First openly gay bishop in America - opinions?

Remove all ads!

Leaves the question open, who reads more rightly ?

Hasn't that already happened ? And aren't the anglicans a product of that ?

Rumour is, a big part of them does it anyway, just not offical.

 

First of all, it's a rumour. Rumours are not always true. Secondly, some priests have sexually abused children, but the Catholic rules and beleifs about priests still have not changed. (Well, except that some people are scared of them now)

 

Chev ... great posts. I'm glad my absence from the Alley hasn't left a vacuume.

You seem to have it all covered!

 

Well, I am an Episcopalian and the people at my church feel that there are far more important things that we should be doing. We think we should be working on helping those in need instead of bickering about these issues.

Most Episcopalians that I know would point out several things. The first is that Christ came to free us from the law (and give us eternal life, too). That is not to say that we should go around killing and stealing, for we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and love God. The law is more a guideline than a rigid code that must be followed or else you will go to the devil.

Another point is this: does being a practicing homosexual interfere with his ability to be a spiritual leader, one who would spread the word and love his neighbors as himself? What does sexuality have anything to do with the basic principles of Christianity?

And why does marriage have to be between one man and one woman anyway? If a man finds a woman (or vice versa) and they are soul mates then they should be married. Why can't this be so for same sex couples? Isn't marriage, these days, just a formal confirmation of a loving relationship between two people?

Also, where would I find the passage in the Bible that is said to condemn homosexuality?

 

Right. As soon as it gets out, they change to the christ-catholic church.

 

Form the post above, it sounds like the Episcopal church is getting what it wants .... the results will be bad I'm afraid.

Sounds like that church is refusing to hold fast. Breaks my heart.
Where does it say that homosexuality is wrong?
1 Corinthians 6

This next one is longer, but worth quoting in full.
1 Timothy 1

Notice how Paul talks about the law? It is not a hammer, it is a guide to bring us to Christ and to the fountain of grace. Our sins hurt us, they really do. Lying, adultery, murder, all of them leave broken relationships, broken bodies and broken hearts.
Once we receive grace, our sins no longer bring us to hell, but they do continue to hurt us. The mercy of the cross is not just found in Justification from sin, it also comes in Sanctification, the process of making us holy ... putting off our sins and taking on the character of Christ.
We don't do this because we "have" to, but because we MUST! If we stay in our sins, we keep hurting people and ourselves.
I know this first hand right now, seeing the fruit of minor sins (pride, greed, selfishness) ruin my marriage.
Christ came into the world to save sinner, of whom I am the foremost. He came to save me from Hell. He also came to save me from the things I do today that bring hurt onto myself and my family.
A leader in the church needs to be one who embodies this lifestyle. Not perfection, but an honest effort towards holiness. To thumb your nose at the bible and say, "Murder, lying and theft are still wrong, but I'll be a practicing homosexual and if God doesn't like it, he can jump" ... that is not the stuff of Christian leadership.
The book of Timothy does actually spell out what a leader should look like.
1 Timothy 3 says;

Now, I can see people disagreeing with these standards. They are difficult! But ... I cannot condone a church disregarding them. Christians are not normal, we are not typical Americans, we do not hold to the moral code embodied on TV. We are called to be different .... holy as God is holy.
'Nuff Said

 

I apologise for going a bit off-topic here, but Mathetais' post raises two questions in my mind:

1. It appears that "men who practice homosexuality" are sinners, but nothing is mentioned of women who practice lesbianism. Are lesbians therefore not sinners? And if not, what is the difference?

2. Why, if "an overseer must be...the husband of one wife", are Catholic priests not allowed to marry?

I'm not looking to start a Bible lesson here, but these questions are somewhat related to the topic and/or subsequent discussions.

 

Wow, God really makes sure not even one interesting person comes into heaven

 

It's already trailing off the topic, so I can just as well take an extra step of the cliff.

Ask yourselves, at the end of our lives, will Jah really ask us if we followed all His(?) rules, or if we were contemptous of those who don't live as said religion dictates, or condemned people who follow other Gods?
Doesn't IMO sound like something a good god would ask.

More likely Jah would ask us if we *loved* enough.

NOTE:I'm agnostic when it comes to religion, and thereby neither aknowledging or denying existence of Gods. How could we mortals know?
The point is, I know little about any religion, not being a member of any of 'em, so forgive me if I am a little bit ignorant.

 

Spluge ....
1) Lesbians were unheard of back then, but the same ethics would apply (not saying it didn't happen, but was not as common, nor as public. Remember, back then the Romans practiced man-boy sex quite blatantly)

2) Husband of one wife is in contrast to a husband of many wives. Paul himself was single, as was Timothy (most likely).

Morgie ... I know many very interesting characters who will be there. A buddy of mine used to be in a motorcycle gang ... he has a few hundred years worth of good stories to tell!

 

Mathetais, your quotes translate a number of different ancient Greek words as "homosexuality", which as you surely know is very misleading as there was no word in that language that means "homosexuality" as we know it today.

In the Corinthians passage, "Men who practice homosexuality" is your translation of "oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai". A malakos was not a homosexual, it was an effeminate boy, and the term is usually used in ancient Greek to describe a very feminine male prostitute. Arsenokoitai is a term invented by Paul, which is basically a portmanteau meaning "lie with man", and it only ever appears in conjunction with the word "malakos" or "pornos", so scholars of ancient Greek generally believe it to mean, "he who uses a male prostitute". It was a language that loved contrasts and building up laundry lists of similar items, so the likeliest translation of "oute pornoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai" is, "nor prostitutes, nor girlish male prostitutes, nor those who lie with them".

The Timothy passage also used "arsenokoitai", again juxtaposed with "pornoi" in such a way as to suggest that the sin they were singling out is to use prostitutes.

 

I went to look up the original Greek wording for those passages, translate it, and return to the computer I find that it has already been translated by Sprite. This surprised me because most people I know don't even want to read it in the original text.

I am not surprised that this was the case. People often translate things differently. This could be either an accidental mistake or an intentional effort to make one’s values have a basis in the Word. I think homosexuality may have been frowned upon in Western Culture at one point, and then someone translating the New Testament decided that they would interpret the passage as condemning homosexuality.

Of course, that is just a possibility, but we must remember that cultural values change over time and that there are times when they should change. Examples of this would be slavery, denial of women’s rights, etc.. Could such a change not happen to us today?

In any case, if homosexuality is not a sin, there shouldn’t be a problem.

 

Prostitution was already covered, and it's not like heterosexual prostitution isn't a sin. Also, when Paul says 'who lie with men', he doesn't really make any alleged exceptions.

Certainly not the one who claims conclusions contradicting arguments.

The Anglicans are the product of political conflicts between the church of England and the Popes, one predating Henry VIII and even Edward the Confessor, for that matter. Protestant ideas where introduced during the reign of his son, Edward VI and following monarchs. Beginning with the first half of 17th century High Church was growing more and more catholic in doctrine, even if they still don't believe in True Presence or papal legacy. However, Henry's arguments were made up using a passage that forbade you to sleep with in-laws so that it sounded like forbidding to marry in-laws when they're widowed by your relative (brother in this case). That actually sounded like an argument for annulment and not divorce, but Henry divorced his wife and did not annul the marriage. So yes, the formal reason was a result of a loose interpretation, but it wasn't agreed on by anyone prior to Henry's marital problems. He created it for himself.

There are many rumours. One rumour says that Merovingians were descended from David through Jesus or that German princes were descended from ancient deities. Or that vampires rose and sucked blood and had sex with their wives.

Yes, there are Roman Catholic priests who break their vows of chastity. But if such a big part of them were doing it, wouldn't they have managed to abolish the practice of such vows?

Yes, but one should still try all his best to uphold it.

Mat in his post above answered this exhaustingly. I would only stress that one who lives in sin isn't holy. Isn't supposed to be in good contact with God. Isn't suitable to perform holy rites and priestly duties. Now this doesn't mean someone who commits sins - everyone does - but one who is attached to his favourite repertoire and not willing to improve at the moment.

Everything. Christianity is all about love, about the love from God and to God and between the people. Basic principles of Christianity include love. Note that loving isn't the same what making love is and even making love is not the same what having sex is. The love between man and woman is supposed to be a reflection of the love of God to human and of human to God, and have a spark of it.

What love is in Christianity, Paul tells us explicitly in 1Cor, 13:

(Taken from here. It's Roman Catholic, but even if you take King James's or whatever other one, it won't differ much, and in no substantial matter.)

So, where is any room, in the light of the hymn above, for two people meeting in a random place, getting laid that very evening and parting their ways? Or even for 'try before buy' or 'true feeling with no formal commitment'?

Commitment is one of the clue words here, and includes whatever else could be enumerated, such as compassion, devotion, faithfulness, honesty, reliability and responsibility.

This extends to any kind of love, not only erotic love.

Because God made it so and wants it so. Whatever else, is not in line with Gospel and not Christianity. The couple literally give their own lives to each other and form a new entity, thus passing the God's gift of life.

Because same sex couples do not pass the God's gift of life. They cannot breed and raise children and cannot form a family. Therefore marriage is not necessary for them, and simply is not for them.

Marriage is supposed to sanctify that loving relationship and not just formally confirm it, ie justify having sex. See the quote from 1Cor, 13 above.

 

Chevy wrote:

And that's 100 points for elegantly dodging the issue. Then let me rephrase it. Obviously theres a truckload of theologians who do apparently not share your opinion on that issue. Some of them even made an openly gay bishop. Are you implying they're getting their scripture wrong ?

How can you be sure that you and Woytila got it all right ? Maybe you and Woytila are pretending that god didn't mean what he said.

 

But sex is a great part of life, since it is a form of love.
Are you saying that God is not reachable through love for life??

It's funny that a 'divine' scripture can be implemented in many ways.
Like it was meant to thrive a wig between christians.

 

God is not reachable through sin. He is always there and always in your reach, no matter what, but the way to Him isn't through sin. The answer to the remaining part of your question you will find in Paul's Hymn to Charity (love) I quoted - and my own views are below the quote.

 

Sex is sin??

 

If not in marriage, yes. The gravity isn't always the same, but it's basically a sin.

 

Ah, so how did you get to be then?

Kinda funny aint it, you're born as a sinning non-believer.
What if you die in the first few minutes?

 

Was that pun intended? Just kidding...

Yes... that was very inappropiate on my part!

[ August 13, 2003, 10:35: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]