homosexual bishops...

sanvean

Just wondering what people make of the uproar in the Anglican Church over the election of a (as far as i know) practicising homosexual bishop. Are the latin and African churches right in calling this an abomonation, or would this lead to difficult questions regarding certain laws in the Old Testament?

AngelofFire

As a member of the anglician church i am appauled. Opposition to the appointment of gay bishops implies that we are an organisation of intolerane. that is not the image that i want my church to radiate. a committee met in london 2 weeks back to consider the situation but they are yet to reach a conclusion

The_Goose

It shouldnt matter what a person feels sexually as long as they are a good person and right for the job is all that should matter!

neuro-praxis

The Christian church's stance is not that it is wrong for a homosexual to be a leader of a church.

It is the church's stance that homosexual acts are wrong, as this is what is outlined in the bible, and the bible is what church doctrine is made up of.

To elect a bishop who practices homosexuality is hypocritical of a church who teaches that homosexual acts are wrong.

If the church does this, then they have stopped basing the church on the bible.

If he was a celibate, that would be different. He could be the bishop no problem.

But if he is practising, it's like having a bishop with a live-in girlfriend. It's adultery, which the bible preaches against.

There is too much media focus on this issue. If you are examining this from a secular angle then of course it is reasonable to elect a practising gay bishop. But when your premiss is based on the bible it is different.

Non-members of a church should have no say in who the church's leaders are.

The church has divided on this, and rightly so. The rest of us (and I'm a Presbyterian) are pretty worried to see the bible being ignored. It's fine to ignore it if you aren't a professed believing institution, but, if you are, you've got responsibilities to your church who DO believe the bible.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
It is the church's stance that homosexual acts are wrong, as this is what is outlined in the bible, and the bible is what church doctrine is made up of.

Didn't most of this stance (especially the stance on masturbation) come from the vastly out-dated idea that the male 'Seed' is a life in itself, a child that the male carries and once put in the belly of a woman, it grows, and that to spill the seed is murder. Hence, Masturbation, and Homosexuality are abominations in the eyes of god, as the unborn child is supposedly murdered.

I do remember reading a passage in the bible that outlined this point, but I've not got a Bible handy at the moment, so if anyone here could quote what I'm reffering to, I'd be gratefull.

But my point really, is that quite a lot of what was thought as fact back in the day, is completely disproven by modern science, and this is one of them. Lets not forget that the old testemant was written when people still thought the earth was round. So unless you're going to use a passage in the bible that reffers to a flat earth as undenyable proof that it is in fact flat, then I dont see how many arguements quoting the old testemant hold any water.

No offense to anyone's beliefs here.

neuro-praxis

Angelwhore, the verse you are referring to regards masturbation is only used by the Catholic Church. It is debatable or not whether the bible is actually referring to masturbation. Other than this verse about not spilling your seed, there are no other references in the bible to masturbation.

There is no official Christian stance on masturbation (although lots of people have lots of opinions). In terms of teaching, the Christian church would generally say that sexuality is something that was created for sharing, so sex alone is meaningless. Nobody really goes nuts about it (except those fundies who go nuts about everything): however, lust is something different altogether. This is for a whole other discussion. It's a huge subject.

Homosexual acts is another thing. You are confusing two issues. The theme of masturbation and homosexual acts do not overlap (except that they are both related to our sexuality). The bible clearly states that homosexual acts fall into the category of sexual immorality. I know this doesn't sit well with most people (and it's not easy for Christians either - my brother is gay) but that's how it is. You can't make up your own rules.

And this is not about fact, it's about church teaching. Also, your flyaway comment about modern science disproving many Old Testament "facts" I would love you to point them out to me. Because, having a reasonable knowledge of science and a reasonable knowledge of the bible, I see no contradictions.

The bible needs to be studied in context. The Old Testament still has value, and is personally relevant to me. Not in it's rules (Jesus came to free us from the law by offering us free grace), but in its account of God's character.

I feel that you need to do some study in this area because you have some grave misunderstandings!

No offence taken Ken; I hope you can say the same.

Capt'n Midnight

Hmm I always thought in the Anglican church (and others) it was ok for priests to marry - but not bishops..
The assumption (on my part) being the "Princes of the church" were not to have carnal relationships. So his sexual orientation would not be the problem, instead it would be sexual activity... If you are celebate it doesn't matter what your orientation WAS.

Should Bishops be allowed to marry - only if they love each other..

Non-members of a church should have no say in who the church's leaders are.

Fair enough - some would also say that even most of the members of a particular church should have no say in who the church's leaders are.;)

sanvean

I would agree that if the Bible were not to be contradictory then they would have to insist that a practising homosexual could not become involved in the Church (and, I would presume, in the Church in general). This is simply a case of an institution sticking to its principals, which in theory is to be commended (but when those theories are homophobic, anti-woman, anti-nonbelievers it's another problem). but, how do we address the problems of the Old Testament? The authors of the Gospels do indeed depict Christ as coming to fulfill a new law (based on salvation) but there are passages where that is quite ambiguous (ie, I have not come to do away with the old law, but to enforce it ... or something along those lines). Most of the problems nowadays with regard to interpretation of scripture come from Paul, and not Jesus. Jesus makes no reference to homosexuality (but, being a good Jewish man, would've presumably found it an abomination) but the passages usually cited are from Paul. This is where the main problem comes in. For if we take the Church's views on homosexuality as a given, then what of Paul's writing of women (again, I can't remember the exact passage, but something along the lines of how a woman should not speak during orderly worship etc etc, should keep her head covered - and shaved too?). Do we disregard this (as the Protestant Church has evidently done)?

Runfree

ok lets refer to the Bible-

Answer its against homsexuality

neuro-praxis

Sanvean you make good points if we examine the bible out of context.

It's late and I don't have time to answer all your points, I'm very sleepy.

I just need to say that contextual study transforms the meaning of the bible. Where Paul was living in Corinth, as was traditional, the women were not allowed into the sacred synagogue ground. They had to sit in the balconies above, and instead if participating in worship, they would use this time to gossip and catch up with one another. This was understandable because synagogue was their focal meeting point. These women were uneducated to the point of illiteracy and so were unconcerned with liturgy etc. So they would yell and screech during the worship. Paul was basically asking them to be quiet.

Not only that, but he advised Christian women not to plait their hair and wear jewellery etc. etc. in order to distinguish them from the prostitutes who dressed that way.

I wish I could go into greater detail, but in order to gain an understanding of the bible, you need to do some exploration of it with groups or in the library. It's not just one book, it's a large number of very rich texts translated from an extremely rich language (the NT was mostly in ancient Greek). Context changes everything drastically.

Bed! That's what I need now.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Homosexual acts is another thing. You are confusing two issues. The theme of masturbation and homosexual acts do not overlap (except that they are both related to our sexuality). The bible clearly states that homosexual acts fall into the category of sexual immorality. I know this doesn't sit well with most people (and it's not easy for Christians either - my brother is gay) but that's how it is. You can't make up your own rules.

You see, this is where I have the trouble...
Can you quote where it 'Clearly states' this?
And could you perhaps explain why it's considered sexual immorality?

Because as far as I can see, it's a very blurred issue, and the idea of spilling the seed is the only thing that comes to mind. And very well, if so many seperate religions all stem from their own interperetations of the Bible, then pershaps it's wise to assume that there can be many interperations on your behalf, that mightn't exactly be the most accurate. I would think, that the only true "God's Word" would be the 10 commandments, and that the bible itself, as it is but a collection of many different interperations, and stories, shouldn't be taken as seriously as it is.

That's the way I'd look at it, and if there was more than 10 commandments, one of which stating against homosexuality, then it'd be written in stone (Pun intended) and not so open to interperetation.

Example:

The book of Leviticus (Where it states that homosexuality is an abomination) also states this:

11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you

Yet how many christians stick to this rule?

Peoples problems are that they are two concerned with the bible itself, and forget God's law and God's word entirely.

Karl Hungus

Oh, and to prove myself correct on an earlier statement...

From the book of leviticus, just before it states homosexuality being an abomination:

18:21
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

"Molech" or as he's also known, Moloch... Was a god of fire, to whom children were sacrificed.

So, therefor when it says "And thou shalt no let any of thy seed pass throught the fire to Molech" it means that yes, just like with masturbation, it refers to the killing of a seed, which is thought to be a living child.

So there you have it, it's exactly as I've said.

Hence, out-dated belieifs.

JustHalf

Don't sacrifice babies to Moloch means that masturbation is a sin?

That doesn't make any sense.

neuro-praxis

Angelwhore, again, it's one in the morning and I can't stay awake.

Christians don't have to live by the rules in Leviticus because they were part of the Old Covenant, and in Acts 10 God told Paul we can eat whatever we want, much to his disgust (a Kosher man so he was).

It's considered immoral for men to have sex with men because God says that's not what he designed the body for.

What more can I say?

You quoted out of context one again Ken. There is nothing out-dated - only something you disagree with. We can talk it over some night in IRc if ya like. For now, I'm off to my cosy leaba.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by JustHalf
Don't sacrifice babies to Moloch means that masturbation is a sin?

That doesn't make any sense.

Oh, come off it JustHalf... :rolleyes:
I'd expect more from the moderator of the Christianity board than that kind of weak troll.

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
It's considered immoral for men to have sex with men because God says that's not what he designed the body for.

Care to point out the passage that's quoted from?
Is it in the ten commandments?
Or are you just presuming to know what God is saying?

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
You quoted out of context one again Ken. There is nothing out-dated - only something you disagree with. We can talk it over some night in IRc if ya like. For now, I'm off to my cosy leaba.

Out of context? Out of context???

The very least you could do is to point out what the ACTUAL context is, as you have for Sanvean. Not simply go and state that it's simply "Out Of Context" like that. Please, explain to me how quoting an example in the context it appears in the bible and in the context of the beleifs at the time is taking it out of context!?

It's completely plain for anyone to see what it meant by the passage, and I'd even be so arrogant at this point to claim that christians, catholics, and whoever else have you, are ALL taking things out of context when they quote leviticus in saying that homosexuality is an abomination. They are taking it out of context of the entire passage where it is thought that the male carries the child, and out of context of what was beleived at the time, and proved wrong.

And please, if you're going to make such a bold claim that "There is nothing out-dated" you could at least quote, or link something to back it up. So perhaps, before you reply to me again, you should look up something online, or perhaps consult your supposed "Reasonable Knowledge of science" on the subject, and then tell me that there's nothing out-dated with the idea that the male is the one who carries the child to begin with, as is thought in the bible, and as was thought over the time it was written.

Or maybe I'm just confused on the issue, and my thoughts that science has disproved such beliefs aren't exactly accurate?

But, quite frankly, I think this out-dated belief (Sorry, it's not out-dated at all, is it? :rolleyes: ) is the genesis for much of Catholic dogma that masturbation, and contraception is wrong. And taking such things in the bible's own context, and that of the times beliefs, also gives birth to the idea of homosexuality being wrong.


So, in conclusion... Unless you can prove that the it is infact the male that first carries the child... Then I'm going to assume that such belief is out-dated. And that YOUR OWN thoughts on the subject of the "killing of the male seed" are anything to go by...

For example:

Nobody really goes nuts about it (except those fundies who go nuts about everything)

I think it's therefor safe to assume, that you find such ideas, namely that masturbation is an abomination, is in fact completely out-dated. I can only assume that based on this, your views on contraception, and the idea that it's immoral, are as equally in ridicule of such beliefs.

So therefor, if you would consider the bible-based arguements on the immortality of masturbation and contraception to be somewhat laughable, then perhaps the same idea as it appears in the context of the bible, that homosexuality, and more specifically, as you yourself put it; Homosexual ACTS, then perhaps it is time that such belief went the same way as the belief in the immortality of masturbation and contraception.

This coupled with your own admitance that:

Christians don't have to live by the rules in Leviticus

Leviticus being the main arguement against homosexuality...

Then it's perfectly reasonable that the churches views, and that of christians and catholics, on the immortality of homosexual acts, are completely and utterly OUT-DATED.

sanvean

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
These women were uneducated to the point of illiteracy and so were unconcerned with liturgy etc. So they would yell and screech during the worship. Paul was basically asking them to be quiet.

This is interesting. The men would have been uneducated to the point of illiteracy too (as only scribes and very few members of the religious elite would have been literate) so surely the same would apply to them too. although, i guess, men not being prone to gossip like women are (:rolleyes:), perhaps the point doesn't apply.

What you seem to be suggesting is that Paul's attitude towards women is not an attempt to prevent them from preaching in the place of worship, ie, following with traditionally accepted Jewish practice, but because women were making too much noise? While I acknowledge your kind advice to study within context (and your patronising statement that the Bible is not just one book, but a collection of books), I have studied both Paul, the NT and the Bible as a whole, specifically and within the overall context. I have also attempted to study it in NT Greek. Context is indeed a wonderful thing, but it's all relative. where, exactly, do you draw a line?

JustHalf

Originally posted by AngelWhore
Oh, come off it JustHalf... :rolleyes:
I'd expect more from the moderator of the Christianity board than that kind of weak troll.

It's not a troll. The term "seed" is also used for "offspring".

"Do not throw your childern in the fire" sounds like pretty sound advice to me.

Runfree

Anyone fancy reading the Bible.

1 Corinthines 6:9-11

Then tell me your opinion.

sanvean

Originally posted by Runfree
Anyone fancy reading the Bible.

1 Corinthines 6:9-11

Then tell me your opinion.

For further reading on those who will get to heaven (as opposed to those who won't) read REV 14:4. It would seem that it doesn't matter whether you practice homosexual or heterosexual acts, we're *all* doomed!

ruchna

In general, four main viewpoints may be identified within my Church of Ireland with regard to same-sex relationships. They are not so much clear-cut, isolated points of view as relative positions on a spectrum, and the views of the members of the present House of Bishops are to be found across this spectrum.

That the witness of the Scriptures is consonant with a view that rejects homosexual practice of any kind, and that marriage between a man and a woman in life-long union remains the only appropriate place for sexual relations. This must remain the standard for Christian behaviour.

That the witness of the Scriptures is consonant with a more sympathetic attitude to homosexuality than has been traditional, but this would not at present permit any radical change in the Church’s existing stance on the question.

That witness of the Scriptures is consonant with the view that a permanent and committed same-gender relationship which, through its internal mutuality and support brings generosity, creativity and love into the lives of those around, cannot be dismissed by the Church as intrinsically disordered.

That witness of the Scriptures is consonant with the proposition that, in the light of a developing understanding of the nature of humanity and sexuality, the time has arrived for a change in the Church’s traditional position on affirming same-gender relationships.

I associate with the last viewpoint mostly, along with the majority of people within the Laois Church of Ireland Youth Council.

watty

The only sex the Old and new testements regard as acceptable is between a man and woman married to each other.

One of the Epistals I think says a Leader should be the husband of one wife (no polygamy either).

Masturbation is not condemmed anywhere in the Bible. Passages that some churches use (called Onanism in Scandinavia, after Onan who spills it on the ground instead of doing his duty) are all talking about something else, not masturbation.

Homosexuality (between men, i.e. buggery etc) is condemed in Old and New Testments. I dunno if this includes lesbians or not. The passages as in any of the English translations seem not.

Fornication (Intimate contact, not just sex, with a partner you are not married to is condemed in Old and New Testement).

Doing it with animals is also specifically forbidden.


Marriage is described in Song Of Songs. Jewish Rabbis recommend it is not studied in its deeper meanings till you are married!

Marriage is solely deplicted as between man and woman in Scripture.

And yes, the 1st Council of Jerusalem (James), in Acts, decided that NONE of the old Testement Law applied to NON-Jews. Only the Laws of Noah (Noahide Covenant). Not even Ten commandments (Litearlly 10 Words), of which different authorities devide the passage differently apply to Christians (as such).

Any *Good* Christian Theologian or Jewish Rabbi can enumerate the Noahide Laws, dervided from account of God and Noah after flood in Genesis.

Paul says (paraphrased)
"WE are NOT under Law, but Grace... But shall sin then abound? God Forbid!"