JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags divorce , gays , episcopalians

Reply
Old 3rd November 2003, 05:50 AM   #1
Flaherty
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 292
Episcopalians, gays, and divorce

Many Episcopalians argue that a gay man should not be a bishop because the Bible condemns homosexuality. It's certainly a fair argument; the Bible seems clear on that point.

Since when did Episcopals become so concerned about the letter of Biblical law? The entire Anglican church was founded on the principle of ignoring a clear New Testament injunction against divorce. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus warned:

Quote:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
What's up with the hypocrisy? The Anglican Church threw away it's ability to use the "because it's in the Bible" argument when it was founded. The only remaining argument they can employ against gays in the clergy without being hypocrits themselves is the simple but less than authoritative "we don't like gays" reasoning. That is a perfectly valid argument, but Episcopalians become hypocrits if they try to dress it up in Biblical authority.
__________________
"After all, who of us in our lives hasn't set fire to some great public building?" -- Graham Chapman
Flaherty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2003, 06:10 AM   #2
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Funky Town (STL, MO)
Posts: 23,472
Personally, I think the growing acceptence of homosexuality is social evolution in action. The social dinosaurs who can't get past the "ick" factor to see the principles and people behind the issue will eventually "die off" (or the mind set will) and society will move on.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2003, 06:21 AM   #3
Bikewer
Philosopher
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 9,613
If we accept the commonly-ageed-on ratio of gays in the population, it seems likely that at least one of the Apostles...
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2003, 06:44 AM   #4
Finella
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Outside Philly
Posts: 265
Quote:
What's up with the hypocrisy? The Anglican Church threw away it's ability to use the "because it's in the Bible" argument when it was founded. The only remaining argument they can employ against gays in the clergy without being hypocrits themselves is the simple but less than authoritative "we don't like gays" reasoning. That is a perfectly valid argument, but Episcopalians become hypocrits if they try to dress it up in Biblical authority.


Well, exactly, which is why it's so amusing to liberal Episcopalians to point this out to the conservative Episcopalians.

My rector (head parish priest) had a conversation with the conservative parishioners who were upset about the likely consecration of Gene Robinson. He quoted the same passage you did, Flaherty, to them. Pissed them off. They said he was being ridiculous. But, he said, it's not saying that divorce is okay, is it? And this is Jesus talking here -- and Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, did he?

At the same time you have an Anglican Bishop in Nigeria who is condemning the ECUSA for their permissiveness of obviously sinful and deviant behavior, while he permits polygamy in his diocese. Hmph.

Humans are hypocritical by nature. No church is perfect. And the conservative Anglicans keep forgetting their heritage, true. Wonder what Good Henry VIII is thinking of it all now...

---,---'--{@
__________________

"By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." Genesis 3:19

"We are a way for the universe to know itself. Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return. And we can, because the Cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff."
- Carl Sagan
Finella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2003, 07:48 AM   #5
Finella
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Outside Philly
Posts: 265
From the Episcopal News Service story on the Robinson consecration yesterday:

Quote:
At the same time, Bishop Carolyn Irish Tanner was one of the first bishops to issue a statement. She said that, "Because of Robinson's homosexual orientation and partnership there has since been an escalation of angry rhetoric by those in this country and abroad who seem to be strategizing for schism, as they have threatened to do for several years. In fact, by claims for a singular orthodoxy, recommended breaches in diocesan and provincial integrity, the diversion of financial support for the Episcopal Church USA, and planning for separate enclaves or parallel communions of like-minded people, it appears that they want to create a whole new church, one very different from traditional Anglicanism.

"Our church is, and has always been, the most comprehensive of Christian families, because we have sought to embrace theological and cultural diversity of the kind that has sometimes fractured other Protestant churches. Presently the issue of homosexuality has put us on a global and very public stage, but that appears to be the really new element in our situation, not the challenge of abiding in our differences. Indeed, more than abiding.”
The bold type is mine. You've hit the nail on the head, Flaherty.
---,---'--{@
__________________

"By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." Genesis 3:19

"We are a way for the universe to know itself. Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return. And we can, because the Cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff."
- Carl Sagan
Finella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2003, 06:11 PM   #6
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
 
Dorian Gray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 20,210
It isn't surprising that the Episcopalian church would have a gay bishop when one of their other positions is called "rector".

Good point on the adultery, though.
Dorian Gray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2003, 06:43 PM   #7
LawnOven
robot
 
LawnOven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,306
Haha, hypocrisy in religion, so what's new?
__________________
Principia Discordia
LawnOven is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2003, 11:22 AM   #8
ADD Boy
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 39
I totally agree with what the previous posters have said with the Anglican Church's hypocrisy, but I have to point this out:

This Bible verse that the holy rollers love to quote is in the book of Leviticus, an Old Testament book. However, the thing that I love about Leviticus is that it's also filled with laws that I'm positive no one in the Episcopalean Church follows! Randi covered this in a commentary a couple weeks past, but basically, such things as "eating seafood" and selling your daughter into slavery are perfect examples.

My question is always: how can you just "pick and choose" from the Bible, just taking the things you want and throwing away the others? I go through this in discussing things with my roommate (a devout Christian) often, who insists that the only thing that applies are "The Ten Commandments and some of Moses' other laws." Riiiight... I thought that God himself spoke these things? How dare we state that God's word no longer applies!
ADD Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2003, 06:11 PM   #9
Finella
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Outside Philly
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally posted by ADD Boy
I totally agree with what the previous posters have said with the Anglican Church's hypocrisy, but I have to point this out:

This Bible verse that the holy rollers love to quote is in the book of Leviticus, an Old Testament book. However, the thing that I love about Leviticus is that it's also filled with laws that I'm positive no one in the Episcopalean Church follows! Randi covered this in a commentary a couple weeks past, but basically, such things as "eating seafood" and selling your daughter into slavery are perfect examples.
Actually there are some verses in Paul's letters (being a good Episcopalian, I can't quote them verse by verse... oh, well) which again state that homosexuality is a sin. Since it is New Testament scripture, and since it is being applied to the new Christian church, and since it (theoretically) corroborates the Old Testament scripture in Leviticus, it is therefore applicable.

However, again, Jesus himself never made any mention of it, yet we allow divorce in the Christian church all the time while Jesus quite clearly said this was one of the most sinful things one could do. So, yeah, absolutely, fundies pick and choose Bible law all the time, yet they criticize liberal churches for doing what they themselves do. My thinking is it's fine to pick and choose, you just had better have a good reason for it other than that some things just gross you out (like gay sex).

---,---'--{@
__________________

"By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." Genesis 3:19

"We are a way for the universe to know itself. Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return. And we can, because the Cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff."
- Carl Sagan
Finella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2012, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.