36 2 mins 9 yrs

The Anglican Church digs an even BIGGER hole for itself as it tries to modernise and abandon tradition;

“Gay clergy in civil partnerships can become bishops, following an apparent U-turn from the Church of England. Despite rejecting proposals to allow women to become bishops, a new ruling means homosexual men can be appointed as long as they remain chaste and repent for any past sexual acts. The Right Reverend Graham James, Bishop of Norwich, released a statement on behalf of the Church yesterday, saying it would be ‘unjust’ to exclude them if they were ‘living in accordance with the teaching of the Church on human sexuality’.

Can anyone see gay bishops going with this? How will it work? How will the authorities KNOW if they are having sex? If they are gay, then it seems to me that their attraction will run skin deep so why this banal ban? The Anglican Church should come out and say that homosexuality is AGAINST the teachings of the Bible but that those who choose a gay lifestyle are welcome in the Church (we are all sinners) BUT can have no place in the hierarchy until they repent of their gayness. The alternative route is to accept sin which ..erm..rather invalidates the Church in the first place.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

36 thoughts on “YOU CAN BUY A MEAL, DON’T EAT IT?

  1. How can any bishop prove he is not having gay sex? How can church authorities know he isn’t?

    How can a single hetrosexual bishop prove he is not having any sort of sex?

    How can married bishops prove they are not having extramarital sex?

    All three of these are against church teachings.

    Being gay is not against church teachings any more than being hetrosexual whilst single. So why would they need to repent gayness?

    “We are all sinners” – including faithful married bishops. 😉

  2. There is another perfectly valid and correct alternative. Treat sexual misbehaviour as a sin not sexual orientation. People in contented happy and faithfull relationships should be welcomed and respected whether homo or heterosexual. They are adding to the good of a happy society and are harming no-one else. Judge people by how they treat their partners not who their partners are.

  3. I think he said something recently about being tempted by Islam.. or maybe I just dreamt that 🙂

  4. Colm

    Yes as in recognising the fact but there isn’t often the need to use the term as opposed to CoI.

  5. Aileen

    Do you mind me asking if you belong to any denomination ?

    I am nominally only a Catholic, but in reality an agnostic.

  6. Colm

    Very unconventional believer and not a regular attender anywhere. Of all the religions on the go, I think Anglicanism has a lot to commend it. Also have a liking for Quakers (apart from pacifism) and Unitarians.

  7. Colm
    “only a Catholic”

    That sounds as if being a Catholic woukd be somehow wanting or that there is an expectation that you woukd also be so e other things 😉

  8. Of course he isn’t Anglican*. But why should that stop him from telling them what their belief should be? It is demonstrative of the theocracy that some wish to impose – not only would the bar gay marriage from being allowed by the State, they wish to regulate other religions!

    *I am reminded of the great exchange in The Quiet Man “I’ll join the Church of Ireland, first!”

    “As if they would have you!”

  9. Aileen

    The Catholic church isn;t big enough to accomodate me 🙂

    But joking aside, the ‘only’ was a reference to the nominally, not the Catholic part of that sentence

  10. Colm

    Ah only nominally as opposed to only Catholic.

    It could have meant that you were only Catholic as opposed to being Catholic and Anglican, which all Anglicans are 😉

  11. The Anglican Church should come out and say that homosexuality is AGAINST the teachings of the Bible

    In that case, those offended by homosexuality should take the issue up with God. Isn’t He responsible for creating sexuality?

  12. In Dante’s Inferno, there was a level in Hell for blasphemers, sodomites and usurers. Now that they have so much power, they are making life hell for the rest of us. As soon as the homosexual lobby ‘achieves’ the aim of forcing Churches to consecrate homosexual ‘marriage’ (a desecration of the word), the Church will be absolutely defeated, from within as much as from without.

  13. How will it work? How will the authorities KNOW if they are having sex?

    In the same way that Catholic Priests are celibate?

  14. “But why should that stop him from telling them what their belief should be? It is demonstrative of the theocracy that some wish to impose – not only would the bar gay marriage from being allowed by the State, they wish to regulate other religions! ”

    Surely the whole point of the blog is that people express their opinions- religious/political or conspiracy theorist?
    But in the Gospel according to Mahons, to express diapproval of homosexual Bishops is only one step away from wanting to impose a theocracy..

  15. If only our Churches practised what they preached perhaps we wouldn’t have quite so much confusion and dissent over what’s right and wrong.

    With celibacy in the Catholic church, it has for centuries been abused and in the strongest of Catholic countries it is almost commonplace to find it ignored.

    After the child abuse scandals which involved the meekest and most innocent of human beings, – those beings that are at the very core of our Christian belief, – how can we believe their preaching and teaching on matters of morality or right from wrong?

    It seems they have neither the will power, the resolve, nor the total belief in that which they preach. They have taken hypocrisy to the limit. That they, as a religious entity and as individuals seem largely unrepentant, merely adds to their crime. Isn’t repentance one of the core acts involved and required, in the act of forgiveness?…

  16. Ernest.
    I think I have mentioned that Mrs Agit8ed and I have been attending our village Church for almost a year now?
    The Church of England fails because it now worships at the altar of popularity and “relevance” rather than staying true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    The practice of Homosexuality is regarded as a sin, but no more of a sin than say murder or robbery or rape or adultery. It all comes under the heading of sin, and we are all sinners.
    But because we are all sinners doesn’t mean we mustn’t address sin when we see it.
    Personally I am against women priests, women Bishops and Homosexual Bishops in civil partnerships. That doesn’t mean I reject godly women or homosexuals. In fact I have argued that the Church should be at the forefront of making homosexuals welcome in the Church, without condoning their lifestyle.
    So I think you are right. The Cof E dies because it tries to be all things to all men, instead of staying true to the one Man.

  17. Petr,
    Don’t start up your contentless Communist trite commentating again!
    I know you can think, analyse and offer constructive comment; you’ve just got yourself trapped in the Slough of Sloganism..

    Who said anything about Gays sitting at the back of the Church bus?

    Like Mahons you seem to assume that holding a boundary is the only real sin.
    Yet you continually champion the rights of Muslims, many of whom would define themselves as holding onto boundaries and practices far more severe than most Christians.
    Hence you display an illogical bias against a faith which has shaped the very culture you shout your defiance from.
    Very strange. Very adolescent.

  18. Agit – communism is a judaic ideology and it explains why Petr’s quips are anti-Chrisian: judaism is anti-Christian and communism is anti-Christian. It is why Churches were destroyed in Russia when the jewish clique took over in 1917 but yet synagogues were unharmed. From The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed:

    At the time, the facts were available. The British Government’s White Paper of 1919 (Russia, No. 1, a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism) quoted the report sent to Mr. Balfour in London in 1918 by the Netherlands Minister at Saint Petersburg, M. Oudendyke: “Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things”. The United States Ambassador, Mr. David R. Francis, reported similarly: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution”. M. Oudendyke’s report was deleted from later editions of the British official publication and all such authentic documents of that period are now difficult to obtain. Fortunately for the student, one witness preserved the official record.

    This was Mr. Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times, who experienced the Bolshevik revolution. The French edition of his book included the official Bolshevik lists of the membership of the ruling revolutionary bodies (they were omitted from the English edition).
    These records show that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians(including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprized 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919, were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly “Socialist” or other non Communist parties (during that early period the semblance of “opposition” was permitted, to beguile the masses, accustomed under the Czar to opposition parties) were 55 Jews and 6 others. All the names are given in the original documents reproduced by Mr. Wilton. (In parentheses, the composition of the two short-lived Bolshevik governments outside Russia in 1918-1919, namely those of Hungary and Bavaria, was similar).

  19. In his novel Lothair (1870), speaking of the aims of masonic-aligned secret societies, Benjamin Disraeli wrote:

    “The foundation of the Christian family is the sacrament of matrimony, the spring of all domestic and public morals. The anti-Christian societies are opposed to the principle of home. When they have destroyed the hearth, the morality of society will perish.”

    This is what the assault on marriage is about.

  20. Allan,
    “There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. ”
    Winston Churchill from http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html

    I think the point you overlook is that for the most part these Jews were atheistic. Practicing Jews just like practicing Christians weren’t involved. And we have to accept that there have always been people in all faiths and cultures that didn’t believe.
    We can’t blanket condemn them, no more than we can condemn all the Germans for what the Nazis did.
    Whilst I don’t agree with most of your theories you do at least back them up with some kind of evidence,
    Petr simply rubbishes the existing order in favour of the underdog, no matter what they stand for. I have never seen him present any kind of solution to a problem; it’s always one sided and negative.

  21. You couldn’t be more wrong, Agit. I’m on the side of people – whatever their colour/creed/religion/sexuality etc. – and that is as positive as it gets. Put simply, I’m for labour and against capital. And yes, it’s a zero sum game. You can’t be for both.

  22. Ah so for you people are always good -leaders, governments, religions are always bad because they stop people doing what they want? It’s authority of any hue you’re against is it Petr?
    What a wonderfully convenient philosophy:
    “I’m on the side of the people!”
    No explanations of what that means or involves exactly, just
    “I’m rootin’ for you, whoever you are,”

    That’s not positive Petr,
    that’s the vaguest bunch of airy fairy nonsense ever.
    You say you’re for labour and against capital?
    Another load of nonsense because historical experience shows that we need both, It’s called enlightened self interest, and countries like Germany for instance have found a pretty good balance. When Labour ruled briefly through the Unions here, wehad the three day week and the destruction of our great industries. How naive to believe that all people are intrinsically good and all owners of capital are essentially bad.
    Again you spout meaningless slogans devoid of any construct or solutions.

  23. p.s.
    “You couldn’t be more wrong, Agit. I’m on the side of people – whatever their colour/creed/religion/sexuality etc. – and that is as positive as it gets. Put simply, I’m for labour and against capital. And yes, it’s a zero sum game. You can’t be for both.”

    That comment reeks of essentialism..

  24. Petr,
    you said you are on the side of the people- whatever…
    The implicit assumption being that people are either always right, always victims, always good, always whatever.
    You are making a hero out of the “people” and implying nobility or innocence. You are attributing qualities to them that are not born out by reality.
    People are not always nice or innocent. Sometimes people are the mob that bite and kill and condemn.

    http://openanthcoop.ning.com/group/theoryinanthropology/forum/topics/what-is-essentialism-and-how

  25. I sometimes employ what Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak calls strategic essentialism.

    By the way, you read into what I say and make wild conclusions. I’m not gonna spend my life refuting each one. Maybe just don’t make these leaps and just listen to what I’m saying.

  26. “By the way, you read into what I say and make wild conclusions.” !!!
    Well Petr,
    maybe that’s because getting info out of you is like pulling teeth.
    You are an intellectual star if you can read, understand and enjoy stuff like this pdf I skimmed..
    http://cursos.web44.net/libros/raman%20selden.pdf
    I admit to being none the wiser!
    The problem with you (as far as I am concerned)is that unless I poke you with a sharp stick, you don’t actually SAY anything constructive.
    🙂

Comments are closed.