gospel of love" is obvious. Inconsistency within the Church abounds---look at the zealous anti-abortionists who have, in the name of God, shot abortion providers or blown up their clinics.

    Those who have chosen the gay/lesbian lifestyle have done so of their own free will. As a Christian, I must assume that as adults they can make such choices. In line with "accepting" my beliefs, however, I have no problem saying that I am "against" the lifestyle. Much like I am against alcoholism but would never, ever, mistreat an alcoholic.

    Other Christians, however, do not agree with the conservative stance about being gay within Christendom. Hence my observation about human nature---people distort religion into molds that will fit them - as opposed to allowing religion to mold them into the characters they should become.

    Evolving,
    Steven King
     
  11. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    (I should mention here that my intent in the analogy above was to compare conservative Christian ethics with Theravada Buddhist ethics, not to compare gay sex with drinking, or to advocate drinking during gay sex while attending a Theravada Buddhist sangha, especially if it's a Baptist sangha.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2003
  12. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Okay, my last post for the day on this nearly-dead-horse (albeit fascinating) topic. I was flipping the channels a moment ago, and saw CNN's report on Bishop-elect Robinson. General notes:

    - This was, without question, the most bizarre segment I have ever seen on CNN. The anchor, John King, was very stiff, abrupt, and visibly uncomfortable; he looked as if he was conducting a segment on advanced-stage leprosy. The caption at the bottom alternated between "THE BIBLE CALLS FOR DEATH PENALTY FOR GAY SEX" and "THE BIBLE CALLS GAY SEX 'ABOMINATION'," then later turned to a debate over whether the Bible's prohibitions apply to monogamous gay sex within the context of a homosexual orientation. Whatever one's interpretation might be, this creates an obvious editorial objectivity problem (why answer a question before asking it?). The "death penalty" banner seemed particularly disturbing, since it did not address how the NT deals with the whole death-by-stoning thing (Jn 8).

    - To answer concerns brought up in a previous post, Robinson's divorce was described as "amicable" and he stated that he had not met his partner until two years afterwards.

    - Both Theuner and Robinson handled their interviews exceptionally well. Robinson came across as sharp, articulate, and sympathetic to the concerns of conservatives.


    Cheers,
     
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Yes...No...and Maybe.

    As I understand scripture, homosexuality is a sin. My feeling is that like *many* other (in other words like Billy Graham said it is not **THE** sin) on going sins it would preclude a person from a leadership position & someone involved in it who was truely a Christian would cease from the lifestyle. I can add a long list of other sins to it. People who are cheating their employees, committing adultery, not sharing with the poor, physically abusing their children, emotionally neglecting their children (abandoning their children to housekeepers & Nintendo), etc. In many cases the impact of these other sins is far...........far...... greater because they are external to the people involved. The sins we are commiting against our children in the US are likely to have more far reaching impact and judging by the news already has. If there are degrees to hell these will be way ahead of homosexuality.

    No & Maybe. What do I say to someone who is sold out for Jesus Christ and at the same time in a completely honest reading of scripture has come to the intellectual decision with what they believe is the guidance of the Holy Spirit that homsexuality is not a sin. I am not saying a distortion like saying "adultery is not wrong" or a liberal disregard for scripture by simply throwing out the part they do not like *BUT* an honest intellectually defensible position. I did not get a chance to read all of Peter Gomes book before it went missing so I may be missing something but here we have The Reverend Peter Gomes, sold out for Jesus Christ, communicating the life saving/changing message of Christ and believes sincerely and in a scholarly manner that the bible does not condemn homosexuality. Is a merciful God going to say to him .................ooops.........you are toast because you made a mistake. Yes, you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord & saviour, yes you followed the great commission, and were faithful but you got it wrong on the homosexuality thing...see ya. I am not sure. Remember I am not talking about someone with a liberal disregard for God's word or who is trying to justify a sin. I leave that issue up to God.

    I join those above in condemning the *God Hates Fags* issue of Reverend Phelps (BJU grad if I remember). He is an embarassment and behaving in a completely unChrstian manner (ie missing some important parts of scripture).

    North
     
  14. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Bishop Duncan's Response

    Here's the aformentioned response by Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh:
    http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=607&c=21

    Excerpt: "Whatever world-view or understanding shapes us as Christians, the truth is that most who claim to be Christians really are trying to be Christians. I have, quite carefully, used the adjective 'well-meaning' about those who have (and who will) support this election. Equally true is that most Christians desire to love and to serve those with whom they disagree, even on something as basic as the boundaries of human sexual expression. Actions which are body-rending can still be actions that both sides meant for good. However this present drama plays out, we need to continue to see these values in each other."


    Cheers,
     

Share This Page