"gay" Bishop Row in the UK
- Thread starter Red Devil
- Start date
Then they haven't really thought the issue through.
What basis for disliking homosexuality is there, other than the religious one?
I would argue that if they're not Christian, and still have a bias against gays, that they are exhibiting a cultural bias that is ultimately derived from the Bible.
Why reject all of Christianity but that?
Not condemning gays doesn't mean that you have to participate in gay sex, or associate with them. It just means that you don't care, because it is none of your business.
What basis for disliking homosexuality is there, other than the religious one?
I would argue that if they're not Christian, and still have a bias against gays, that they are exhibiting a cultural bias that is ultimately derived from the Bible.
Why reject all of Christianity but that?
Not condemning gays doesn't mean that you have to participate in gay sex, or associate with them. It just means that you don't care, because it is none of your business.
Wearing clothes and driving cars are "unnatural".
There are plenty of gays in love, and plenty of straights in lust.
Yes, in a more ignorant age homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder. But it isn't now.
"Every crime gives the forces of evil more power over mankind".
As Bertrand Russell once said, "when somone insists that the Moon is made of green cheese, you don't argue with them; you feel sorry for them."
There are plenty of gays in love, and plenty of straights in lust.
Yes, in a more ignorant age homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder. But it isn't now.
"Every crime gives the forces of evil more power over mankind".
As Bertrand Russell once said, "when somone insists that the Moon is made of green cheese, you don't argue with them; you feel sorry for them."
No. For example look at the WTC bombing that caused the Afgan war. Just one even later influenced many other musilms to hate the US. Another situation would be Palestine Isreal conflict.
There are plenty of gays in love, and plenty of straights in lust. Well yes, but I hold clergy to higher standards.
Those are human conflicts, caused by human stupidity, and adherence to ancient , nonsensical dogma. There is no reason to suspect supernatural forces at work.
You might as well try to blame them on the work of mischievious extra terrestrials. Or maybe Lucky, the Lucky Charms cereal Leprechaun has gone bad, and is using his powers to influence human affairs in a negative way.
Makes just as much sense, and has as much evidence to back it up.
You might as well try to blame them on the work of mischievious extra terrestrials. Or maybe Lucky, the Lucky Charms cereal Leprechaun has gone bad, and is using his powers to influence human affairs in a negative way.
Makes just as much sense, and has as much evidence to back it up.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
To Red Devil who wrote: "People in such a position should be above reproach and whether I am a religious person or not, I do not like to see people like this in positions of decision making nor in the position of being a spiritual guide to ordinary folk."
How can an ordinary mortal be above reproach? Even you're Jesus was not beyond reproach (Don't believe me? Just ask Rabbi Silver
)
But seriously a spiritual guide is someone who understands the distortions that keep people from accessing the 'spirit' (whatever that is). Whatever their sexual preferrences are or how they seat themselves on the loo is truly unimportant. If you were in trouble and sort guidance from a stranger who helped you tremendously would you then ask whether the person is gay or not? Would it matter? I care nothing for any religion but it has its place in the lives of many people, so what kind of message does the church send when it is judgemental and intolerant of people based on whether they enjoy sucking on banana's or eating...well...you get the idea.
Anyway who ever came up with the idea that a spiritual guide must be celibate? That is a requirement I find unnatural. Is there some correlation between having an orgasm and losing ones spirit? I mean does a little spiritual wisdom seep out with the sperm or something? What's the story? (smiles) The controversy over this 'gay' appointment is just to cover up all the pedophiles there are hiding in the church. What would you rather have celibate priests playing with alter boys under the pulpit? Or men in committed relationships whether hetero or gay?
How can an ordinary mortal be above reproach? Even you're Jesus was not beyond reproach (Don't believe me? Just ask Rabbi Silver
) But seriously a spiritual guide is someone who understands the distortions that keep people from accessing the 'spirit' (whatever that is). Whatever their sexual preferrences are or how they seat themselves on the loo is truly unimportant. If you were in trouble and sort guidance from a stranger who helped you tremendously would you then ask whether the person is gay or not? Would it matter? I care nothing for any religion but it has its place in the lives of many people, so what kind of message does the church send when it is judgemental and intolerant of people based on whether they enjoy sucking on banana's or eating...well...you get the idea.
Anyway who ever came up with the idea that a spiritual guide must be celibate? That is a requirement I find unnatural. Is there some correlation between having an orgasm and losing ones spirit? I mean does a little spiritual wisdom seep out with the sperm or something? What's the story? (smiles) The controversy over this 'gay' appointment is just to cover up all the pedophiles there are hiding in the church. What would you rather have celibate priests playing with alter boys under the pulpit? Or men in committed relationships whether hetero or gay?
Cris: Yes your correct. Hoever, I see that a person who is allegedly upholding the "moral" grounds of this country's "state" religion is indeed "immoral" himself.
Evil: Yes I find all homosexuality repugnant, irrespective of the gender.
And I also find "gay" politicians repugnant - I find ALL "gay" personnel repugnant. It is MY own personal view and does not reflect my lack of religious beliefs, political views. As you are all entitled to argue the case, so am I entitled to my view - reason for posting this thread was to invite such views - not to slag the poster off nor to ridicule other persons opinions, which I hope I have not done.
This particular person, the subject of this thread, as stated earlier, is supposed to be beyond reproach. How can a person expect him to uphold the moral high ground of his religion if he cannot uphold his own?
Evil: Yes I find all homosexuality repugnant, irrespective of the gender.
And I also find "gay" politicians repugnant - I find ALL "gay" personnel repugnant. It is MY own personal view and does not reflect my lack of religious beliefs, political views. As you are all entitled to argue the case, so am I entitled to my view - reason for posting this thread was to invite such views - not to slag the poster off nor to ridicule other persons opinions, which I hope I have not done.
This particular person, the subject of this thread, as stated earlier, is supposed to be beyond reproach. How can a person expect him to uphold the moral high ground of his religion if he cannot uphold his own?
No. I don't need to ask whether he is gay or not to get help from a stranger. That is his personal matter. But when a gay tells me what should i do to get into the good books of God, well, that is not his business. Its not just gays. Anyone who finds himself at odds with God is not eligible to guide in spritual matters.
Being gay is about as much of a disability (and about as important) as being left handed.
Their only problem comes from having to deal with narrow minded heterosexuals who are enslaved by a book of ancient mis-translated myths.
The incredible prejudice they still have to deal with is enough for me to be glad I'm not.
Oddly, those who condemn them insist that being gay is a choice. Why on earth would someone choose to have to go through life putting up with the likes of you?
Do you feel that you could have just as easily been gay if you chose to be?
Their only problem comes from having to deal with narrow minded heterosexuals who are enslaved by a book of ancient mis-translated myths.
The incredible prejudice they still have to deal with is enough for me to be glad I'm not.
Oddly, those who condemn them insist that being gay is a choice. Why on earth would someone choose to have to go through life putting up with the likes of you?
Do you feel that you could have just as easily been gay if you chose to be?
You have the right to have your personal opinion.
But a gay politician is not going to lead you to heaven. As a politician he has to serve the public who is going to elect him. As for as he is not trying change the laws against his 'prejudice' (hetrosexuality) it does not matter whether he is gay or not while serving public.
No, Did I say anything supernatural? Did not Bush you the term Axis of Evil? One of the clearest indicators of sin is that it affects others.
I don't care if he is homosexual or not. However he has to repent of his sin and call it what it is to serve as God's minister. I've found that we are all at odds with God's since all have sinned.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
To Everneo who wrote: "Anyone who finds himself at odds with God is not eligible to guide in spritual matters."
Well that is my point I guess. I do not believe that anyone can say for sure or with any clarity what the great creater is at odds with. I assume that your idea of being at odds with the big boss comes from religious doctrine, which we all know has been written (re-written and passages omitted) by men, men who were more interested in controlling the masses through the bible, men who were political like the pope. They had blood on their hands and gold coins in their eyes. Why do you suppose you have the right to cast stones? Didn't the Nazarene have some little story about those without sin throwing stones? If someone disagrees with the active homosexual life then that is fine, but why get in the way of their advancement religious or otherwise? If the church deems him worthy of the post then why does this bother you? I mean it is not as if you would seek him for counsel.
Well that is my point I guess. I do not believe that anyone can say for sure or with any clarity what the great creater is at odds with. I assume that your idea of being at odds with the big boss comes from religious doctrine, which we all know has been written (re-written and passages omitted) by men, men who were more interested in controlling the masses through the bible, men who were political like the pope. They had blood on their hands and gold coins in their eyes. Why do you suppose you have the right to cast stones? Didn't the Nazarene have some little story about those without sin throwing stones? If someone disagrees with the active homosexual life then that is fine, but why get in the way of their advancement religious or otherwise? If the church deems him worthy of the post then why does this bother you? I mean it is not as if you would seek him for counsel.
The anglian church is supposed to consider the bible authoritative. The bishop is supposed to have truth in his heart and not be concience of grave sin. So having members it defiance of the word of God shows that they do not have faith. Lack of faith spreads like leprosy.
Satan does not have a body. He is a pure spiritual being however he will soon take to the flesh and breath his breath into the image of the beast.
The Greeks were also in the habit of curbing babies to the hills. If you read Greek mythology many of their gods commited incest and rape.