The gay Bishop of Reading - do we care?

as for churches that hate them, well i could go on a long speil, but im quite happy being catholic.

(like people who basically prefer to be "in" than out?) (i don't think that anglican culture provides the cover for this now, but it certainly did 20 years ago, when the laity didn't know homosexuality existed etc)

(that last clause is a bit momus-esque i know...)

In response, one other panellist went off on one, which was vaguely reminiscent of this bit from the West Wing:

I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

I care (as a practising Catholic) as the Bible is an interpretation, and its usage has changed throughout the years as the world has moved on. Why should some things be allowable contrary to what is set out there, and others not?

They then moved on to talk about David Beckham or something properly newsworthy like that so no satisfactory conclusion was reached (probably to give Decca Aikenhead a chance to talk about something she understood).

the non-politicos always stick out a mile on QT dont they ?
there's always some actor/writer on there who's clearly
thinking the audience is there *to hear them speak about politics* !
worst offender ever = terry pratchett. totally unfunny, and
kept doing that thing where you pause after each few words
chuckling to oneself expecting a laugh (pause) and not getting them (pause) and then going 'ERM ! ANYWAY'. while the audience just stares and thinks 'what a cock this man is'.
he was wearing a massive hat which just made things worse.

best non-political guest in the last few years = benjamin zephaniah.
he was dead self-depracating and apparantley off air at the end
robin cook turned to him and said he would like to have agreed with
him on his anti-war stance, but couldn't because he wasn't allowed.
he quit like the following week.

http://www.c-b-f.org/start.php?CONTID=03_01_02_00&LANG=en

The Bible in itself is not infallible unless interpreted infallibly. The Bible like Jesus is fully human and fully divine, so the human character and the revelatory character of Scripture must be held together. The biblical texts, then, bear all the marks of human composition: historical conditioning, prejudice, factual error and moral limitation, as well as deep theological and religious insight into the mystery of God’s relationship with humanity. It is this twofold character of the biblical text, its mysterious divine depths expressed in humanly fallible language, which makes interpretation necessary.

Personally I have a great deal of difficulty accepting Church teaching on homosexuality, nevertheless here goes the reasoning: God creates people. He does not create homosexuals or heterosexuals. The Church acknowledges that the tendency toward homosexual acts is not freely chosen, but behaviors contrary to the stated will of God must be controlled. The New Testament also condemns homosexual acts:. Rom 1:24-27, 1 Cor 6:10 or 1 Tim 1:10

As for God loving homosexuals, of course He does! God loves every human being perfectly and equally. He doesn't withhold His love when we do evil. But that doesn't make evil ACTS any less evil.

We can love the sinner , yet not the sin. We should never forget we are all sinners. However Christians believe if people reject God and choose a life of sin, God loves them no less, and will continue to love them, perfectly and equally… all the way to Hell.

*goes off to have a proper think about this*

So now... if science says, we're 99% certain this is innate, not a choice at all, the church goes, 'Okay, but it's still an (evil) choice to ACT upon it!'

Sounds like floundering to me.

As for God loving homosexuals, of course He does! God loves every human being perfectly and equally.

I don't think the Bible teaches this (or at the very least: if it does, it also teaches something else that contradicts it, alongside it).

"The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity."--Psalms 5:5

"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."--Romans 9:9

If you believe that human sinfulness is innate (since the fall), and nevertheless believe that God continues to hold human beings responsible for the actions which result (or for the sinfulness itself), then an innate tendency toward homosexuality would just be another instance of that sinfulness (and not more automatically acceptable for being innate than any other sinful desire or act). It would be no more excusable on the ground of being innate than any other tendency to sin. (I'm not sure that Anglican church theology is so squarely in the Reformed camp.)

Tad, on some of those OT dietary laws, there are NT passages which clearly undo them. The point is that a lot of these objections (if you go by this verse, why don't you also go by verse x over here?) are more answerable than some of you would realize. There are fairly rational answers that can be given, using NT passages. (Rational within the bounds of certain religious presumptions.)

Actually though, I don't think it all fits together perfectly and I don't believe in it. I never felt entirely satisfied about the reason why the Sabbath was no longer important, and could somehow be switched to Sunday. The more I sit here think about these issues, the more I'm glad I'm not part of the club anymore, and the more I suspect that I am too generous in my attitude toward non-Christian religions.

Agree that if this guy is celibate, there shouldn't be an issue (even from the point of view of the church), incidentally. :)

To the Church homosexual acts are unnatural but even if they were natural they would still be considered a sin as God has commanded it so. There is no "old belief" or "new belief", no "traps", no "attitudes" . There is no tradition, no belief, no teaching, no rule or regulation, and no circumstances that can make such behaviors right - ever - for anyone - for any reason! Where morality is concerned, there is no such thing as "right for them". In matters of morality we must find out what is right - period! What is morally right is morally right for everyone, and what is morally wrong is wrong for everyone. Morality is never a matter of opinion or of feelings. It is a matter of objective truth.

I think nurture plays a far greater role than nature in homosexuality but I dont discount the idea of someone being born gay. However after 30+ years of intensive research trying to establish a genetic cause for homosexual desire and/or an anatomical/physiological/ biochemical difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, there is not a shred of verifiable evidence to support either theory. From a genetic viewpoint, this is no surprise. A gene that is not passed on to progeny tends to disappear from the population. Homosexuality is a characteristic seen in only a small percentage of the population, and that particular subpopulation, by its nature, is largely non-reproducing. This would therefore be a "dead end" gene.

IF homosexual orientation is ever demonstrated to have a genetic origin, it would not change the Church's teaching in any way. Biochemical abnormalities, some of probable genetic origin, and others of possible environmental origin, have been demonstrated in men who have a particularly violent disposition, especially serial killers. The fact that their predisposition is not of their own choosing cannot be used as justification for their resultant behaviors.

This is the Church's teachings and as a catholic part of something I have to come to understand as our faith is not a pick and choose type deal. No one said it would be easy ;-)

Ill give you a take on those lines you quoted

“The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." --Psalms 5:5

It is not that God "hates" the "workers," but rather he hates their inquity. If he hated the people, he would not have suffered to save them.

"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." -- Romans 9:9"

My understanding is that the expression "to hate" in Hebrew can also mean "to love less" or "to have a preference against." We can see this in certain words of Jesus:

Luke 14:26 -- "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

It is not that God "hated" Esau, but rather that he preferred Jacob to him for the mission that he had in mind (to be the patriarch of the chosen people).

>“Tad, on some of those OT dietary laws, there are NT passages which clearly undo them. The point is that a lot of these objections (if you go by this verse, why don't you also go by verse x over here?) are more answerable than some of you would realize. There are fairly rational answers that can be given, using NT passages. (Rational within the bounds of certain religious presumptions.”

One final comment for Tad I agree with RS. The Old Testament dietary laws simply don't apply to Christians today (cf. Col. 2:16-17, 22), and the ones given at the Council of Jerusalem passed into disuse as Jewish conversions to Christianity become uncommon toward the end of the first century and the Church became mainly Gentile. They weren't immutable doctrines, but disciplinary rules. Its important to understand the difernce between a discipline and a doctrine, as many attacks on Christians are based on this ignorance.

However I disagree with RS on a small technicality in that I don’t think the NT ”undoes" in so much as it clarifies the OT. Although in reality this may be a difference without distinction. Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church (Catholic) has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void. Just to bore you completely senseless marconism had its roots in a heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant.

what can be said though, is that it is a book, written down by humans, and therefore is just as indicative of the writers' loves and prejudices as much as anything else.

the bible should be open to questioning. otherwise, all it takes is one guy writin leviticus or something to go, "you know what, i hate gays", and suddenly the whole religion is thrown off kilter, because people arent willing to question the book, they take that as god's word and its mirrored throughout later bible writing.

personally im not a christian, but i dont hate religion. i just think members of the christian faith have gotta start takin out the trash. i mean who does consensual gay sex harm. doesnt harm us, and it doesnt harm god, if he exists. what about hetrosexual anal sex, is that ok, and gay sex not? i also feel that theres also this unspoken assumption that gay priests are more likely to abuse children. which is of course bullshit, in fact people who do that sort of thing are often married, or single and hetrosexual, men who havent confronted their sexuality issues. the logic behind some members of the church of england's thinking baffles me greatly.

so let the bishop stay i say, he sounds like an honest decent man.

Personally, I think I'd prefer it if they abandoned all pretence at political correctness and start using the word 'sodomite'.

(From the discarded Andrew Lloyd-Webber / Tim Rice masterpiece : There's A Whole Lot Of Smiting Going On".)

Decca Aitkenhead...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!