Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Globe)   Jesus Christ, a bunch of parishes have quit the Episcopal Church. You'll never guess why   (boston.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

34976 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2006 at 1:08 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



843 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

 
2006-12-18 10:48:17 AM  
umm...

from TFA: "I want to do what's right in the Lord's eyes," said Vicki Robb, 53, an Alexandria public relations executive, who said the church's leftward drift was becoming intolerable.

Wouldn't the lord want you to be tolerant of people, even if they don't agree with your views. Turn the other cheek and all that...

/so says an atheist that is more Christian than most Christians, it seems...
 
2006-12-18 11:06:09 AM  
mamoru: Wouldn't the lord want you to be tolerant of people, even if they don't agree with your views. Turn the other cheek and all that...

Sure. If he's that pinko commie longhair lib'rul 'lord' who probably hung out with a bunch of low-class schmucks and preached anti-establishment tripe. Dude like that, though, would never take off--they'd nail him up before they'd listen to him.

/so says an atheist that is more Christian than most Christians, it seems...

You know, I've managed (anecdotally) to get more people to think about their religious views who previously had views hostile to religion since I went all Taoist/agnostic/atheist/devil's advocate than at any time when I was christian.

It's kinda odd...the different perspective helps, I guess. *shrug*
 
2006-12-18 11:11:25 AM  
Ah, but you have to understand that a fanatic is someone who does what the good Lord would do if only He knew the facts of the case.
 
2006-12-18 11:14:03 AM  
mamoru: Wouldn't the lord want you to be tolerant of people, even if they don't agree with your views. Turn the other cheek and all that...

/so says an atheist that is more Christian than most Christians, it seems...


Tolerance doesn't mean accepting and taking everything in according to the whims of society either.

I believe the government shouldn't discriminate against Homosexuals. I don't believe there should be gay weddings or rabbis in the context of Judaism since Judaism is pretty clear about that.
 
2006-12-18 11:15:36 AM  
Tatsuma: I don't believe there should be gay weddings or rabbis in the context of Judaism since Judaism is pretty clear about that.

Lesbians are still kosher, though, right?

/Or at least parve?
//Maybe not...their fish tacos don't have scales
///At least, we'd better hope not.
 
2006-12-18 11:17:33 AM  
Current Episcopalian position on Homosexuality:

* Declared that homosexuals are "children of God" and "entitled to full civil rights"
* Supported the Equal Rights Amendment
* The church used to affirm chastity and fidelity in relationships; states that "physical sexual expression" is only appropriate within a monogamous marriage of husband and wife.


That falls in line with Orthodox Judaism as well. I do believe that gays are entitled to full civil rights and shouldn't be discriminated against.
 
2006-12-18 11:22:19 AM  
muninsfire: Lesbians are still kosher, though, right?

/Or at least parve?


Well, it's not "kosher" but it's considered to be a lesser sin, nowhere near homosexuality

For the record: we don't see homosexual/lesbian attraction as a sin, only the act itself

There's actually a support group for Orthodox Lesbians called "Orthodykes"
 
2006-12-18 11:26:14 AM  
Tatsuma: There's actually a support group for Orthodox Lesbians called "Orthodykes"

See, the "ortho" prefix in mathematical terms means, more or less, perpendicular--so what position are we talking about here, exactly? 'cuz a 69 would be parallel....
 
2006-12-18 11:28:31 AM  
Tatsuma
we don't see homosexual/lesbian attraction as a sin, only the act itself

Why?
 
2006-12-18 11:30:46 AM  
Action Replay Nick: Why?

Because they don't have the Catholic-guilt of "if you thought it you may as well have done it" thing going--they're judged by their actions, not by what they think.

/When's the last time you've gone a week without thinking that the world would be better off if so-and-so were dead?
//Catholicism, and by extension all other branches of Christianity ('cept possibly Orthodox; not quite sure about them) that's a sin.
 
2006-12-18 11:41:21 AM  
Oh, and according to the 7 Noahide Laws, while we're at it, there doesn't seem to be any prohibitions at all against lesbians, only male-to-male sodomy. Neither is there on masturbation, being a drunk or smoking pot.

So, most farkers would be ok, I guess

Why?

You're judged on your actions, not thoughts
 
2006-12-18 11:56:14 AM  
So if I hate god with every fiber of my being I can still go to heaven if I just go through the motions? Wow, that makes sense.
 
2006-12-18 11:59:41 AM  
Action Replay Nick: So if I hate god with every fiber of my being I can still go to heaven if I just go through the motions? Wow, that makes sense.

By hating G-d, you're still acknowledging his existence, are you not?

Besides, by going through all the motions and actions of a 'good' person, you're displaying impressive self-control over what would otherwise be (by your implication) a sociopathic personality--so why wouldn't you get a reward for surpressing your urges for an entire lifetime?
 
2006-12-18 12:02:56 PM  
Action Replay Nick: So if I hate god with every fiber of my being I can still go to heaven if I just go through the motions? Wow, that makes sense.

Well, if you don't say anything or don't act on it, you're not committing blasphemy.
 
2006-12-18 12:03:00 PM  
Let them go.

Do NOT let them take the church property.

If they are so uncomfortable being part the US organization then they should not be a part of it.


/Not Episcopalian
//No longer even a little religious
///better off for it
 
2006-12-18 12:03:42 PM  
I don't understand why you would want to be a Christian if you were gay/lesbian. I don't believe in the Bible, but it does say that homosexuality is wrong (which I also don't believe). I just don't get why someone would want to join a group that as a whole condemns their behavior.
 
2006-12-18 12:04:17 PM  
LyleDAL: Let them go.

Do NOT let them take the church property.


Why not?

The individual congregations paid for it.
 
2006-12-18 12:04:52 PM  
Paedophile_Deluxe: I don't understand why you would want to be a Christian if you were gay/lesbian.

Presumably because they were told about Jesus at an age before they learned about sexuality, and were told about the whole "Jesus loves you no matter what" bits.
 
2006-12-18 12:06:11 PM  
muninsfire
By hating G-d, you're still acknowledging his existence, are you not?

An even better hypothetical. Hate god, don't believe, think whatever you want, as long as there is not man-on-man buttsex Sky Wizard issues you one ticket to paradise. Seems pretty arbitrary but seeing as how I'm not gay I guess I still have a shot at eternity in the invisible space fortress.
 
2006-12-18 12:08:56 PM  
Action Replay Nick: An even better hypothetical. Hate god, don't believe, think whatever you want, as long as there is not man-on-man buttsex Sky Wizard issues you one ticket to paradise. Seems pretty arbitrary but seeing as how I'm not gay I guess I still have a shot at eternity in the invisible space fortress.

You're kinda making it into a straw-man at this point.

The idea is to live in such a way that you'll be compatible with the rest of humanity, and everyone will get along without murdering each other because of whatever differences.

Yes, I know in practise that doesn't work so long, but that's the theory behind all these religions.

It's not so much that buttsecks is bad, but that man-on-man buttsecks does not lead to what the religious leaders consider to be the most stable family structure--the whole mom, dad, and the kids thing.

A stable family structure leads to a stable society, and a stable society tends to prosper--or so goes the theory.

/See what I'm getting at here?
 
2006-12-18 12:09:00 PM  
muninsfire: Why not?

The individual congregations paid for it.


It belongs to the diocese if I understand correctly.

If they don't want to be part of the diocese any longer that is fine. They don't get automatic rights to the property.

The Diocese should not have to take a loss just because these congregations have decided to have a tantrum.
 
2006-12-18 12:11:53 PM  
LyleDAL: It belongs to the diocese if I understand correctly.

I suppose that it depends on the area, and the agreements that the individual congregations have.

Note, though, that without a congregation, the diocese now has a vacant building with no income coming in to keep it up--so it would be in the dioceses' best interest to let them have the buildings, if only from the property tax, electricity, heating, water, and maintenence issues' standpoints.
 
2006-12-18 12:12:49 PM  
muninsfire

It's not so much that buttsecks is bad, but that man-on-man buttsecks does not lead to what the religious leaders consider to be the most stable family structure--the whole mom, dad, and the kids thing.

So people who are committed to remaining single and childless, single parents, and people unable to procreate are also considered undesirable sinners counterproductive to a stable society as well?

You're kinda making it into a straw-man at this point.

Hey god can get his ass into this thread and correct me anytime he wants!
 
2006-12-18 12:14:42 PM  
This really boils down to the arrogance of the ECUSA, in saying, " We don't care what the tradition of the church is or what the millions of other anglicans around the world feel. We're going to do what we want." So they elected Vicki Imogene Robinson, a man who had an adulterous homosexual relationship and later left his wife, as a Dioscene Bishop!

A free society should not deny full rights to any of its citizens, but a religion has certain moral tenets to which it adheres and to simply flout these because of one's own intellectual/politically correct arrogance is wrong.

"If it feels good, do it" is not a part of any major religion or societal moral code, beacuse the end result of moral relativism is chaos.

/practicing Episcopalian
//voted yes for gay civil union in TN
 
2006-12-18 12:18:07 PM  
muninsfire: I suppose that it depends on the area, and the agreements that the individual congregations have.

I could be wrong but I thought it was dependent mostly on the local Bishop.

As for the property, the diocese can easily sell for cash as opposed to letting it go with the congregation for nothing.

Basically, I would make it simple for the PEOPLE to leave. They clearly have irreconcilable differences with the greater organization. However, unless the people want to pony up the cost of the property they'd like to keep then they should not get to keep it.
 
2006-12-18 12:19:57 PM  
Action Replay Nick: So people who are committed to remaining single and childless, single parents, and people unable to procreate are also considered undesirable sinners counterproductive to a stable society as well?

Not necessarily.

What you're looking at is one issue without the context of the entire society that said issue is involved in, instead taking it in the context of your life.

I've no problems with your life, understand, just noting that it's not the appropriate context to view this in.

Instead, look at the context of a small village. Single, childless people would not be forming relationships with each other, but would be contributing to the society of the village in other ways, such as working in the fields or guarding or whatnot. Single parents could potentially ask some of those single people for help in raising their children (which, if we're going for the Jewish context here, would be likely freely given). People unable to procreate would help raise the children of those who were able to, or would take in orphans or some such.

In said context, a couple of guys having sex would be potentially counterproductive to the stability of that arrangement. Note that I said "potentially" and note that I do not necessarily agree with that prohibition--just trying to point out the context in which the belief is held.

Once you put the appropriate context on the belief, then it becomes more reasonable.

And yes, today's society is not that of a 12th century village, but a more globalized society that behaves rather differently, so some of those restrictions and traditions make less sense--however, if you're a part of a community of people who keep the traditional values, you still have the 'village' thing going on with the other people in your community, so there is the potential for them to apply.

In the end, though, if you're not part of a community, you ought not criticize how they make their lives work, if it doesn't affect you--and they ought not criticize how you make your life work, if it doesn't affect them.
 
2006-12-18 12:21:03 PM  
LyleDAL: I could be wrong but I thought it was dependent mostly on the local Bishop.

Probably. I'm not episcopalian.

As for the property, the diocese can easily sell for cash as opposed to letting it go with the congregation for nothing.

To whom? You don't get a lot of money for a church building, y'know.

Basically, I would make it simple for the PEOPLE to leave. They clearly have irreconcilable differences with the greater organization. However, unless the people want to pony up the cost of the property they'd like to keep then they should not get to keep it.

But what would be the *Christian* thing to do? ;-þ
 
2006-12-18 12:25:39 PM  
muninsfire: In said context, a couple of guys having sex would be potentially counterproductive to the stability of that arrangement.

I know you said "potentially" but I'd still like to know in what way the two guys are even a potential problem.

The gay guys are still going to work and contribute to the economic life of this village. They are going to care for the kids of their straight relations and friends. They are going to behave in exactly the same ways as any other infertile couple in that village.
 
2006-12-18 12:28:05 PM  
LyleDAL: I know you said "potentially" but I'd still like to know in what way the two guys are even a potential problem.

The gay guys are still going to work and contribute to the economic life of this village. They are going to care for the kids of their straight relations and friends. They are going to behave in exactly the same ways as any other infertile couple in that village.


That's two more 'infertile' people who aren't *really* infertile--who are potentially parents, and potentially very *good* parents--than they'd otherwise have, leaving two women (assuming equal population) without male company for procreation.

This way leads towards polygamy, which can get sticky--entendre fully intended.
 
2006-12-18 12:32:46 PM  
muninsfire: o whom? You don't get a lot of money for a church building, y'know.

Land has value. If it were to cease being a church then so be it. Somebody would buy the property.

Anyway, who is to say that the diocese couldn't establish a new congregation in that newly vacant space? My guess is that in a situation like this not everyone in a particular congregation is going to agree with the decision to leave. They'd easily form the seed of a new organization to take the place of those folks that left.

But what would be the *Christian* thing to do? ;-þ

While I can assure you that I have an opinion on what the more Christian position in the debate over gays in the church would be it really doesn't matter. The dispensation of the church's property is a business decision. The Diocese should not have to take a financial hit because of this.
 
2006-12-18 12:33:22 PM  
muninsfire
This way leads towards polygamy

And people marrying their dogs!

And DANCING!!1!
 
2006-12-18 12:35:34 PM  
Action Replay Nick: And DANCING!!1!

With DOGS??

www.milkandhoneyfarm.com

COMES NOW THE APOCALYPSE!
 
2006-12-18 12:36:11 PM  
LyleDAL: Anyway, who is to say that the diocese couldn't establish a new congregation in that newly vacant space? My guess is that in a situation like this not everyone in a particular congregation is going to agree with the decision to leave. They'd easily form the seed of a new organization to take the place of those folks that left.

It would not be nearly as large, though, and there'd be a great deal of bad blood.

While I can assure you that I have an opinion on what the more Christian position in the debate over gays in the church would be it really doesn't matter. The dispensation of the church's property is a business decision. The Diocese should not have to take a financial hit because of this.

One of the more interesting parts of an accounting class I took was the discussion of 'goodwill'--that is to say, the value of people's existing relationship with a business, and the prospect of their repeat business even after a business has changed hands.

By kicking people out of the building that they have been using, the diocese would lose a great deal of 'goodwill' with the surrounding community.

Also, the "official" "Christian" response would be to wish them luck and to make the break as amicable as possible, probably with some rhetoric about how they hope to rejoin in the future as brothers and sisters in Christ, etc.

IIRC, that's the sort of thing that happened when there was a split in one of those other protestant denominations a few years back.
 
2006-12-18 12:36:53 PM  
Action Replay Nick: And people marrying their dogs!

And DANCING!!1!


At least they're not turtle-farking.

And I've never understood the prohibition on dancing. Haven't these people ever read their bibles? Says that various people danced all the way through the damn thing...
 
2006-12-18 12:40:41 PM  
muninsfire: And I've never understood the prohibition on dancing. Haven't these people ever read their bibles? Says that various people danced all the way through the damn thing...

I guess this is drifting off topic but...

Baptist confuse me.

Do other Christian denominations have prohibitions on dancing?

Haven't these people ever read their bibles?

That is a very good question.
 
2006-12-18 12:40:46 PM  
Common sense is rarely used in religious infighting, but wouldn't it make sense to look at it from a balance sheet perspective?

If the parish's contributions to the church are greater than what the church spent to buy/build/maintain the property, it's theirs. Otherwise they owe the difference if they want to keep it.

As far as the reasons for the split, most Christians I've met believe the entire Bible is the infallible word of God.

Given this, they view homosexuality as a sin and would never give church membership to an "unrepentent sinner" no matter how much they love them and accept them as God's children.

When the organization they belong to bows to political correctness and, in their eyes, violates God's word, they have a moral obligation to distance themselves from it.

Personally, I just hope they practice what they preach and settle it without going to court.
 
2006-12-18 12:42:49 PM  
LyleDAL: Baptist confuse me.

Do other Christian denominations have prohibitions on dancing?


Not that I've ever seen. Baptists seem to have the most whacked out belief system of any of the 'mainstream' (i.e., not JWs or Mormons or whatnot) Protestant sects.

That is a very good question.

I'm convinced that many of the more virulently born-again types have not actually read the whole thing, but just a few select 'recommended passages'.
 
2006-12-18 12:51:36 PM  
procrastin8or
When the organization they belong to bows to political correctness and, in their eyes, violates God's word, they have a moral obligation to distance themselves from it.

Eh, I tend to think all this anti-gay sh*t is a lot less about "moral obligations" and more about being a mean-spirited asshole. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are "unrepentant" about other "sins", like premarital sex or gambling. Gay sex seems to have been elevated in severity as it provides a nice excuse to be mean to people one doesn't like.
 
2006-12-18 12:52:47 PM  
mysticcat: This really boils down to the arrogance of the ECUSA

the Anglicans exist only because of the "arrogance" of a particular British monarch when he decided he wanted to do something that was counter to church doctrine.

How do you pick and choose which acts of arrogance are A-OK and which are worthy of your scorn?
 
2006-12-18 12:54:01 PM  
LyleDAL: counter to church doctrine.

Should have read "counter to Catholic doctrine"
 
2006-12-18 12:55:27 PM  
Action Replay Nick: Eh, I tend to think all this anti-gay sh*t is a lot less about "moral obligations" and more about being a mean-spirited asshole. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are "unrepentant" about other "sins", like premarital sex or gambling. Gay sex seems to have been elevated in severity as it provides a nice excuse to be mean to people one doesn't like.

Actually, theft and cheating in business are seen as worse sins

The very first question that we are held accountable for after our deaths by G-d is "Nasata V'netata Be'emunah" which means "did you conduct your business affairs with honesty and with probity?"
 
2006-12-18 01:01:10 PM  
Tatsuma: The very first question that we are held accountable for after our deaths by G-d is "Nasata V'netata Be'emunah" which means "did you conduct your business affairs with honesty and with probity?"

You've heard the one about the Jews who see the sign "Convert to christianity and get $5", right?
 
2006-12-18 01:11:58 PM  
Fark, I wish I could quit you.
 
2006-12-18 01:13:25 PM  
Dumb all over and a little ugly on the side.
 
2006-12-18 01:13:37 PM  
homophobes are scum.
 
2006-12-18 01:13:49 PM  
I "guessed" right on the first try.
 
2006-12-18 01:14:22 PM  
I have a problem with this headline, submitter. I think you should have put an exclamation point after the JC, because it looks like you're talking to him instead of just using it as an exclamation. And I think he probably knew before you told him.

/HOLY SCHNIKES!
 
2006-12-18 01:14:55 PM  
Good riddance. The Episcopal Church and all religion for that matter is better without those kinds of idiots.
 
2006-12-18 01:15:05 PM  
If they don't like the positions of the gays, maybe they should try pitching instead of catching.
 
2006-12-18 01:15:10 PM  
www.myimagebuddy.com

All my friends are quitting smoking cold turkey...
what's next HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM?

(a cough is heard from the audience)

I have many different friends but they are all in same-sex marriages. Once they get married the sex is all the same.... NON-EXISTENT!

(crickets)

Once they get married the sex is all the same....
what's next HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM?

(angry rumblings)

Soundman, for the love of God, play "Stars and Stripes" before they tear this place apart!
 
Displayed 50 of 843 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report