Gay Clergy-About time or moral oxymoron?

Jeeze!
You know, I'm married and my wife and I do the nasty quite often. Sometimes just for FUN!!!!
I am "Openly Hetrosexual". I'm kinda getting tired of this "Openly" thing. "Openly homosexual" or "Openly gay" The term just perpetuates the thought that "It" (whatever someone doesn't like) must remain hidden, not displayed. Can't we just be gay, hetrosexual, black, whatever? You know, there had to be gays before some religeous CEO could say it was a sin. Soooo, being gay has been around lonmger than the sin itself.

I was in a religeous boy's home for a while as a child. They said sex was bad. I just assumed they had never had any because from my point of view, it was anything but!

I'm amazed that priests are even allowed to have zippers on their pants! Openly gay! Hell, if he had kept his mouth shut they would have kept sipping the wine and thought nothing of it. Yet, he would have still been gay. Just on a common sense level, doesn't that strike someone as odd? Or, am I just "Openly Dumb"?

I'm sitting here "Openly Thinking" if laws, constitutions, boundries, theories, beliefs, and history (as we know it) change and evolve, why should religeous doctrine be immune from this same movement? There I go, I'm being "Openly Inquisitive" again. I'm openly sorry.

Kara:
I am in no position to judge anyone and say that because they commited a sin, or because they are gay, they are going to hell. After all, I'm not God and I just don't have that right. If commiting a sin would put someone in hell, the whole world would be in hell for eternity. Not that this world isn't hell enough. The thing is, if you do something bad, you should feel remorse. Likewise, if you commit a sin knowingly or otherwise, you should feel remorse and repent. If one continues to commit the same sin knowingly and try to pass it off as justified or right, then that is a problem.

gvapid, I find myself not defending Craven but wondering why you would need to defend your belief in the bible. Millions of people in the world believe that there is absolute truth in the bible as interpreted by different religious faiths.

I might speak, as Craven may have, out of frustration over some who quote the bible to defend their excoriation of certain people who were thought to be evil or wrong in certain ancient cultural contexts who now need to be evaluated with new eyes.

Is there a list somewhere that differentiates stuff that's wrong and stuff that's a sin? I don't know whether to repent or just feel sorry.

Morganwood, don't even START on that. What is right and wrong? Sheeit, Buddy, we only have tonight, not an entire lifetime to debate....

morganwood:
Your being "openly dumb" yourself. I don't think your are in a position to judge a religion that you don't even respect. Religion is not bound by the laws of evolution. The point is that if he is flaunting his homosexuality, he shouldn't be teaching a religion that says that homosexuality is wrong. If you don't like Christianity, form your own religion, the Anglican church branched off because they didn't like parts of the holy gospel. They, like you, think that the Bible is like the constitution that is governed by politics and majority opinion. Whether you like it or not, the truth, the Bible can not be changed. I see that for you ignorance is bliss. I guess that if you word something around so much you can eventually change its meaning. If I were to challenge every opinion contradictory to what I know, I'd never get any sleep. By the way, what is your religion, do you even have one?Just being heterosexual doesn't make you a better person and I never said it did. By the way, homosexual is different from not being white.

Well, I'm trying to elevate my status to Enthusiast so, I need air time.
Plus, my wifes been out of town for about 6 months now and I'm gonna see her in a couple of weeks and this sin vs bad stuff thing might be handy to know!

Another point I find interesting. As a psychologist, I know that if you keep threatening a person and never follow up, threats loose their value. Now, the book keeps warning us that the "Big Day" is coming if we don't straighten up. Now, I figure this gay priest thing ought to be enough to push the envelop a little too far. Now, if the big day dosen't come after this, well........ Maybe it's just bad and not a sin?

I hate to be crude but I was reading the poll and the majority opinion is that "the it" is "natural". If it's so natural and what nature(in your view) intended, where's the hole?

If god is as wonderful as people think then why would he care about someones sexual preference? You can't help who you are attracted to, just like you can't choose the color of your skin or the size of your big toe. Christians are confusing. Why cant people be more open minded? Homosexuality has been around longer then the bible, I'd rather go to hell then deny that I was gay. Who has the right to decide if it's right or wrong

Ohh, your a psycologist, that explains it all. Your kind base things on how you think the mind should work. If it pleased you, you would diagnose homosexuality as a mental disorder. I also need air time. So... Christianity and people of faith don't base their faith on fear of the "Big Day." To be a true Christian, you have to let go of fear. We base our religion on love. That is why, if you knew anything about the religion, you would know that it is based on the love of Christ and loving every one like Christ loved the world.

Whoa dear! Someone saying "I'm gay" isn't flaunting.
I was Episcopalian and an acolyte as a young man. My sister is an Episcopalian and ordained.

Further,I appreciate your view of my "ignorance is bliss" writing abilities. Indeed, it is an astute observation of my level of functioning as a person, overall. I am a dolt, capable of little more than piling rocks and only after being instructed as to what rocks to pile and where the pile is to be located. In one note you have freed me of the façade I have so long struggled to maintain. In truth, you have given me the liberty to respond to the questions of others, as I will. I no longer have to express my opinions or feelings in such a way as to maintain the canard of intellectual or emotional depth. For this, I am grateful.

I can only answer in the affirmative as to your last assertion. Homosexual different from being white? Hummmmm.

We shrinks are a sick bunch alright!

BTW, you don't hate to be crude, it's just plesant to say that before you are, huh?

Good night all! I'm off to watch Blue Velvet.
Where's Frank when you need him?

The difference between living life my way and yours is that you live yours on what others think of you. You probably don't believe that people have spirits or souls or anything past the physical level. I'm no psycologist but I know that if you'd reject religion so strongly, you only do so so that the world won't think you a fool for admiting that there are some things you don't know and can't explain.

BTW your right. Your so smart and correct in every way. I'll worship your opinion because you are omnipotent man. I don't mind being crude in order to get my point across. It's late so good night to you. Sweet dreams or REM cycle as you like to call it.

gvapid,
Let's tie up our horses here. Consider your last post. You have no idea who I am, what I beleive, what I am about, whether I have a soul or am the anti-christ. I've not attacked you as a christian. I've questioned some of your statements and stated that I simply don't think that being a gay priest is any big deal and that calling someone "Openly" gay assumes that it should be hidden. I've only stated that I'm a psychologist and you went to town with it. Actually, you were harder on me because of my profession than I was on you and your beliefs. Omnipotent, I wish! Well, I'd rather be omnipresent.

Actually, I'm not the ass you think I am but then, truth is in the eyes of the beholder!

But in the interest of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's -- one could legitimately lobby for making homosexual activity a capital crime -- which, considering the injunction of the god of the Bible, is what Christians ought to be doing.

As I said earlier, I'm delighted some Christians have come to the conclusion that parts of the Bible are absurd. MY guess is that many of these people have come to the decision that passages like the one being discussed here were not written by the god they "believe in" -- but by humans sharing their own biases and putting those biases in the mouth of their gods.

Unfortunately, most are unwilling (at least in the short term) to recognize and acknowledge the implications of these realzations.

I have no idea of what line of "reasoning" goes into ordaining a (non-celibate) homosexual as a priest or a bishop -- but it absolutely reeks of hypocrisy.

The ethical way to deal with this, as Morgan mentioned earlier, is for people who feel this way to abandon Christianity and start a new religion. If Craven can do it, they can do it.

One last thought: My suspicions are that each move like this weaken the Christian church. As Christianity gets weaker, religion in general gets weaker. IN my opinion, that is not a bad thing.

Pretty brash, broadly assumptive, perjorative assumption. I can't wait to see you produce your evidence and documentation.

The word "Probably" is almost a saving grace there, but fact the statement itself is about as speculative as it gets and applies to a significant portion of the planet's inhabitants does not mask the intended, if unachieved, perjoration.

There are those who maintain foolishness is more the province of those who make unwarranted assumptions on the basis of nothing more substantial than offended emotions. The qualities of skepticism, inquiry, and diligence are what drive debate and discovery. I would submit, and I suspect with wide support, the true fool is one who denies there are things which cannot be explained, and who claims to know "The Answer", thereby claiming exclusively for that one's self the moral high ground.

The anguished attempt at sarcasm fails to press any point. The most clearly evidenced crudity lies in the form, structure, and content of the inefectual attempt at argument. Diatribe and dismissal are not debate and discussion. Attacking the proponent of a position does nothing to refute the position or to advance the cause of the one in objection, while serving only to diminish the credibility of and respect for the individual so engaged. This is about the exchange of ideas, the dissection and analysis of argument, and the support and rebuttal of assertions. There is nothing wrong with stating how one "Feels", but there is little profit to be had by anyone if those "Feelings" be not developed and supported by argument, reasoning, and valid forensics.
All in all, I gotta say, "Gee, gvapid, that was a pretty vapid response"

Still, I'd like to know how you feel about the question which is the topic of this thread, why you feel the way you do, and how you came to your conclusions. Please feel free, invited, even, to discuss that, and welcome to A2K. Down at the bottom of my posts are links to, among other things, The Terms of Service and The Guidelines for debate. Study up a bit, then c'mon back and play nice. Playin' nice don't mean you can't play hard ... it just means ya gotta mind the rules. Goin' outside the bounds gets ya no points, it gets ya penalized. That doesn't help advance your argument, supposing you have developed one, at all.


Mornin' Frank ... my, you're up eary. Almost wish I'd stopped by here before having breakfast. Oh well, I gotta go cut hay, but I'll be back later on to comment on a couple points you bring up. If the tractor don't break, I should have plenty of time today for other things if I get busy now.

Re: excuse me...


I did not call your religion ****. It was a reference to homophobia. Unless you make a religion of homophobia I did nothing of the sort.



See, about homophobia.



Ezekiel begs to differ.



There is plenty.



Oh? Thing is, morals differ from person to person. Law is the collective morals as best as we have gotten around to define them. If we were to allow inordinatly self-important feeling folk to decide the whole swaths of society is immoral then we'd cede society to the vocal few.

If you feel that society's laws are not moral you should seek to change them. You could, as Frank says, lobby to make homosexuality a capital offense. But if you feel the majority is immoral then you might want to find a new society. Unless you are of the opinion that the strident belief of few supercedes the collective morality of the society on the whole.

In any case I'd get used to homosexuality. According to some passages in the Bible gays will go to heaven. Tip: Lots of homophobic Christians deal with this by saying that in Heaven they will be "cured". While this is not explicitly supported anywhere in the Bible it usually helps deal them deal with their issues.

Man, those windmills sure pour out a lot of hot air. Where's Don Quixote when you need him?

Craven is direct and explaining himself sufficiently for me. I suggest that Christians start looking at the Old Testament as largely a text of the Hebrew faith and what Christ taught as the basis for their religion. Try to find a passage where Christ condems homosexuals to death or forbids them to preach the Gospel. Christ being crucified had a lot to do with his revolutionary rejection of what the rabbis of the day were teaching, based on stories from the Old Testament. The accent here is on "stories." Historical chronicles they are not. If one still wants to believe that, it's their preivilege. If they believe that Christians are the only ones with souls (which Sir Francis Crick proved that the soul is scientifically provable to exist) or that those who are not Christians are damned to hell, that's their privilege too. I simply pity that kind of thinking.