Anglican Church Homophobic?

[betsy]

I thought your questions were rhetorical and ignorant, that's why I didn't respond.

They make no sense given the situation. These homosexuals are BISHOPS in the church. They're not arguing to get in and try to change the rules. They were accepted by the Church, which is now turning around and chastising them for something that was out in the open when they were made Bishops by the church. Now the church is turning around and shaking their finger at these men, who have done nothing wrong.

You think it's ignorant because perhaps you're only looking at it in one way.

That this denomination is now changing its mind (again)....stemmed from the fact that this denomination had been coersced and prodded into going against its own belief in the first place. By who? By these homosexual bishops!

I would be willing to bet that most of these homosexual bishops are not there because they believe the Word of God. On the contrary. They're there because they knew it was a hotbed of prey in the form of young choirboys. These aren't the representatives of Christianity. These are the representatives of the Anti-Christ in the same way that modern liberal atheism is. "I'll do what I want" could well be their motto. You know. Moral relativism.

Anyway, going back to my issue.

That's why I posed those 4 questions. They are very much relevant to the situation.

The last time I look, ignorance was a lack of knowledge. I would venture to guess, and this is just a guess....that I know more about your liberal atheist secularism than you do. And it goes without saying, especially in light of your comments, that I know vastly more about christianity than you do. You don't seem to understand the differences between basic concepts such as denomination, church and religion. Do a little research. At least then you'd be credible in this discussion.

The church is ostracizing these men because the church holds supernatural beliefs that have no basis on reality.

Whether their belief is based on reality or whteher it's just a bunch of goooblygook makes no difference here! We still have freedom of religion as far as I know.

People could very well be worshipping trees....that is still their belief.

The only fault I can say of this denomination is: see what happens when you go wishy-washy with the teachings of your God....trying to be politically correct, and bowing down to pressures from immoral activist groups....at the expense of your belief?

Their main problem was giving in in the first place!

This denomination, and many other Christian denominations in my view are guilty of arrogance to think that they can play with Christ's teachings.

"Niggers" and "kikes" can't get into the KKK either, so it's difficult to see how kicking "fags" out of the church is any different or any more acceptable.

Ha-ha! Are you serious? If I was a "kike" or a "nigger", why would I want to get into the KKK?

One might ask the same question as to why a practicing homosexual would want to get into a religion that finds them immoral.

So, should I assume you cannot answer my 4 questions?

[cybercoma]

Obviously the religion didn't find it immoral enough to stop them from becoming bishops.

And at the end of the day the Church is free to do what it wants, but the rest of the world is free to consider them no better than a bigoted organization like the klan.

[M.Dancer]

Obviously the religion didn't find it immoral enough to stop them from becoming bishops.

And at the end of the day the Church is free to do what it wants, but the rest of the world is free to consider them no better than a bigoted organization like the klan.

How many bigoted orgs like the lkan ordain gay bishops?

You would see the illogic in your position if you didn't have such a raging hate on........

[betsy]

Obviously the religion didn't find it immoral enough to stop them from becoming bishops.

And at the end of the day the Church is free to do what it wants, but the rest of the world is free to consider them no better than a bigoted organization like the klan.

No, Cybercoma. Let's try once more.

It's not the R E L I G I O N. The religion is Christianity.

It's the D E N O M I N A T I O N - Anglicans - that accepted these men into the C H U R C H - their community.

Now, the chances are by the looks of this man, say he's sixty now, joined the church 35 or 40 years ago.

So it would be around 1975 or 1980, it's unlikely although not impossible, that he joined as an openly gay priest. I know that you're assuming that he joined as openly gay....but you're probably wrong, considering the time frame. Even if he was openly gay, he wouldn't have been accepted unless the bishops who accepted him were homosexuals themselves. And they definitely wouldn't have enetered as openly gay. It takes years to become a bishop.

Now they've all come out of the closet and they want to change the rules of their denomination.

No, the priests aren't free to do what they want. They're bound by the rules of their religion - Christianity.

Now they've chosen to break those rules and sabotage their organization. They don't represent their religion. Let alone, its Leader. They're like hockey players playing with their own rules. They should be off the team, to use an analogy that most Canadians seem to understand.

So, answer my 4 questions.