Gay Bishop

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JIMMY E PARSONS on 20 July 2008 at 6:07pm

Okay so it might not be so great or ultimately right that this bishop is gay. It will not be the end of civilised Britian. His sexuality will not tear apart the moral fabric of this country. Yes, I do think sexuality is an important issue, especially spiritually. But ultimately there are FAR MORE serious, and dangerous things that modern Chrisians of all classes and races need to pray about and be concerned about. War, terrorism, facism, RACISM, abuse, imperialism, torture, exploitation, gun crime, knife crime, drugs, poverty, homeless people, famine, AIDS, cancer, sin, temptation, GREED. We are not America. Materialism and consumerism are more dangerous than gay people. We want things, we worship things in the Western world.People in this country worship football players, who themselves worship money, drugs and possessions. We need to think about all aspects of life in this world honestly and seriously as we pray. We may presonally have fears and insecurities about things, but they should not get in the way of the bigger picture of what God wants us to do. Nothing personal, just my opinion and view of life. Godbless.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by sam matthews on 21 July 2008 at 9:54am

But surely if we have a Man who christians are meant to look up to setting a bad example he is leading the way for the bible to manipulated. So chrisitans new or old will be like ' ah yeah it's ok i can have a bit of sex, or do this it wont harm me, God wont mind.' God is in control always and Yes other things are going on in the world. They're always was and will be. I don't have a problem with gay's as such. I know a few. I however don't agree with it. and I don't want one preaching the good news whilst knowing he is wanting to get down with a mle!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dingo on 22 July 2008 at 4:03pm

I didnt realise that Bishops were people in a position of authority. As far as im concerned i have nothing to do with the church of England and its man made traditions. However i agree that he should not be a church leader unless he is publicly celibate.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by sam matthews on 23 July 2008 at 10:50pm

man made traditions??? yes the church is a man made tradition.... no wait im pretty sure GOD made it. silly comment my fellow brother. Maybe it is traditional but it is still a body of christ.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve on 24 July 2008 at 11:11pm

I hope that he is gay, but grieve that he is homosexual.

The semantic war would have me believe I am straight & sad, and contrasted to those who are crooked & gay. I disallow the “sounds nice, is nice” language game. Oh yes, on semantics, if anyone raises objections label them ‘homophobic’ (= sad little bigots or worse). But I disallow this term too, at least as unreflectively churned out.

I reckon that most damning to good society are those who do not practice but countenance homosexual practice (eg Tony Blair), least damning those who practice it but do not countenance it (generally incognito), and middling those who practice & promote it (Peter Mandelson). I reckon the Labour Party well represents antichrist, a position reached in the just pursuit of removing homosexuals from the bully's playground. In ‘Out of the Silent Planet’ (C S Lewis), Weston would destroy all other peoples to preserve the human race: one moral ideal pursued at the expense of moral sanity. To attack a sin – eg bullying – by undermining God’s lordship, is to undermine the whole notion of morality being an absolute, and leads logically to Nihilism, a path Nietzsche’ Hitler was on. The road to hell can be paved with good intentions.

At the practical level to assert that marriage isn’t the only permissible venue for sex – and thus to socially permit homosexual practice (and heterosexual ‘partners’) – marriage as a divine institution & intrinsically heterosexual, must be disaffirmed. So we get marriage, as Tony Blair taught, by some meaningless (since all is relative) standard the best among equally valid sexual relationships. But only at the expense of disallowing God’s mandate of marriage as the only permitted sexual venue. In short, society asserts that it alone defines what is marriage, and what sexual relationships are permitted. If a society further down Hell’s subjectivity road permits paedophilia, one not quite so far gone has no objective standard to disallow the other’s ruling, since all rulings are equally subjective and morality is not objective. In short, supporting morality as subjective is saying to hell with God, but then thus spoke Nietzsche that God is dead anyway. The end of that road is that murder is not immoral, nothing is, so bullying is not immoral, purely the distaste of some with no absolute ground for opposing it. In Shardik, one who goes over the edge becomes a resident of Hell. It’s the direction that C S Lewis foresaw in his Abolition of Man. The issue of homosexuality is an active front on a far bigger battle field over the issue of lordship.

If we approach ethics from above – theocentrically rather than anthropocentrically – we get a different picture. As for sex, God (I assume the validity of Christianity as the fullest revelation) has given heterosexual covenant as the only model of marriage. Did he overlook homosexuals, so that we need to make good his oversight, or are they a new phenomenon? The paucity of texts against homosexual practice is suggestive of it being, within ancient Israel, a scarce event – no texts in favour. The NT picture is clear, though some like Vos have argued a trajectory from the virtue of divine love, to argue that had Paul known better science, he would have seen that love extends to homosexual practice and so claims that his beliefs are contrary to Paul’s words but not Paul’s spirit. (Vos has rightly affirmed the OT denouncement of homosexual practice, and Paul’s interpretation of it, though I think casting enough misreading to make his bigger re-interpretative claim over the idea of divine love.) John White, a former homosexual cum psychiatrist , made clear that the issue itself – anti Christ philosophy aside – should be deemed a relatively minor sin (Eros Defiled). I myself would love to believe that homosexual practice is under God’s smile.

Some like Bishop Spong argue that the Bible is outdated and outgrown. Such bishops – even practicing hom

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by sam matthews on 25 July 2008 at 12:32pm

what kinda of church do you go to?

▶ Reply to This