Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

Episcopalian Church to Split on Gay Bishop! (1 Viewer)

zephyr

Member
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
 

Anonymous

Senior Member
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

Patron
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 ;)
 

Spudley

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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

Member
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

Senior Member
MarkS said:
Spudley and nobody,

I'm behind you 100%. :!:

<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

Member
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. :oops: But it still doesn't diminish the fact of the matter.
 

Arden1528

Member
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

Member
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

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
*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

Senior Member
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

Member
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.
 
Top