Gay Bishop?? - Page 3

"I like how if a kid has a disability then people say god made him that way. Or if couple break up someone would say, well god has a plan for you. Yet if someone is gay, then well, they are sinners. Hmm."

"He's making it up as he goes along!"
Monty Python, Life of Bryan.

"People keep comparing two things that are completely different. Being gay is a choice, and until you give me some good evidence that it's not, it's wrong."
I make the assumption being attracted to women has as much "choice" then being attracted to men.
The gay has the choice of suppressing the attraction, yes, but I see no reason to discard their freedom.

Besides, it has not been proven being gay is BAD as far as I know.

OH but doesn't god have a plan for all of us?

Oh, wesdawg, I wasn't mocking anyone, I just through that in there to see if it would change the way people think.

Dug, I know, I'm not saying that you were mocking anyone.

I just feel that it is ridiculus that people think that they can follow the bible and not follow the bible? Why if by its standards being gay is forbiddin, would anyone presume to make a priest gay????? Doesn't make any sense to me??

*claps*

You have a very good point Tangy-orange, my arguement is still this. If I was a follower of the bible, which I am not, then I would be basing my entire belief on what "God" says is the right thing to do. So if "His" book slavery is 'ok', then thats what I would follow, if being gay is said to be a sin, then I would live my life accordingly.

Where do you draw the line? Murder?

Is capital punishment 'ok' because an organized government says its 'ok'? I don't think so. An eye for an eye dosen't give the government a right to murder; if you follow the bible.

My big problem here is when do you say, "ok, we've made our quota of exceptions"?

Okay, here's my say:
As for those of you who believe being gay is a choice and want proof before believing otherwise, let me ask you. Why are you attracted to the opposite sex? Did you say "I want to be attracted to girls/boys" at any point in your life, or were you just attracted to them? Same goes for gay people. They just ARE attracted to people of the same sex.
Back to the gay bishop. Why he wants to follow that religion is beyond me, however it is his choice. The bible does say, in Leviticus, that homosexuality is punishable by death. I definately do not agree with this, and am not religious. I am just stating the facts.
Standing apart from all of my social and moral viewpoints, if someone does not follow the prescribed moral rules of a religion, or if that person is something that a religion says is wrong to be, then that person should not be put into a position of power within that religion. It is against that particilar religions' views.
People may argue that it is good to have a gay bishop, however it goes against that religion and its "teachings".
Personally, religion seems more of a hassle than it is worth.

Leviticus is full of bull (even more o then most of the OT).
According to Leviticus zoophily is punishable by death (for man AND animal), wearing two different kinds of cloth at once is criminal and 2 different herds of animals cannot mix.
So, christians rarely refer to Leviticus for their laws, I'm pretty sure Christ had a say in the matter but I can't remember..

"Personally, religion seems more of a hassle than it is worth."
Yep, I think so too. Or at least, I try to not get too involved in debates of strictly religious nature. As disagreements tend to have roots in personal values or the interpretation of arbitrary scipts.

I agree with you about the bull thats in Leviticus D.T., and Deletion...AMEN! he he he! I do believe that gays are born that way too,but still think that they shouldn't be allowed to be in ANY position in a christian church. IMO

As I said before, I do not think that anyone who does not prescribe to the laws of a religion should be allowed in a position of power within that religion, however, this is where it gets more difficult. There are laws against discrimination. NOT letting a person into a religion/club etc due to race, sex, sexuality etc is discrimination. Therefore, I don't think religions should be allowed to exist unless they accept all people. The government takes the moral high-ground saying that they are against discrimination, yet they allow for the existance of respected groups and churches that are the worst offenders.
Hurrah for hypocitical governments.

This is an issue for believers only. I doubt atheists or any person of a different faith can really understand the issue. And ultimately, I'm not sure its worth worrying about.

I don't think that there are actual laws against discrimination in religious groups...I could be wrong, but I don't think that they can influence any part of the religious practice.

Dumbteen: If it in any way affects our society, through discrimination or any other blah, then it needs to be addressed.
wesdawgy: I don't think there are either, as i said. I believe their should be, however. Religions should be made to prescribe to laws, not laws prescribing to religions.

Sure its discrimination, but its irrelevant. If I believe in a God who hates homos and I found a church, I have the right and priviledge to keep homos out of my church.
Homos are free to found their own churches, or join a homo-friendly churches. The point is, let people worship their God the way they want, even if that means some discrimination.
After all, homos are free to make a homo-only church and discriminate against heteros if they so desire.
Besides, this is perfectly viable discrimnation, its not like you get any special priviledges by joining a church.