Say WA? Evergreen State ping
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
Posted on 05/27/2006 9:45:47 PM PDT by fgoodwin
Bible supports homosexual partnerships, says bishop
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/28/nchurch28.xml
http://tinyurl.com/lb2b9
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones (Filed: 28/05/2006)
One of the country's most senior bishops has reignited the Church of England row over homosexuality by claiming that same-sex partnerships are supported by the Bible.
The Rt Rev Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford, said that traditionalists in the Church needed to be "converted" to see that homosexual unions are confirmed by the scriptures.
He reaffirmed his controversial belief that an openly gay man should be allowed to be appointed a bishop.
His remarks have angered traditionalists and are set to rekindle the debate on homosexual "marriages" that has left the Church's House of Bishops deeply divided following the introduction of the Civil Partnerships Act last year.
Bishop Harries said that the Church of England faced a split if the liberal and conservative factions did not come to an agreement on how to be more inclusive towards homosexuals. In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Bishop Harries, who retires this week, expressed his regret that Canon Jeffrey John, now Dean of St Albans, had been forced to withdraw as Bishop of Reading after it emerged that he was in a long-term homosexual -relationship.
His decision to promote Canon John to bishop caused an outcry in 2003. But last night Bishop Harries stood by his action.
"I'd still like him to become a bishop," he said. "He has all the gifts to be a bishop, but there is still a process of discernment going on. For there to be change, evangelicals have to be convinced that a permanent, faithful same-sex partnership is congruous with biblical truth."
America became the first province of the worldwide Anglican Communion to promote an openly gay man to bishop, when Canon Gene Robinson was elected in New Hampshire in 2003, plunging the worldwide Church into a crisis that still engulfs it.
Bishop Harries said: "It's difficult to have gay partnerships fully accepted by the Church, a Church in which evangelicals are a valued part, if they are so strongly opposed to it. There has to be a conversion to a new way to see that gay partnerships are not contrary to biblical truth. They are congruous with the deepest biblical truths, about faithfulness and stability."
The House of Bishops last year issued pastoral advice on the Civil Partnerships Act, allowing clergy to enter into relationships on the condition that they assured their bishop that they would abstain from sex.
However, the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, has denounced the guidelines as "unbiblical" and unworkable. The bishop, who is a potential successor to Bishop Harries, said the policy had undermined Church teaching and unity.
Gay clergy have already defied the bishops' statement by saying that they will not give assurances that they will be celibate. A number have registered their partnerships and had the relationship blessed in Church despite guidelines recommending that they not be offered formal services.
Reform, an influential evangelical group that represents more than 1,000 parishes, has written to bishops urging them to reconsider the guidelines.
Its chairman, the Rev David Banting, expressed dismay at Bishop Harries's comments, arguing that the bishop was wrong to want them to be "converted" to his position.
"He thinks that he has the weight of culture and the weight of the majority of the Church in the West behind him, which convinces him that he's right," said Mr Banting.
"Same-sex partnerships are not congruous with the Bible," he said, adding: "Sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage are not blessed by God.
"We need to be pastorally supportive of those who struggle in this area, but we shouldn't be trying to change the teaching of the Church. No amount of calling black white will make black white."
As the House of Bishops prepares to discuss the Anglican homosexual crisis at its meeting next week, liberals in the Church will be encouraged by the comments from so respected a figure.
The Rev Dr Giles Fraser, the chairman of Inclusive Church, a liberal group, said: "His comments will be received with joy by the majority of ordinary churchgoers. It is absolutely clear that the Church needs to have a more welcoming and loving attitude to gays."
Bishop Harries, who was made a life peer last week, said that the Jeffrey John affair had made people think about the issue in way that they never had before.
"I knew that it would be divisive within the diocese of Oxford, but I thought that that could be contained within two years. I hadn't realised the effect on the Anglican Communion and the pressure put on the archbishop as a result of that."
Dr John, 53, is still in a relationship with another cleric, the Rev Grant Holmes, which he says is celibate. Dr John is the author of the controversial book Permanent, Faithful, Stable, which argues for overturning the Church's ban on the ordination of practising homosexual clergy.
What an idiot!!! The Bible CLEARLY states that homosexuality is a SIN. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah over homosexuality. He will NOT change, and those who continue to live in their sin, will be judged by Him, according to their evil deeds!!
actually... I did read the bible; several times (I found the old testament to be a whole lot more interesting, but kinda contradictory with the new testament)
I'd suggest that you read the Koran, Tamud, Zohar, Mahabharata and finally some Anthony LaVey. To gain some perspective :)
I have thought about religions a lot and I will continue to do so; but not during the exams ^_^
Can't say I've read through those, but I have read through the Bible, and for that contrast, I've also read Nietzsche, Sarte, and Kierkegaard; so I've got that anti-Christian perspective to draw from. Perhaps a bit heavy on the existentialist side, but you get the idea. Yeah, I've read 'em.
Glad you could take time out to freep, here is a bit more to consider: Let's presume you've read through a variety of differing belief texts. Now you can choose to eiter: believe one of them; believe some of them; believe all of them; or, believe none of them. The choice is yours, and so is the responsibility for the outcome!
Friedrich and Søren attack the institution, not the religion itself... not all that familiar with Sartre though.
The religion that I feel most connected to would most likely be the Old Religon - Wicca (Eclectic)... probably the friendliest religion ever (and if christianity ever finds its true path it'll resemble wicca). The Wiccan rede: "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
In case if you're interested: http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_faq.htm (there's also a small part where Wicca and Christianity relationship is explained)
"Wicca" was invented in the 1920s by a homely guy named Gardner so he could meet chicks.
. . . not a really sound basis for a belief system, IMHO.
INTREP - chapter and verse, please
You really could learn more about it :)
Technically its beliefs are older than Christianity, only put into new perspective.
Just like Christianity came into existance with Jesus + apostoles revising Judaism (and yes, I know there's plenty of room for discussion there).
Hmmmm...a homosexual advocacy Wiccan from Slovenia. Why am I suspicious that you're actually a grad student in San Francisco?
Lol :)
Actually... a student of sociology - 4th year = 8th semester 5 exams + diploma till I finish (analisys & theory) on FDV (Fakulteta za Družbene vede in Ljubljana - Faculty of Social Sciences in Ljubljana).
Homosexual advocate; not really, I don't advocate any special kind of rights, but I have a dislike for persecution on the grounds of religion.
As for Wiccan; it's the religion that I feel closest to, doesn't mean that I have to follow the faith.
To the point of Slovenia, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else :) this is literally heaven on earth.
While Wicca claims an ancient origin, it contains nothing that was not easily available to Gardner from the writings of others. It's about as authentic as Cecil Sharp's Morris Dancers -- that is to say it is a mostly speculative re-creation of something that cannot be documented. (Actually there was far more contemporaneous documentation for Sharp's work than anything Gardner or Crowley or their ilk came up with.)
It's a free country, and folks can believe what ever they want to. But don't kid yourself about Wicca's supposed ancient origins.
Thank you for the lesson :) (no sarcasm meant).
Recreation of something can never be complete, but it is the gist of the matter that is important.
The truly wise make little of their own wisdom for the more they know, the more they realize how little they know. <---this one is from Tao :D
"ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"
BWAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
Go to Leviticus - the ancient Jews assigned the death penalty for homosexuality and beastiality.
And for other things :P
A. Sins against life.
1. Murder.
2. Offering human sacrifice.
B. Sexual sins.
1. Adultery.
2. Incest.
3. Bestiality.
4. Sodomy (homosexual behavior).
5. Rape.
6. Fornication.
7. Unchastity
C. Spiritual sins.
1. Witchcraft.
2. Idolatry.
3. Blasphemy.
4. Desecration of the Sabbath.
5. Promoting false doctrines or false prophecy.
D. Sins against society.
1. Perjury.
2. Theft.
3. Kidnapping.
4. Contempt of court.
5. Treason.
6. Sedition.
E. Sins against one's parents.
1. Cursing a parent.
2. Physically abusing one's parent.
3. Disobeying parents.
Then you have other random commands which also require death penalty if broken... wearing mixed fiber clothes, eating shellfish,.....
So who do we burne/stone/hang/behead/crucify/stab first?
look at ----> http://dianedew.com/dthpnlty.htm for references
"ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"
"In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming"
Howard Phillips Lovecraft
If you post things which seem to make no sense... try to put it into a context.
BTW nice picture of Cthulu ;D
The post to which I replied is the context.
Gardner - Book of Shadows -> Wicca
Lovecraft - The Call of Cthulhu / Necromicron -> not Wicca
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.