Jeffrey John

[amaranth]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3002574.stm - what do you think? I'm sure most of you have heard the story.

It is a case of the Bible being "out of date" and needing to be relaxed for modern society, as with it's views on the role of women, abortion and co-habitation?

Or, do you think the Bible should never become more liberal, can it be just as relevent today?

Personally, I think the Bible needs updating. I'm not religious though, and I find it absolutely ridiculous that the appointment of Jeffrey John, who is openly gay, is causing such a fuss. His relationship is 27 years long, and is not a physical one, and is a relationship that he has been very open about.

Martine.

[Void]

I don't think the bible can be updated, by doing so you're totally undermiming your religion, ammending Gods own words effectively.

I'm not religious myself either but I really don't see how Jeffrey John can remain in an homosexual relationship and stay as a bishop. Seems like a mockery of Christianity.

The fact that there is a large christian fundamentalist uprising in the States scares me, hopefully it won't find its way over here...

[sbs]

Shouldn't religion change and adapt with the times though. Things that were perfectly acceptable in the Bible are no longer considered appropriate, surely it should work the other way round too.

I think I've restrained myself quite well there considering the merest whiff of religion usually has me foaming at the mouth!

[pretty in pink]

Originally posted by Void
I don't think the bible can be updated, by doing so you're totally undermiming your religion, ammending Gods own words effectively.

I'm not religious myself either but I really don't see how Jeffrey John can remain in an homosexual relationship and stay as a bishop. Seems like a mockery of Christianity.


I don´t think that The Bible can be updated, but only because I don´t think it would work in practise. But I think that Christianity shouldn´t rely so much on The Bible - I think religion should be updated and that religion should allow people to think for themselves and interpret things. I´m not at all religious myself, but I really don´t understand the kind of religion that takes The Bible as God´s word and doesn´t admit that it´s written and edited by human beings. I don´t understand why admitting that would take away the value of religion - it would just be admitting taht religion has always been about interpretion.

As for homosexuality, I think it´s one sign of the curch being old-fashioned and hypocritical that it doesn´t acknowledge the gay rights. Why the church is happy to marry divorsed people if it doesn´t bless the same sex relationships, when both are wrong according to the Bible? Shouldn´t the curch be defending the oppressed and fighting against the general inequalities, not agreeing with the prejudice and oppression?

[Lover of Outrage]

I thought religion was all about prejudice and oppression.

[Irishpunktom]

No religion should Not Change to suit the passing Fancy of the Congregation.

Either you agree with it.. or you don't.

You're free to go form your own, or join another that suits you.

Religion should Never become about Popularity.

And besides, Christianity is supposed to be based around the notion that you "love thy neighbour as thy self".

And Yes
I am fully aware Baptists claim to be Christians and don't follow any of these rules.. but there just weird.

case and point :

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-11/54314/20021117135525-0-bushdevilshadow.jpg

[Terminal Young Thing]

I am a Christian, and to me gay is wrong in the same way as crime and discrimination is.
And before anyone jumps on me for that last bit, I have nothing against gay people, they are commiting a sin. So do I, every day.
The fact is, there is no easy answer.
You appoint him, you potentially alienate a great many people all over the world, and go against what is viewed as God's word.
If you don't, the Church is labled backwards, discrimanantoy (the inventive spelling club meets twice weekly, pm me for more details) and prejudices.

In becoming a Christian, you submitt yourself to certain rules. The fact that many of them aren't comapatable woth modern societies views is difficult, because you then have to decide whether a particular rule in the Bible is there to intruct the society at the time of writing, or Christians everywhere.
I'm in no place to do so, so I really can't say.

I do however feel conflict within my self over equal rights and what the bible says.
Not the easiest of questions to answer.

[amaranth]

Is this another case of Christianity contradictiing itself?

What about "there is neither slave nor free; Jew nor Greek; male nor female, for you are all one in the eyes of God" (or something like that)? Does that not include homosexuality?

[Irishpunktom]

Originally posted by amaranth
Is this another case of Christianity contradictiing itself?

What about "there is neither slave nor free; Jew nor Greek; male nor female, for you are all one in the eyes of God" (or something like that)? Does that not include homosexuality?

Course it does

It also includes Women who have kids outside Wedlock
It also includes Murderers
It includes everyone..

Doesn't stop them being Sinners in the eyes of the church.
All should be welcome into Christian Churches, for it is not A christians place to Judge.. [WEll.. except baptists (all Non-baptists are going to hell, except those who are born again) ]
(Judge Not, lest ye Be Judged.. and all that)

But Bishops are supposed to Be the pillars, the examples by which the Meek follow.. yadda yadda yadda.

[alexliamw]

I, on the other hand, Terminal Young Thing, am also a Christian and agree with this appointment. The groups speaking out against it are the kind of people who make me ashamed to be a Christian and want to join the masses who are just laughing at the ridiculous, archaic mess of a state that the church is in.

Fact is, the Bible decries a lot of things. If you don't want Jeffrey Johns appointed, I hope you're not a woman who's ever spoken in church. Because the Bible spends more time decrying that than homosexuality. I hope you've never had sex outside a loving relationship, because the Bible spends more time decrying that than homosexuality. I hope you've never made a show of how holy you are, because the Bible spends more time decrying that than homosexuality. I hope you cut off the part of your body that sins whenever it does so, because the Bible teaches that too. Oh, and if you've ever cut your hair, you've no right to comment either. And you'd better believe that humans appeared on Earth within 6 days of its creation, because the Bible teaches that. Oh, and you'd better not be rich, because if you are, its harder to go to heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

To those who talk about context, time, metaphor and hyperbole with regard to the above, I say that this applies to homosexuality to. The "contradiction of the Bible" argument is an excuse for bigots and homophobes who are scared of change and people different to them. This is only the next round after people were against the ordination of women, and I hope the cries of dissent are battered as well as they were then.

Fact is, the Bible was written, albeit with God's inspiration, by a flawed set of people. We can't expect everything they wrote thousands of years ago to be practical in these times. Parts of the Bible deal with issues that aren't even around today - sacrifices, for example. We are instructed to do many things that in these times just aren't relevant. Let's put this in perspective. The Bible spends almost no time talking about homosexuality. It is totally ridiculous to suggest this undermines the whole authority of the Bible - the most reference it makes is that sex should take place in marriage (for which, in modern times, we can safely read "loving relationship") and a few inspecific comments which can be read as comments on the subject but almost certainly weren't. It spends far longer talking much more directly about things like women not being able to speak in church. If women have been ordained, we're already in contradiction, and it hasn't "undermined all church authority".

The people who say that Jeffrey Johns sends out a message that its good to be homosexual are being ridiculous. He hardly spends time promoting his homosexuality - he's not even in a practising relationship! There are far more pressing matters for the church, like falling attendance, world poverty and the problems of fundamentalism. Let's deal with them, not pander to the wants of homophobes over the appointment of a minor bishop. Decrying this with such vigour in such open quarters only serves to make the general public think the church is even more outdated and behind than they already see it as.

[Terminal Young Thing]

Firstly, I never said that I didn't think that he should be appointed, I don't know what to think, as I don't have enough background information.

I don't really consider myself experienced enough to speak in church, despite being a Christian (Christened in CofE, brought up as Evangelical) of some sorts for about 2.5 years, I've only been to church about 5 times.
I know there are so many parts of the Bible that are irrelevant know, and deciding which ones confuses me no end.

Right now, I'm a very simplified Christain. I believe in God, and I believe that faith in Jesus will save me. I feel that with that fact in mind along with "if it feels wrong, don't do it" is how I conduct my faith.

I pretty much agree with everything else you wrote apart from one thing: I don't count "loving relationship" as the same a marriage. If sex is only meant to happen between two Christians who've made a comitment with God, then loving relationships are no substitute.

Oh, and with reference to other posts, I don't like 'Religion' and all the PC bollocks that goes with it. And I don't judge people as it just ain't my place.

[alexliamw]

Ah, sorry, I didn't mean it to seem as if the whole post was directed at you. I was just expressing my opinions to whoever would listen :p

As for speaking in church, by the way, when I said that I meant literally that - speaking a single word to anyone in the church building. Not any sort of public speech or sermon.

And although I don't think marriage and loving relationships are the same thing, I think that in this case sex would be permissable in either.

[Terminal Young Thing]

Originally posted by alexliamw


As for speaking in church, by the way, when I said that I meant literally that - speaking a single word to anyone in the church building. Not any sort of public speech or sermon.

And although I don't think marriage and loving relationships are the same thing, I think that in this case sex would be permissable in either.

a) Hmm? What about it?
b) I'm really not sure on that point. If you really love each other, why no get married?

[alexliamw]

Thats exactly what a rather hardline evangelical priest told me last summer what I asked the same. I say, because times change, people change, feelings change, you can't be sure, and because the divorce rate is already high enough.

[Terminal Young Thing]

Fair enough, but marriage is a union under God, loving relationships are not.
And if all it takes to make it so is to sign a bit of paper, why not?

Just out of curiosity, what are divorce rates amoung (practising) Christians like compared to the national average?

[Lover of Outrage]

Originally posted by Irishpunktom
Course it does

It also includes Women who have kids outside Wedlock
It also includes Murderers
It includes everyone..

Doesn't stop them being Sinners in the eyes of the church.
All should be welcome into Christian Churches, for it is not A christians place to Judge.. [WEll.. except baptists (all Non-baptists are going to hell, except those who are born again) ]
(Judge Not, lest ye Be Judged.. and all that)

But Bishops are supposed to Be the pillars, the examples by which the Meek follow.. yadda yadda yadda.

Like the way you put women who have children outside wedlock with murderers:)
The baptist thing hmm my baptist church wasn't at all like that quite the opposite which was probably why my catholic dad sent us there.

[alexliamw]

Originally posted by Terminal Young Thing
Fair enough, but marriage is a union under God, loving relationships are not.
And if all it takes to make it so is to sign a bit of paper, why not?

Just out of curiosity, what are divorce rates amoung (practising) Christians like compared to the national average?

I don't get your first point. One minute you say its because marriage is a big deal, the next because it isn't...

As for the rates of divorce, I've no idea. But Christians certainly ain't immune to it.

[Terminal Young Thing]

Originally posted by alexliamw
I don't get your first point. One minute you say its because marriage is a big deal, the next because it isn't...

As for the rates of divorce, I've no idea. But Christians certainly ain't immune to it.

I'm not saying it's not a big deal, just that I can't see why 2 Christians don't.
And I know they ain't immune, I was just curious.

[maradona]

By and large i dont believe in religion, but i do agree with Terminal Pretty Thing that if you are a Christian (or at least in this case Anglican Christian) then you should submit yourself to certain rules and these rules are in the bible and the way in which your church interprets them. Its not some pick and mix thing where you can choose the things that you want to like and ignore the things you dont. Its a whole package and if you dont agree with something major (like homosexuality) then whats the point in being a member of that particular church then? Same thing goes for those who practice Liberation Theology in South America yet remain within the confines of their original church in Rome...

Dont want to come across Ian Brownish but For Everyman A Religion...

Oh and by the way there is only one true faith - the Church of the Hand of God ;)

[Niko]

Originally posted by Lover of Outrage
Like the way you put women who have children outside wedlock with murderers:)
The baptist thing hmm my baptist church wasn't at all like that quite the opposite which was probably why my catholic dad sent us there.

well he means, there is no super-sin. being a homosexual is no different to not honouring your parents or observing the sabbath etc..

I think IPT put it in a really good way.

I'm not a Christian, and if I was I wouldnt really care about the structure of the Church anyway, but I think I'd want the people giving me instruction and guidance to have a bit of integrity and practice what they preach.

[deadstars]

marriage these days is more an act of legality than of religion in many cases.

hundreds of couples marry in hotels, casinos, forests, because they are NOT religious and don't want to marry in a church.

are the relationships of non-marrieds, homosexuals, and other religions all null and void as they are not validated by the christian god?

is their love not as great?

also i think you'll find they are constantly updating the bible to make it appeal to every different group of people. The Women's Bible, The Children's Bible, The Youth Bible, even the different versions of the bible subtly shift the boundaries - compare your King James to your Good News.

The damn book has been translated/changed/shifted/updated so many times over the last 2000 years, that i'm damned if any of the manuscript retains its original meanings.

[Irishpunktom]

Originally posted by Lover of Outrage
Like the way you put women who have children outside wedlock with murderers:)
The baptist thing hmm my baptist church wasn't at all like that quite the opposite which was probably why my catholic dad sent us there.

When I went to a Southern Baptist Church in Florida, because I thought they sang a lot better than they actually do.. my fault, They asked what religion I was.. and I replied Catholic.. just because I was Irish and thats what they expected... I didn't what to explain to an entire church full of people that there was no God...

But being Catholic was not good enough..
only baptists were "saved"
Only Baptists had "Jesus in them"

And I was not allowed leave the Church untill I converted.. Which i did rapidly, and never came back.

[maradona]

Martin Luther King, Otis Redding, Aretha Franklin, Will Cambell and Jesse Jacksen were/are all baptists so they cant all be bad. Mind you Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott and alot of the KKK are to.... :D