The Church of England has allowed Homosexual Bishops to practice as long as they

1. 60

   Peanutritiousposted 6 years ago

   The Church of England has allowed Homosexual Bishops to practice as long as they remain celibate.
   
   Hetrosexual Bishope are allowed to have sexual relations. Are they not discriminating by stating homosexual Bishops are not granted the same rights?

   replyreport
2. 78

   fpherj48posted 6 years ago

   Well now...if that isn't a bunch of stupidity.  Makes no sense...and they're literally saying....you can BE who you are and can work for us within our church......but, in that case....you can't live as WHO YOU ARE.   Yeah, OK.......DUMB.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Peanutritiousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I found it unbelievably hypocritical. On one hand they seem to be becoming more tolerant then demonstrate that they are just as narrow minded and judgemental as ever!

      replyreport
3. 88

   bac2basicsposted 6 years ago

   Oh how ridiculous, either allow gays to practice or don´t, get off the fence and make a realistic decision. Allow them equal rights or ban them altogether.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Peanutritiousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I couldn't agree more! Equal rights or nothing.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Brandon Tartposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      this really is NOT a matter of rights.  we already have free will. why enter into the rear as a frontman when you're secretly a backdoor believer? we don't have the right to practice unnatural behavior... that is the opposite of  the supernatural act

      replyreport
4. 81

   jlparkposted 6 years ago

   Unless straight bishops are held to the same standards it's just 'progression' thinly disguising discrimination.  At least in other churches they are upfront about it - No, you can't be a (such and such) as you are a gay.  At least other churches are equal in their treatment of clergy men - priests etc - celibate (or at least used to be!) regardless of identity.
   
   Hey, it's a step.  A little one, but a step all the same.  Still hypocritical, but we'll take what we can get in the fight for acceptance I suppose.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Peanutritiousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I know what you're saying. The all or nothing approach although hard to fathom at least is honest and decisive. Half hearted measures as you put so sucinctly is 'progression thinly disguising discrimination'.

      replyreport
5. 94

   Rain Defenceposted 6 years ago

   I laughed out loud when I heard this on the radio. They're allowed to be homosexual as long as they just look at mens bums and don't touch them.
   Seems pretty ridiculous to me, but then becoming a bishop in the first place seems pretty ridiculous to me as well.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Peanutritiousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I have to agree with you on both counts!

      replyreport
6. 94

   LongTimeMotherposted 6 years ago

   My reaction when I heard about this was "Well, we've seen how effective vows of celibacy were in the Catholic church."  It genuinely surprises me that the subject of celibacy would be raised by any church at a time when there's so much legal action against pedophile priests. It disturbs me that churches have always protected and forgiven those who confess to crimes without fear of being reported. Priests who molested young boys at Boys Town in Qld Australia did not have far to walk to make their confessions to one of their peers and be forgiven at the end of each day.
   
   I don't believe homosexuality between consenting adults is a crime so yes,  I think it is discrimination. However I have no idea what the Bible actually says about homosexuality ... because if it is as opposed to homosexuality as we were led to believe as children, then the COE is looking just as hypocritical as the Catholic church is right now. And if the Bible is not as opposed to homosexuality as the traditional message stated, then you have to question just how accurately any key message has been passed on to generations of church-goers.
   
   I gave up going to church a long time ago. I could never come to terms with the fact that I was taught as a child in Sunday School that JC destroyed the icons and artifacts that people were worshipping at the time when he was walking the earth ... and then I was expected to sit quietly in a church and worship icons and artifacts that represented JC after he'd died. I decided if JC could be the ultimate christian without going into churches, there was little to be gained from me frequenting them.

   replyreport
7. 60

   RavenBikerposted 6 years ago

   I agree with the Church of England ----how does a Church maintain their hypocrisy without being hypocritical?  Keep doing what they and other churches do, they'll be out of business, I pray, in fifty years ---so I agree with the Church of England (along with the Pope).

   replyreport
8. 72

   austinhealyposted 6 years ago

   I agree with most that this is a half baked measure. On the other hand, looking at the big picture, I also think this is a tremendous step which is probably unpopular with many, so I see this decision as a stepping stone. The Church of England is probably nervous after what happened to the Catholic Church and who could blame them? But the more I think about it, the more I view the decision as quite courageous.

   replyreport
9. 60

   Brandon Tartposted 6 years ago

   A PC Church just does not seem right!  A moral stance on this is well overdue.  Have your cake and eat it, too, is not Biblical, so I wonder if the Brits can read, or even read that well.  Lax officials need no laxative now, it seems incontinence is now of the mind as well as(s) of the body.  Their statement is like a prolapsed crap in the pants of all things clergy, butt this has been a problem for AGES!!!
   
   I don't want to get overtly preachy, so take my words as though you would if a secular theologian were writing an article about his/her view...
   
   I read the Bible, and have read it quite a lot.  Canonized scripture speaks out directly about the age old behavior, but says very little as to WHY  homosexuality is wrong precisely.  My parents have said - DON'T do this, and DON'T do that, but why have their do's and do nots come to pass?  Why is homosexuality WRONG (per se) just because GOD SAID SO... well, He did say so, but I'd like to think that God has a REASON for having said so.
   
   In a journalistic fashion, let me say that my research has led me to the Gospel of John, 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."  What does that mean?  Well, "Word" was translated from the Greek word, LOGOS, from which we get the word LOGIC.  Logic is what we use to reason, so if the LOGIC was/is God, then deductively we are led to conclude that God is reasonable.  So we may say that sex was created to feel good, yes, but that it was also intended for reproduction.  If God had reasons so as not to create things arbitrarily, then his REASON for sex lied in this unified dictum, that a man and a woman share the pleasure of love for one another and inadvertently, create lives in that pleasure.
   
   So, by this rationale, homosexuality is not inherently wrong, but it is ILLOGICAL, or, not of God.  If He is Logic, then He is Logical, and sex between like bodies is UNREASONABLE other than to experience pleasure alone.  It is written that in the latter days, people will be lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God - or, Logic.
   
   If God is the Logic, then unreasonable actions are explained as sin, since a Godly life would be a Logical life.  Perhaps it is unreasonable to promote incontinence through such choice behaviors, as the only reason for it is that it feels good.  But then again, Christ made it clear that sin starts in the mind, and lust leads to sins of this nature.  So the brits are indeed hypocritical for letting them "covet ass."

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Livingtwentyfirstposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Practise and still remain celibate? what does this mean? please.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Brandon Tartposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      zac-lee!!!  living21tst... it is impossible, therefore, it is illogical, too, and not reasonable.

      replyreport