Religious discussion thread

[themeecer]

Ummm .. what are we now doing in the street/reality fighting section?

[shaolin kungfu]

I was wondering that to. Seems like an odd place for this thread.

[Subzero]

I left a link for u about the gay bishop

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...re/3073855.stm

There you go again.
It pretty much explains the story.
and no he wasn't incopitenet.

[Christopher M]

I'm familiar with the story. What I don't understand is your question.

[Subzero]

OH.Sorry about that.
I ment do u think that becaus ehe was gay he shouldn't even have been comsidered or that it was right for him to step down.
It was really ment as a broad question.
Do u agree with ****sexuality.
Do u think gay clergy men should be alowud even though they are celibate?

Just whats ur views.

[ZIM]

As far as my views go:

The article said he was with his partner for 27 years- thats prettty significant, regardless of sexuality. While I do not myself "agree" with ****sexuality, it really is none of my business, IMO. I think there have been, and still are, many gay clergy. The requirement for celibacy mitigates this, however. In the Catholic church, I think they do not bar gays per se from being clergy, since all are celibate anyhow [in theory, at least].

It really comes down to 'do you think there would be some undue influence from a gay clergyman, whether active or celibate?' For that, I can't say as it depends on the man, what undue influence means to you, etc. The same issues pertain to school teachers.

After all of that, there are considerations WRT biblical precedents and such but I don't feel that they weigh very heavily for me.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
I ment do u think that becaus ehe was gay he shouldn't even have been comsidered

Since "considering" means weighing, to the best of one's ability, the pros and cons of a stance, and then choosing the most fortuitous one - I can't ever find myself disagreeing with the act of consideration.

... or that it was right for him to step down.

It seems like this was a decision he came to himself after his own consideration, so it would be difficult to fault him on it.

Do u agree with ****sexuality.

I don't understand the question. How can one simply agree or disagree with "a thing." Do you agree with trees?

Do u think gay clergy men should be alowud even though they are celibate?

I think "celibate" here is being used in a sense which negates "gay" or "straight", so I don't think your question makes sense.

[Subzero]

My point was that if they were celibate then it shouldn't matter if they were gay or straight.Or do u dissagree with that.

As to agreeing with ****sexuality i ment do u agree with it in accordance with your religion.
Ie do you think that ****sexuality is a sin?

And he stepped down only after emennse internatioanl pressure and a 7 hour long meeting with the arch bishop of canterbury.
Considering he sadi he would not step down unless asked to by the arch bishop of canterbury.Seems a lottle satrange.And he said he stepped down to save the unityof the anglican church.Not becasue he wanted to for his own personal feelings.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
My point was that if they were celibate then it shouldn't matter if they were gay or straight.Or do u dissagree with that.

From the previous post:

"Do u think gay clergy men should be alowud even though they are celibate?"

I think "celibate" here is being used in a sense which negates "gay" or "straight".

As to agreeing with ****sexuality i ment do u agree with it in accordance with your religion.

If you mean something beyond the following specification, then I still don't know what you mean.

do you think that ****sexuality is a sin?

Not a mortal sin, surely. Almost anything, and certainly any sexual relationship, ****- or hereto-, could be a vehicle for venal sins. That is, something by which you express a distance between God, your fellow man, and your true self.

he sadi he would not step down unless asked to by the arch bishop of canterbury...he said he stepped down to save the unityof the anglican church...

Not becasue he wanted to for his own personal feelings.

I don't see the contrast you're drawing here.

[Subzero]

Do u not think it was more likely that he stepped down because of international pressure (there was very little here in britain) rather than he thought thathe was not fit for the job.Which should be the only real reason for him stepping down i think.
If he was supproted by senior church men.He shouldn't have cared about what some biggeted members of the church believed.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
Do u not think it was more likely that he stepped down because of international pressure

That was probably pretty important.

rather than he thought thathe was not fit for the job.

a) I didn't say he thought he wasn't fit for the job.

b) Isn't part of the job relating to public pressure?

[Subzero]

Yes.But part of the job is not to be crticised by a large amount of your peers and be asked to apologise for your sexuality.Even though you are now cellibate.
Also i think the 7 hour meeting with the arch bishop of canterburymight of had something to do with it.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
But part of the job is not to be crticised by a large amount of your peers and be asked to apologise for your sexuality.

No, his job is not "to be criticized by a large amount of your peers and be asked to apologize for your sexuality." But that seems like an empty comment to me. His job is about his relationship with the church-goers, and that's where the point of contention is. I don't think your observation here changes this one bit. I mean, that would be like if you kept coming to work naked, and your boss gave you hell about it, and you replied, "My job here isn't not to be naked is it!?"

Even though you are now cellibate.

Would he be celibate if he became bishop? I didn't read that part.

[Subzero]

He is already cellibate.
And that is totaly differnt.It would be stoping someone form doing there job because of how they are born.(and don't say u r born naked )

He had been a very popular person in his parish and was seen as an honest nice man.

I really just wanted to see your own personal feelings on ****sexuality (because of your religion.

Althugh i don't support the decision the cannon made there are references against ****sexuality the new testament (and loads inthe old testament.)
Timothy
1:10
For *****mongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


Corinthians
6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


Not the most understanding of people for one of the church fathers was paul.
Unfortuantly with pauls clear hatred for ****sexuals, how could any christain say it would be ok to be ****sexual and christain.Or even tha someone will not go to hell for being ****sexual?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
He is already cellibate.

Saying you haven't had sex in a while and making a commitment to celibacy are two entirely different things. It's my understanding he did the former.

And that is totaly differnt.It would be stoping someone form doing there job because of how they are born.

Assuming for sake of discussion that ****sexuality is a trait animals are born with - yes, and lots of people are prevented from having lots of jobs due to the circumstances of their birth.

I really just wanted to see your own personal feelings on ****sexuality (because of your religion).

Then ask me some questions about that.

there are references against ****sexuality the new testament (and loads inthe old testament.)

Thanks. Are you using these to explain your faith? For some reason I was under the impression that you weren't a Christian...

Timothy
1:10
For *****mongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

If you're interested in understanding Paul's writing (or indeed, anyone's writing) I would strongly recommend you read it from beginning to end, rather than taking a small snippet of it and trying to understand it. Quite often, the latter approach will give you an idea which is quite different than the writer's idea.

This is certainly the case with the example from Paul you've used here. Timothy 1:9 reads "Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,". The citation you've given above is a list Paul is providing of people for whom the law was made. Timothy 1:8 reads "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully:".

If you wish to understand what he is saying, please note especially: "The law is good, if a man use it lawfully; but the law is not made for the just man." Which is why the law is an untenable position. What Paul is doing is examining the law on it's own terms and finding it to be untenable, which causes him to replace it with the Christian (contra Jewish) idea of grace. This is the consistent argument Paul puts forward throughout his writings in the New Testament.

He goes on in Timothy to explain his position first by explaining how he himself is unjust according to the law, and how this was undone: "Who before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and contumelious... Now the grace of our Lord hath abounded exceedingly with faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus... A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners...But for this cause have I obtained mercy: that in me first Christ Jesus might shew forth all patience" (Tim 1:13-16). Then he explains who all is worthy of this: "I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men... Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (Tim 2:1-4). For a more complete version of this argument from Paul, see Romans 2 through 8.

What you've done here is a slightly more subtle version than if someone had said "****sexuals are bad; this is something I must disagree with," and only quoted the first half of it, then used that to call them anti-****sexual.

Corinthians
6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

This one is taken even out of context even more explicitly.

Corinthians 6:11 reads, following this list: "And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God." And preceeding your quote is not the command to judge, but not to judge: "Already indeed there is plainly a fault among you, that you have lawsuits one with another." (Cor 6:7)

So here we have Paul telling us that we're all "washed, sanctified, and justified" through Christ's grace, and moreover that we shouldn't be judging in the first place. This is quite different from the conclusion you drew from taking bits of his writing out in isolation.

Not the most understanding of people for one of the church fathers was paul.

When you read him without understanding, you find him to be without understanding. Do you think this fault is Paul's?

how could any christain say it would be ok to be ****sexual and christain.Or even tha someone will not go to hell for being ****sexual?

Perhaps if they'd actually read him?