# Episcopalian Church to Split on Gay Bishop!



## zephyr

*The Anglican Church in the United States is set to be weakening permanently on the appointment of the openly gay bishop- Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.  It looks like the entire issues of homosexual bishops, gay marriages and the likes- are set to backfire in the face of their instigators.

Canada is already experiencing deep wounds in the church on homosexual matters.  It appears that gays might be having their way in certain respects, but will soon realize that they are more isolated than ever before.

The fact of the matter is that, the western world will not endorse seriously the gay agenda- ever.  No matter how hard they try, segregation will be their fruit.  

The U.K. has already shot down quietly its first gay bishop appointment- Canon Jeffrey John in the face of public and international pressure.  Bishop Gene Robinson could forget receiving the blessings of the Church of England if his appointment is fully endorsed by the Episcopalian committees in the U.S.

The history of this region, especially the Americas- is built on Christianity!  Many have suffered because of it, wars were fought because of it, and the founding fathers of the United States held it in high esteem!  That will not change just now, for the sake of pleasing an insignificant minority- in my humble opinion.

Call this writer homophobic or crazy, but that will not change the collision course that homosexual activists are on with the general societies of the world.  Wake up and smell the coffee if you may folks!

www.DennisDames.com*


----------



## Kitten Courna

Love and be loved.


----------



## Anonymous

Hi zephyr, my biggest problem with gay marriages is the same problem I have with couples that marry and don't have children.  I don't get it.  I thought the whole point of marrying was to have children; they are raised by two supporting parents, and those children carry on the name of the father.

Confused Kimberly


----------



## Chrispian

Anonymous said:
			
		

> Hi zephyr, my biggest problem with gay marriages is the same problem I have with couples that marry and don't have children.  I don't get it.  I thought the whole point of marrying was to have children; they are raised by two supporting parents, and those children carry on the name of the father.
> 
> Confused Kimberly



Children have NOTHING to do with the bond of marriage. People marry because they want to devote their lives to one another and share that life together. If that includes children or not doesn't factor in. I grew up in a house with 6 kids, my Step Mother ran a day care - I never want to see another child again. I was the oldest and helped out with all my brothers and my sister. I'm 30 now and I still don't want kids. 

Does that mean I don't love my wife? That I shouldn't marry? Of course not. I've been married for 4 years now and I've we've been together for 6. Hopefully that will be the case in 100 years from now, where on our grave stones it says "they lived together and they died together - now they are together forever"  .. or something to that effect


----------



## Kimberly Bird

I wish someone would have taught me that philosophy instead of me following in my mother's footsteps. :lol: 

Kimberly


----------



## Spudley

I'm absolutely with Chris on what he said there: marriage is absolutely about love.

On the subject of gay bishops:

Ho hum. I was trying to stay out of this, but here goes anyway...

For some reason the gay lobby thinks this falls under "gay rights"? I just can't see how that is the case.

No-one has a "right" to be a bishop, just in the same way that no-one has a "right" to be a corporate director, or a senator, or a colonel. These positions are earned, by following the rules, performing better than your peers, and rising through the ranks.

Being gay, a woman, black, old, ugly, or anything else people discrimate against should not come into it in any of these jobs in terms of that definition (the fact that they often do come into it is another argument altogether).

However, in the case of the church, the rules that need to be followed are laid down in the Bible. Religeon is thus not like any other job: there are clear discriminations laid out in the teachings of most religeons, and the Bible teaches that homosexuality is not to be tolerated.

Sadly for this man, belief in the Bible is pretty fundamental to being a bishop.

One or other has to be wrong - either he believes it is wrong to be gay, in which case he should have changed is ways a long time ago, or else the he believes Bible is wrong, in which case he's fine, but is surely in wrong job.

I am a believing Christian, so I accept my viewpoint is one of an interested party, but I have tried to look at the two sides of this argument from as logical and unbiased a perspective as possible. But despite that, I just can't see how he's got a case: He's holding two opposed viewpoints simultaneously. It's like a pacifist joining the army.

I don't think my argument sides either with gays or the church. I haven't tried to say which is right, but I can't escape the conclusion that trying to combine them has to be wrong, no matter what you believe.


----------



## Anonymous

Okay, here I go again.  I am just trying to wade my way through this dilemma.

I thought the whole point of marriage was for procreation, thus continuing the line, like I said before.  Doesn't it say that in the bible?

So if marriage is just about love, as Chrispian believes, then homosexuals should be accepted into this sacred ceremony, no?

Chrispian I am happy that you don't want children, but both women and men have biological clocks that start tick, tick, ticking away.  Don't count your chickens before their hatched. :wink: 

Kimberly


----------



## Anonymous

*Marriage and Procreation*

To say that marriage is exclusively about "love" or exclusively about "procreation" is to fail to see the greater picture.  On the one hand, marriage is obviously about children: God instituted the marriage bond as the way for humans to proliferate themselves.  On the other, the marriage institution is about becoming one flesh, about growing to love one another unconditionally.  In this sense it is an indelible illustration of Christ's relationship to and love for the church.  So, neither aspect should be underestimated or discounted.  

I'm still not sure whether or not a marriage is morally excellent even if their is a conscious decision to refrain from having children.  I am initially inclined to say that a childless marriage can, nonetheless, be a fruitful marriage.  This is, however, preliminary speculation.

Adam Glover


----------



## Anonymous

With all respect and reverence to Our Lord Jesus Christ, as a Catholic, I think that gay are part of God´s Creation. If Jesus,  in His divive mercy, was able to forgive Magdalene and all sinners, who are we to judge gay people. Gay people are our brothers, sisters, teachers, lawyers, priests, bishops, etcetera, etcetera. Open your eyes.


----------



## Spudley

Forgiveness is one thing, and Jesus is happy to forgive all for anything.

But forgiveness only comes with repentance.

By being a member of the church, particularly as a priest or a bishop, you accept that God exists and that the Bible is His divine instruction. Therefore, it is not we who are judging gays, but God; the bible is clear on the subject - it is a sin.

And if it's a sin, then this gay priest is living in hypocracy, because he is unrepentant.

As I said before, you cannot have your cake and eat it. If he doesn't accept the truth of the bible, he really shouldn't be getting made a bishop; if he does, then he should be repenting and asking God's forgiveness for it.


----------



## Anonymous

Good points Spudley,

As a Christian we are to love everyone, regardless of their lifestyle choices. However, we should not embrace the sin. If someone is wired so that they have a preference for a gay lifestyle, and they want to lead a christian life, they should be practicing absolute abstinence.

Would Gene Robinson voice something to that affect, his election would be less controversial. However, he is an addmitted, practicing gay. There is no question, biblically, that this is wrong. It's one thing to have a desire for sinning (pornography, adultary, homosexuality), but if it ends there and no action is taken on the part of the person having the desires, God has no problem with that. God gives us the strength to say no to unnatural desires. It is when we say "yes" to them and have no repentance, and think that we are doing no wrong that we are not living a Christian lifestyle. 

A person in a position of Christian authority, such as a Bishop, has a moral obligation to try his/her best to live within the boundaries of a Christian lifestyle, and this includes not actively engaging in homosexual activity.

We need to embrace everyone, but not the sin. Homosexuality is wrong, and any Bishop saying otherwise should not be a Bishop. A very poor decision was made in the election of Bishop Gene Robinson yesterday.


----------



## MarkS

Spudley and nobody,

I'm behind you 100%. :!: 

Although I am not Catholic, I know much about their practices. Homosexuality is downright condemed in the Bible:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: 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."

In the Old Testament, homosexual behavior resulted in stoning. Although I do not agree with the Catholics on all of their beliefs, I know that they do believe in the Bible as the 100% true inspired Word of God. There are just some side conditions to that that I totally disagree with for good reasons, but that's not the subject here.

This is NOT a matter of discrimination at all. If you don't get a high enough score on the SAT, you don't go to college. It's as simple as that! But wait! It's discrimnation against stupid people! No it's not, it's simple rules and regulations, and in the case of the Bishop, were completely violated.


----------



## Spudley

MarkS said:
			
		

> Spudley and nobody,
> 
> I'm behind you 100%. :!:
> 
> &lt;snip>



Thank you  

And also for pointing out the references. Sometimes it's good to remind ourselves just how strong the Bible is when it comes to morality.



			
				MarkS said:
			
		

> Although I do not agree with the Catholics on all of their beliefs, I know that they do believe in the Bible as the 100% true inspired Word of God.



Not sure if you've confused the Episcopalian and Catholic churches? The Episcopalians are Anglican-based, and not connected with the Catholic church. There are significant dogmatic differences between them, but (until now) not on anything remotely as fundamental as this issue.


----------



## MarkS

Spudley said:
			
		

> Not sure if you've confused the Episcopalian and Catholic churches? The Episcopalians are Anglican-based, and not connected with the Catholic church. There are significant dogmatic differences between them, but (until now) not on anything remotely as fundamental as this issue.



You're right, big miss on my part.   But it still doesn't diminish the fact of the matter.


----------



## Arden1528

I am the farthest thing from religion. I grew up not going to church, and still do not go. I believe in humanity (as scary as that is) and do believe in a god. The gay bishop thing is confusing to myself, I mean I thought he was supposed to live a life of selibicy. If this man is not supposed to be having sex, why should it matter? And if saying that he is a hipocrit becuase he is doing the opposite of the bible, well come on. I have not read the bible, but isn't there alot of hipocratic things in it? Sorry about the spelling...


----------



## Arden1528

Another thing about organized religion, why does the Vatican have the most gold in the world? Shouldn't they take all that gold and help people. I am very much against organized religion, does this make me a bad person?


----------



## Spudley

Arden1528 said:
			
		

> The gay bishop thing is confusing to myself, I mean I thought he was supposed to live a life of selibicy. If this man is not supposed to be having sex, why should it matter?



Not all Christian denominations demand celibacy among their leaders; in fact in my experience, the Catholics are relatively unusual in that requirement. I don't actually know the rules for the Episcopalians, but they've got Anglican roots, so my guess is that they don't require it.



			
				Arden1528 said:
			
		

> And if saying that he is a hipocrit becuase he is doing the opposite of the bible, well come on. I have not read the bible, but isn't there alot of hipocratic things in it? Sorry about the spelling...



Um... you might want to read the Bible before trying to use it to justify a case *grin*.

Yes, there is a lot in there that is controversial, and plenty that is difficult to interpret - if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't need priests at all; one of their main functions is to understand the texts and explain the hard parts to the rest of us - but there are also plenty of parts that are very clear, and leave absolutely no room for interpretation. The gay issue is one of them.



			
				Arden1528 said:
			
		

> Another thing about organized religion, why does the Vatican have the most gold in the world? Shouldn't they take all that gold and help people.



Yes. They should.  (It would probably cause the global economy to crash if you injected that much cash into it, but that doesn't change the fact that you're right)



			
				Arden1528 said:
			
		

> I am very much against organized religion, does this make me a bad person?



No. It makes you an honest person.

One of the most striking things about Jesus' life is the amount of time he spent telling the organised religeous leaders of his day that they were getting everything completely wrong (he annoyed them so much that they ended up executing him, but that's another story).

Basically, Jesus was opposed to the money grabbing, self-indulgent leadership, who were more concerned with keeping up appearances than with talking to God.

Hmmm..... you know what? that sounds familiar.


----------



## Kitten Courna

*cough* Clears throat*
"Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage; therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better godliness."
-As established by the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Chruch in the the United STates of America, in Convention, on the twelfth day of September, in the Year of our Lord, 1801.


And lesse...about this contradictory stuff in the Bible.  Yes indeed, there is some.  Also, though, there are discrepancies in translations. If you are reading the King James Bible, then I would suggest you seek another avenue of translation, as the political drive behind that particular version was far greater than the general goodwill of it.  

Also, that cut about the Vatican having the most gold is a cut against Catholocism, seeing as how that is their mast sacred..er...organization thing.  Plenty of organized religions try very hard to keep up with their beliefs, but size, politics, and age, all interfere.  If you are unhappy with organized religions, then you're really not alone.  The only difference is your not organized *grin*.  Therein being the point.

-Kitten, who has much to say, but says very little.
(whether because I'm staying wisely silent, or most of it is simply blathering, I'll let you decide.)*smiles*


----------



## Penelope

I've purposely stayed out of this debate due to my fundamental belief it's pointless to preach from either pulpit.  I was raised Anglican, sang in the church choir, was baptized, confirmed, went to summer church camp, and was a good little christian.  All it took to disenfranchise me from my church was the new minister insisting I declare and abide by a weekly renumeration.  The minister explained that this was necessary in order to budget.  I was 12 years old and protested that I could not promise an amount because it depended on what my mother gave me.  I left the church and rarely have been back.
Personally, I believe the bible was written by humans and not by God.  I am quite certain that the bible has been altered over the eons to suit society's conditional love of their fellow man.  The ten commandments are laudable and they include 'Love thy neighbour as thyself.'  Are homosexuals who won't live a lie or hide their humanity less notable?  I think not.  I congratulate the individuals who behaved in a 'christian' manner and voted to accept this person as a bishop.  The hue and cry raised about the fracturing of the church is overblown and fear mongering.


----------



## MarkS

Kitten Courna said:
			
		

> And lesse...about this contradictory stuff in the Bible.  Yes indeed, there is some.  Also, though, there are discrepancies in translations. If you are reading the King James Bible, then I would suggest you seek another avenue of translation, as the political drive behind that particular version was far greater than the general goodwill of it.



I have done many studies in the Hebrew and Greek languages, and I can tell you that the translations of the KJV are very accurate. Some may be unclear at face value, but it is still accurate.

One widely used example against the KJV is the sixth commandment in Exodus. The KJV was originally compiled in 1611 using 'more recent' scrolls that have been found. Then we have the NAS (New American Standard) which was compiled in the 1970's using the oldest scrolls that we have found, which are only a few years after the original writing time.

In the KJV, Exodus 20:13, it says, "Thou shalt not kill."
Now, the more 'proper' translation of it is in the NAS
"You shall not murder."

The way the KJV makes it sound is that all killing is sin, when in actuality, it is not. Murder is sin, and there is a difference between them, as all of us know.

But this is still not an error in translation. In the 17th century, wars, jailing, hangings, etc, were a very common thing. Were they murdering? No. Were they killing? Yes.

Does killing include the process of murdering? No!
Does murdering include the process of killing? Yes!

As I said, I have done many studies in the Hebrew and Greek languages, and the translation errors are few, but if looked at closely, you will easily see that there is no error in the actual translation of the word/phrase.

As far as contradictions go, there are also many upon face value that may appear to be so. Let me give you an example (not from the Bible):

Today, you went to the courthouse to visit the Mayor and Chief of Police of your town. As you are leaving you courthouse, you run into your friend Jim. You tell Jim that you just met with the Chief of Police. You continue on. Later, you run into your friend John. You tell John that you met with the Mayor today.  Later on, Jim and John meet and they tell each other that you (Jason) met two different people, so they both think that you lied to one of them.

Now, are Jim and John using common sense? Absolutely not!

I've read over 150 'contradictions' and have examined each one closely. Looking at context and what the author is trying to get across, I have found that no contradictions are presant in the Bible. I've studied this heavily. If you heavily study the original language(s) of the Bible, and examine from context, you'll see to that no contradictions are present.

I'm not trying to get into Theological debate here, though, I just wanted to present you with what I have learned and studied very thoroughly.


----------



## Arden1528

Thank you for responding, I am very intrested in this. Like I said before I am of not religious backround, but I am intrested in it. I have just started to look into Gematria and the applications of numbers. How much do you believe in gematria, MarkS? Sorry about changing the subject.


----------



## MarkS

Arden1528 said:
			
		

> How much do you believe in gematria, MarkS?



The 'science' of gematria by the side of the Christian religion tends to drop you into the world of the "Bible Code."

'Bible Code' (excuse my rudeness) is absolute crap. Talk about adding words to God's mouth which is distinctly condemned in Revelation 22: 18-19



			
				Revelation 22:18-19 said:
			
		

> 18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
> 
> 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



The 'Bible Code' is based upon _nothing but_ coincidence. Did you know that Moby Dick does the exact same thing?

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html

No, I don't believe in gematria in association with the Christian religion at all.


----------



## Sir Joel of Cardwell

“Organised Religion is Divisive and Dangerous”

This is my spiel on organised religion (inspired by this topic and Spudley's post)

We have witnessed throughout history the dangers and divisions created by organised religion. Pertinent examples being the destruction of Canaan by the Israelites (Judaism), the Mediaeval Crusades (Christianity), the current Al Qaeda Jihad (Islam) and the ongoing Hindu-Muslim conflict in India. These are just examples relating to currently dominant religions, there are many other examples, some of which are happening right now in remote places throughout the world. In contemporary Australian society we can see less violent examples of the pain and division that humans bring to their spiritual existence. Recently the Uniting and Anglican Churches both had issues relating to their potential splitting up over whether homosexuals should be allowed to be ministers within the church. We can see that human beings throughout the world can be as corrupt in their apparently pure, spiritual dimensions as they are with sex, food, wealth and all other areas of life.

After listening to all this negativity about religion, the reader would probably want to reject organised religion and turn to solipsist “new age” philosophies such as Buddhism. This, however, is as problematic as the religions these teachings reject, a withdrawal into oneself and the rejection of the rest of society in an attempt to better oneself? What good does that do for anyone else? Surely by the standards which declare religion divisive and dangerous (and there must be a standard or absolute truth by which we are to make judgement) the rejection of others’ needs and taking your leave of the rest of the world is in some way divisive? The reason I mentioned an absolute standard is the fact that some would presume that the standards that Christianity demands, the certainty in doctrine and in God’s existence among other things, are what causes these dangers and divisions. If we reject these principles then we throw out the baby with the bath water.

It is not the standards that cause these divisions; it is the flawed human application of these principles. It is no accident that the decline of Christianity that allowed the reprehensible actions of the Crusaders followed the ascension of Christianity to the official religion of the Roman Empire (Constantine has a lot to answer for). It is the thirst for power and arrogance that subverts any virtue into a vice, and this is what turns an altruistic community of saints into the most brutal and powerful empire in Europe. Islam is a religion that has as its foundation a man (Mohammed) who was after power from the start that is why it has proven to be a problematic religion and a source of war and oppression even to this day. Hinduism is subject to the caste system which has at its foundation the continued power of the Brahmans at the exclusion of those not born into their caste, this is perpetuated by a system that gives the lower caste a chance at climbing the social ladder by doing good deeds in this life, and being reincarnated as a Brahman in their next life. The religion then can be at fault, depending on the spirit behind it (or the spirit given to it at the time).

Organisation? That can be a vice or a virtue, depending on the situation. It is no crime to have you organised, in fact it is generally a much admired quality in most areas of life. The problem is when the organisation takes on properties or an importance that it shouldn’t have. The Catholic Church invented a legion of rules that had little to do with personal morality and much to do with keeping the organisation sated and in power. An example of this is the refusal of “corrupted” Protestant aid during the famine of the 1840s in Ireland, leaving the ordinary people (who had little education outside of the church, incidentally) without the food they so desperately needed to live off. I personally know many people who put up with monstrous corruptions of doctrine rather than leave their local church, so entwined are they in the organisation. Again the virtue is subverted…

In the end it must be noted that it is not necessarily the doctrines and dogmas of an organised religious group that make it a danger and a source of division, it is the level of spiritual corruption that its human executors bring to it. Let me bring it into perspective: paedophilia is a corruption of sexual love, avarice is a corruption of livelihood and overeating is a corruption of our desire for food. Just as these things are the unnatural forms of their root areas of life, some forms of organised religion (i.e. those with power on the collective mind) are corruptions of healthy human spirituality (that which is aimed at God).


----------



## Kitten Courna

I do respect the amount of work you've put into understanding this, MarkS, and will readily admit you've probably got a better background and grasp.  

However, I found a source that talked about James changing(or rather, using an alternate meaning, drying out the connotations, things of that nature, etc.) the bits about witches to suit his particular paranoia.  I am most chagrined, to find that I can't find the particular place I read it(I'm scouring the book as we speak), but stand by what I remember, so far.   You "shall not suffer a witch to live", a verse that has caused much trouble among people, in fact uses a word that could be interpreted as one who poisons, which was a common sort of treachery in biblical days.(there was also some bit about how it wasn't even a particularly feminine word, but the roots were altered several times, etc, etc, and so on into minute distinctions).  Hopefully, I'll be able to give you an exact source one I find the stupid thing.  *grumbles* And I give that example because it is the most readily available *grin*.  

-Kitten


----------



## 60sbuff

*Episcopalians leading U.S. down path of destruction.*

"Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope:......





> *Woe unto them that call evil good and good
> evil;that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:19 and 20.
> 
> People who should know Scripture are ignoring Scripture for the sake of having their own way. "Bishop" Gene Robinson probably believes the canard that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the "people were inhospitable."
> I think gathering a crowd outside your house and demanding that you send out your two male guests so that the crowd (also male) can have sex with them is a little more than just "inhospitable."
> These people are listening with their "itchy ears" to a doctrine they want to hear instead of the one God has been teaching us for 6,000 years.
> There is no shortage of people within the Church who will agree with the Episcopal Bishops and Assembly's position. More's the pity.
> Jesus said that in the latter days "If another comes in his own name, him will ye follow."
> I have read to the end of the Book and I know we win, but it is frustrating sometimes to watch the Enemy gain his little victories, especially in this country.
> You can go back to the 1948 decision of the Supreme Court concerning the separation of Church and State and the '62 decision against school prayer for the turning points in the culture wars that have lead us to where we are today.
> When the Church of Jesus Christ has no moral standing in the society to instruct this society in right and wrong, then we are in grave danger of losing our freedom as a nation.
> Open homosexuals in the pulpit are just a symptom; there are as many  or more "closeted" adulterers and fornicators in the pulpit. The Catholics have their own homosexual and pedophilia problem in their clergy.
> As a staunch supporter and founding member of the U.S. Council of Churches (and later as members of the World Council of Churches, the Episcopalians have long been in the vanguard of social change. That the World Council is completely shot through with communist agents and sympathizers is the worst kept secret in the Christian world. That it has taken this long for ordination of openly gay priests and bishops is a testament to the power of prayer and of God's continuing restraint.
> Mark my words well: There is
> [/u]NO  prophecy concerning the U.S. that would prevent our destruction from within or without prior to the Millenium. To the extent that we continue to permit licentiousness and perversion in this nation, we shall be judged by our actions and inactions. If God has had a hand of protection over this nation,it may well be removed now. As Billy Graham has stated on several occasions, "If God does not judge America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!"*


----------



## Kitten Courna

How many of these responses were posted by Episcopalians?

-Kitten
D.B.C.
Death-By-Curiosity


----------



## 60sbuff

Kitten-
I thought satisfaction brought you back.
I am not an Episcopalian. I am a fundie who worships with a Methodist Church and I have the heart of a Reformed Christian.
I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, Salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone. (sola Scriptura, sola Graczie, sola Fide)
I believe in Romans 6:23 and Romans 8:28-30.
I am qualified to comment, however, because I am of the Body of Christ and the Episcopal Church claims to be part of that Communion. Right now, they appear to be headed for apostasy. *Wink & Nod*


----------



## Kimberly Bird

Myself, personally if I had to be catagorized into a religion I think it would have to be Gnostic, druidism and native philosophy.


----------



## Kitten Courna

60sbuff,
I didn't mean to sound like that, I spologize.  I think everyone is qualified to comment here, it doesn't really matter what faith or chosen path.  I just wanted to know if there -were- any confused episcopalians out there, since I'm familiar with ways for getting explanations via the church.  

*blinks* I really didn't mean to come off like that at all with that question.  I just thought to offer help via familiar channels. sorry about that...

-Kitten-swears-she's-declawed
-mostly


----------



## Kimberly Bird

My ancestors would laugh at being compared to 60's stuff.

I was just remembering something.  Even in the native reserves there is no such thing as gays, at least it was still that way last time I visited, which was about ten years ago.  There are gay natives out there, but they are not accepted at home.  Kind of sad when you think about it.  There's a good story in there.

Kimberly


----------



## 60sbuff

*Kitten*

Kitten:
No apology necessary
I was just trying to make the point that many may come in the name of Christ and many will call out on the last day "Lord, Lord!"
But he will say, "Depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you."
Sorry to be such a _nudge  :wink: , but we will soon be faced with a choice: Remain silent and let the homosexual activists compromise the Church, or speak up and be violently attacked as Homophobes and worse.
You are fine. I , on the otherhand sometimes come on a little too strong.
 _ (Very red in the face!)


----------



## rapture

Hi,

I wondered what is the point of putting something which God condems at the pulpit to begin with? What's the point?


----------



## Kitten Courna

He's not in the pulpit.  He's nominated.  The day that he was nominated to go through the necessary trials to become bishop(he's bishop-elect, not bishop), was (likely)specifically chosen becuase it was withing 128 days before the general convention.  Any nominations to positions like bishop in this time period are -required- to go in front of the general assembly for deciding.  The general assembly decided to make him bishop elect.  Some two days or so later, the general assembly voted in favor of a rule that states that any priests, bishops, etc..., living and having sexual relations with another person may not continue to be priests, etc..  The bishop-elect in question lives his partner in an intimate capacity.  Currently, in the United States, same-sex marriages are not recognized by law.  There you have it.

The issue at hand is not whether or not God accepts homosexuality, it is whether or not the church wants homosexual leaders.  By appointing this man bishop elect, maybe the general assembly was aiming to make an active statement that the Episcopal church would accept homosexual like they accept any other.  We're all sinners anyway, and we have no right to turn against our brother and sisters, convinced that their sin is any greater or more damning than ours.  I am proud to say that this Assembly went much farther than any other stodgy old religion would go to make a statement(and the Episcopal chruch is pretty stodgy and old).  They moved beyond the ineffectual words and into deafening acction.  And have encouraged us to think.

-Kitten


----------



## rcallaci

Harsh judgments like those are made from the mouth of man, God has no say in the matter. 

regards,
Bob


----------



## Anonymous

I used to go to an Anglican church here in Australia, but I left because they were too wishy washy. Compared to some Christians I am seen as a bit left-wing... but I believe what I believe, fundamentalist? Perhaps? But I vote Labor... just a thought, don't mind its incoherency, I'm tired as...


----------



## Sir Joel of Cardwell

Sorry, that was I... 

UNCO

"I used to go to an Anglican church here in Australia, but I left because they were too wishy washy. Compared to some Christians I am seen as a bit left-wing... but I believe what I believe, fundamentalist? Perhaps? But I vote Labor... just a thought, don't mind its incoherency, I'm tired as..."


----------



## scryer

Bravo Spudley!   all is said and done.  you can't have your cake and eat it too.  I would want the person who is about to be my spiritual leader to have complete and reverant belief in the subject he claims to represent.  again, bravo!  as for being gay...well your sexual preference is your own choice, but to me it has nothing at all to do with getting a job.  but this mans choice of profession is odd, I agree with spudley.


----------

