New US (Episcopal) church leader says homosexuality no sin

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-19T193318Z_01_N19347151_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-EPISCOPALS-BISHOP.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

New US church leader says homosexuality no sin
Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:33 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected on Sunday as the first woman leader of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. She will formally take office later this year.

Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual.

"I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.

"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."

(snip)

Asked how she reconciled her position on homosexuality with specific passages in the Bible declaring sexual relations between men an abomination, Jefferts Schori said the Bible was written in a very different historical context by people asking different questions.

"The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear -- there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today," she said.

"The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings, and that's certainly the great message of Jesus -- to include the unincluded."


link: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-19T193318Z_01_N19347151_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-EPISCOPALS-BISHOP.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

She's so right.

sure you can cover them up with contacts to pretend they're some other color, but at the end of the day when it's just you and the mirror . . . it ain't no sin.

increasing numbers of recovering Catholics? :-)

It may be time to check them out? :hi:

the Episcopal Church.

We get so many converts (I'm one, by the way) that we even have a term "cradle Episcopalian," to designate the minority of members who were brought up in this denomination.

were raised RC.

Including me.

So, yes, I'd expect that move will continue.

And I will continue to speak my mind and push back as much as I can.

God bless her deeply! YAY! Just think how fabulous this announcement by the LEADER of a major church denomination truly is?????????? HOW FANTASTIC!

Wow.... such good news. it helps lift some of the pain off we've (gays & friends of gays) lived with. Praise Jesus!


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

Are the most none judgemental denomination of the christian sect...They are often protested by other sub-denomintions for their openess. So, if your going to win over a particular sect of christiandom, they are the ones to talk to....

They dont use their faith as a weapon or a sheild to hide behind in order to get evil agenda goals accomplished. They will get some backlash I am sure, but they are accustomed to it and will make it through just fine.

This is coming from an Atheist, as much as I dont believe in their faith I have an appreciation for those who actually practice their religion the way it is suppost to be done. The Christian Hate cults are not Christian at all, those who claim to be Christian then only spit venom, are using the "christian" title as a mask. For eaxmaple the Christian Coalition, FRC, AFA, Falwellians use their so called Chrsitianity as a device to propituate hate and misinformation. Those who protest everything that they disagree with and try to supress it are NOT christians, but more so scared individuals who are insecure with their belief System and theirselves.

Epsicopalians are not this way at all. They dont have recruitment programs (Door to Door religious sales) or try to pressure you or should I say scare you into going to church. If your are going to follow a Christian Religion System, go Episcopalian or maybe Atheist....But no matter what Faith you might decide to follow, remmeber that HATE is not part of ANY religion and that even goes for Satanism.

The range in the E-church: the liberal ones are the most non-judgmental, but the conservative types (and I've seen them from all races and creeds) can be just as judgmental as the fundies.

I recently started attending an Episcopalian church in Pasadena. I really, really enjoy it...now all the more so.

:applause:

That's an amazing church!

are you a member?

I keep meaning to start a post asking if any DUers are members, but I haven't decided where the best place to do that would be.

I've only gone a few times so far, but I absolutely love it!

...when I first came into the Episcopal Church. I moved out of Pasadena and am now senior warden at a church on the Central Coast.

Actually refreshing to hear something other than institutional bigotry.

and I'm a "convert" from Catholicism.

... that anybody in public life has proclaimed in a long, long time.

She has chosen to outright reject the archaic notions of morality derived from the foolish popular belief that the bible is “the Word of God” rather than what it truly is: an ancient book of poetry and tall tales told over campfires for centuries before writing came into fashion in ancient Judea.

She has chosen enlightenment over the hate-inducing, primeval, bible-based tribal superstitions that have driven our supposedly “advanced” western culture to revile gays, suppress women, impose idiotic injunctions against birth control, enslave and mistreat the weak, claim that the God of Creation is such a racist that “He” actually “chose” a favorite “people” to whom “He” “gave” the lands of the Middle East forever, and hail the glory of the preemptive-war-loving, vengeful, blood-lusting, triumphalist deity depicted in the old testament.

Oddly, while proclaiming all of the above, the fundamentalist “Christians” among us also claim—though apparently quite falsely—to embrace the peaceful, loving, tolerant, rational and truly advanced message of the man from Galilee.

It is that latter message—the teachings of Jesus the philosopher—that Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has chosen over the absurdities of bible-based religious fable. And she is not afraid to say so.

I salute this woman unreservedly!

More at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/20/national/main1734834.shtml?source=RSS&attr=U.S._1734834

that the Offense Department has listed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

It is bizarre 2 look at the LBN page and see these 2 threads just a few spaces away from each other.

.

There are some who have been born with affections with those of the opposite or same sex who happen to be very young. Does being gifted by God with those proclivities make pedophilia as right as sex with the same gender? Or do we pick and choose what is right and wrong?

If we pick and choose with the Bible, then that book is no more significant than the book of Koran or a book of etiquette. I can understand allegorizing sections of the Bible and so on, but completely throwing out passages for historical context is questionable. That would presume that we today are more moral and enlightened than in previous years. After two world wars, I find that hard to believe.

If God is as loving as we would believe he is, then I would expect that he would give us written principles to live by. Where would we find these written principles? Even your average parent understands the need to set out rules and principles for children to follow. Good parents do not allow their children the privilege to pick and choose which rules they will follow. Would not God be a better parent than we could be?

What principles do folks draw from the Bible? Ms. Schori seems to think that including the unincluded is a very strong principle to be gleaned. And what parts of the Bible do you think should be "allegorized," and which sections are immutably true regardless of historical context? Specifics, please, by all means.

But let's have the discussion. Homosexuality and pedophilia are two very different issues, for example. Why do you put them together? What portions of the Bible are you picking and choosing? Which parts should be emphasized, which parts less so? Let's have the discussion. But by no means should any side simply say, "This position is it. There is no further discussion."

...do "pick and choose" which portions of Scripture are relevant for today. For example, slavery is considered the norm throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. From the Torah to Paul's epistles, the proper relations between slaves and masters are defined -- in general, fairness is urged upon the masters and submission on the slaves. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly condemn slavery.

Yet a Christian who advocated for slavery today would be considered very unChristian by most believers. What happened? Did God's unchanging Word change? I think not. But I believe that the Holy Spirt, working in the hearts and minds of readers open to its promptings, led believers to a different and deeper discernment of what being created in God's image implied and what freedom in Christ entailed.

In the Old Testament, Jewish law (God's rules) allowed Jews to sell themselves into slavery for a period of time (like indentured servitude). At the end of the period, the debt was paid and the slave was free. However, if the slave really liked his servitude (good master, good digs), he could permanently give up his freedom in exchange for the continued "good" life.

In the New Testament, there is no condemnation of slavery (in Roman times, this was an economic trade-off), but there is no praise of slavery. In fact, Christians are called slaves of Christ or bond-servants of Christ using the same kind of terminology as with economic slaves.

So the concept of slavery in the entire Bible has been based upon a beneficial type of economic slavery. There was no change in attitude over thousands of years. Even today, we have situations where someone gives away his/her freedom for a period of time in exchange for some economic benefit (voluntary military and so on). I see no problem in advocating the same type of trade-off.

The Bible has always advocated fair treatment in all business and economic situations, so I do not see any change in hearts and minds (more moral enlightenment) as you have mentioned.

In another case, the status of women with the spread of the Gospel was very enlightening. Women were considered equal with men in the view of God, although roles were still followed as from the beginning of time. Personally, I don't considered our "enlightened" attitudes about marriage are better than before. Our divorce rate, abuse rate, and so on are evidence of our enlightenment, NOT!

Personally, I have found that if one ignores the "urban legends" about the Bible and study in detail the history and activities of the human race, one will find moral enlightenment and knowledge.

In an aside, it would be a great discussion on why the Old Testament and New Testament lifts homosexuality to the level of an abomination as opposed to "ordinary" sin. I learned in health class that anal sex is the most efficient method of spreading many dangerous diseases. Basically, the colon and rectum were not designed to repel microbe invasion like the nose, mouth, vagina, and skin. Could this be the reason for the prohibition? And why is adultery wrong? Could there be good reasons for that prohibition? Personally, I think that the prohibitions against adultery, covetousness, lying, cheating, stealing, murder, and so on had good reasons then and good reasons today. Maybe God knows what he is writing about.