Gay Bishop to lead Obama's inauguration week prayer

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481
Obama takes both sides of an issue and never actually offers his real views on hard, controversial subjects that don't lend themselves to easy compromises? I'm shocked at this turn of events

Yeap....


The first time he is forced to make a 'hard' choice it will be interesting to see what he does.

If there is one thing above all else that I'm looking forward to with the Obama administration, it's having less of this black and white worldview injected into every single political discussion. Sure, you guys will still TALK about it, but at least it won't be the approach of the people actually running the country.

Very few real world issues are binary ones, there is not all in on one side or the other...and intelligent leader, hell an intelligent PERSON, knows that hard decisions hardly every involve taking a hard and fast stand 100% one way or the other.

Obama obviously doesn't support gay rights as much as I might like, but he's also willing to extend a olive branch to gay rights advocates who are a little pissed. Do you guys really think that's a BAD approach to leading a country with 300 million people in it? I'd say that's a dramatic improvement over the grade-school simplicity that has been embraced by the current administration and its supporters.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: halik
Errr gay bishop?

Isn't that in itself hypocritical?

let he who is without sin throw the first stone

Yeah, you missed the end of that story:"... go and sin no more."

I'm don't consider myself religious, but having a gay pastor to me makes about as much sense as having a practicing contract killer pastor. Neither one follows the scripture.

What percentage of Pastors, Priests, etc actually follow it to the letter anyway?


They are all about as bat-shit crazy as it gets...gay, straight, or otherwise. They all interpret the book in whatever way they think will pry the most $$$ from their congregation on a weekly basis.

Yeah that's why they're hypocrites also, but that doesn't excuse this particular guy either. As a christian priest you're supposed to be a paragon to the people.

I really don't see how you can subscribe to the dogma and comfortably ignore the parts that talk about your sexual orientation. If that's ok, then you might as well have the swinger priest, combo christian/hindu priest (save time!), the klepto priest etc.

By that reasoning, NOBODY should be a priest...since not a single one of them dogmatically follow every single bit of admonition and guidance in the Bible. Homosexuality isn't called out any more than a lot of other prohibited behaviors in the Christian faith that Christians pretty regularly ignore, people just like to pretend that it is.

Edit: And priests are Catholic, which this Bishop is not. American Christians in various sects disagree on a whole lot of things, why can't homosexuality be one of them? It's not exactly a core part of the faith.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: halik
Errr gay bishop?

Isn't that in itself hypocritical?

let he who is without sin throw the first stone

Yeah, you missed the end of that story:"... go and sin no more."

I'm don't consider myself religious, but having a gay pastor to me makes about as much sense as having a practicing contract killer pastor. Your job is to steer people clear of sins and lead them to haven/jesus/* ... being a practicing gay guy doesn't exactly set a good example.

Yea, but what person is not constantly sinning?

Not exactly apples to apples to compare a hitman pastor with one that likes to take a cock in his asshole and mouth.

edit: and like Rainsford said, by your line of thinking no man should be a pastor. Everyone's a sinner. Point of Jesus is to accept that we sin and God was merciful enough to forgive our sins without having to kill a goat.

 

[Stoneburner]

Obama really screwed this up. Instead of putting up a homosexual and a homophobe against each other, he should have saved tax payer money and just hired Ted Haggard to do the whole thing.

Smaller, more efficient government Obama? You failed your first test.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: halik
Yeah that's why they're hypocrites also, but that doesn't excuse this particular guy either. As a christian priest you're supposed to be a paragon to the people.

I really don't see how you can subscribe to the dogma and comfortably ignore the parts that talk about your sexual orientation. If that's ok, then you might as well have the swinger priest, combo christian/hindu priest (save time!), the klepto priest etc.

You mean... the parts in Leviticus, which is pretty much gleefully ignored when it warns against eating shellfish, wearing clothing of two different materials, men shearing the hair from their temples, etc?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: halik
Yeah that's why they're hypocrites also, but that doesn't excuse this particular guy either. As a christian priest you're supposed to be a paragon to the people.

I really don't see how you can subscribe to the dogma and comfortably ignore the parts that talk about your sexual orientation. If that's ok, then you might as well have the swinger priest, combo christian/hindu priest (save time!), the klepto priest etc.

You mean... the parts in Leviticus, which is pretty much gleefully ignored when it warns against eating shellfish, wearing clothing of two different materials, men shearing the hair from their temples, etc?

Diet restrictions, fashion and hair styling? GAY GAY GAY!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: halik
Yeah that's why they're hypocrites also, but that doesn't excuse this particular guy either. As a christian priest you're supposed to be a paragon to the people.

I really don't see how you can subscribe to the dogma and comfortably ignore the parts that talk about your sexual orientation. If that's ok, then you might as well have the swinger priest, combo christian/hindu priest (save time!), the klepto priest etc.

You mean... the parts in Leviticus, which is pretty much gleefully ignored when it warns against eating shellfish, wearing clothing of two different materials, men shearing the hair from their temples, etc?

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: halik
Yeah that's why they're hypocrites also, but that doesn't excuse this particular guy either. As a christian priest you're supposed to be a paragon to the people.

I really don't see how you can subscribe to the dogma and comfortably ignore the parts that talk about your sexual orientation. If that's ok, then you might as well have the swinger priest, combo christian/hindu priest (save time!), the klepto priest etc.

You mean... the parts in Leviticus, which is pretty much gleefully ignored when it warns against eating shellfish, wearing clothing of two different materials, men shearing the hair from their temples, etc?

Yeah,
not to mention getting stoned for:
- cursing at your parents
- incest
- inter species erotica (5 points if you know the reference)
- being Miss Cleo
- using Lord's name in vain

Don't hate the messenger though, I'm not the religious one here, that guy is. I'm only trying to point out the absurdity in having a gay christian priest.

 

[sportage]

You think the gay bishop is news? Wait till you hear the new whitehouse cook drives a VW wagon...!!!!!! And..and one of the new secret service actually subscribes to Netflix...!!!!!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: sportage
You think the gay bishop is news? Wait till you hear the new whitehouse cook drives a VW wagon...!!!!!! And..and one of the new secret service actually subscribes to Netflix...!!!!!

people who happen to work for him that he's never met < people he specifically and deliberately chose to represent a part of him in an event that's full of ceremony and symbolism that will be watched the world over.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: sportage
You think the gay bishop is news? Wait till you hear the new whitehouse cook drives a VW wagon...!!!!!! And..and one of the new secret service actually subscribes to Netflix...!!!!!

people who happen to work for him that he's never met < people he specifically and deliberately chose to represent a part of him in an event that's full of ceremony and symbolism that will be watched the world over.

You think he specifically picked Warren to symbolize a specific stance on the gay rights issue? Out of all the many things that choice COULD have stood for, I think gay rights was picked because it was the most interesting to people on both sides of the issue, NOT because it was especially accurate.

 

[Deeko]

You guys are classic. I can't believe you're finding ways to attack Obama for doing things to please both sides.

 

[extra]

Oh noez, not the gays!!!111 Oh noez, not the guys who don't like gays!!!11 ... Seriously? Attacking him for inviting some guys to talk is *really* stretching it guys.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: halik
Yeah,
not to mention getting stoned for:
- cursing at your parents
- incest
- inter species erotica (5 points if you know the reference)
- being Miss Cleo
- using Lord's name in vain

Don't hate the messenger though, I'm not the religious one here, that guy is. I'm only trying to point out the absurdity in having a gay christian priest.

There's nothing absurd in a Protestant Christian denomination that accepts homosexuality having a gay bishop. Some denominations believe that you should follow Christ's teachings to lead a good life; being good unto others, being humble, being charitable, etc. Just because they do not ascribe to the writings of Leviticus does not make them bad Christians...

I'm not Christian myself, nor do I consider myself religious in any way. That said, I do work for an Episcopal school, and while I may disagree with the religion that the head chaplain here espouses, I have never met a nicer person in my life. I'm willing to bet he doesn't follow the Bible to a T either, but as long as he adheres to the basic tenets of the Episcopal faith, I wouldn't think that the Church would have a problem with him either (and the Episcopalians are one of the larger denominations that perform gay wedding ceremonies). Why should it be different for the bishop Obama intends to use?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Obama really screwed this up. Instead of putting up a homosexual and a homophobe against each other, he should have saved tax payer money and just hired Ted Haggard to do the whole thing.

Smaller, more efficient government Obama? You failed your first test.

D'OH! Missed the 2 fer 1 sale!

 

[cyclohexane]

Why do I not give a shit? Seriously, how does any of this trivial crap matter? As long as he's got a good plan to fix the economy, I could care less who he invites to speak at the inauguration.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: halik
Yeah that's why they're hypocrites also, but that doesn't excuse this particular guy either. As a christian priest you're supposed to be a paragon to the people.

I really don't see how you can subscribe to the dogma and comfortably ignore the parts that talk about your sexual orientation. If that's ok, then you might as well have the swinger priest, combo christian/hindu priest (save time!), the klepto priest etc.

You mean... the parts in Leviticus, which is pretty much gleefully ignored when it warns against eating shellfish, wearing clothing of two different materials, men shearing the hair from their temples, etc?

Yeah,
not to mention getting stoned for:
- cursing at your parents
- incest
- inter species erotica (5 points if you know the reference)
- being Miss Cleo
- using Lord's name in vain

Don't hate the messenger though, I'm not the religious one here, that guy is. I'm only trying to point out the absurdity in having a gay christian priest.

What is absurd is judging a modern Christian Bishop by old testament, fundi' values.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jonks
He had to have planned this all along. Piss off the libs with Rick Warren, then put out the fire just before the inauguration. Not just a pro-gay bishop or a bishop accepting of gays, but an actual gay bishop.

I didn't have any skin in the game either way about the Warren pick, it seemed BO's MO at this point of picking people one wouldn't expect. I imagine many on the right won't take this any better than the adament left did Warren.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/go...bama-inauguration.html

After Rick Warren Flap, Gay Episcopal Bishop Tapped for Obama Inauguration
January 12, 2009 11:24 AM ET | Dan Gilgoff | Permanent Link | Print
The Episcopal Café has gotten word that the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay man to be ordained a bishop in the Episcopal Church?provoking a national rift in the church?has been invited by Barack Obama to give the invocation to kick off at inauguration week. The symbolism here is obvious: Obama's invitation to Rick Warren to give the invocation on Inauguration Day triggered a firestorm of criticism in the gay community because of Warren's disapproval of homosexuality and his advocacy against gay rights measures. The question is whether the gay community will accept this gesture as ample recompense. Robinson, for his part, sounds like he does:

It is also an indication of the new president's commitment to being the President of ALL the people. I am humbled and overjoyed at this invitation, and it will be my great honor to be there representing the Episcopal Church, the people of New Hampshire, and all of us in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

I'll be checking in with gay rights groups today to gauge whether other leaders are as ebullient. Picking Warren and Robinson, Obama is trying to satisfy two constituencies that are often diametrically opposed to one another. Rick Warren has gone so far as to invite conservative Episcopal parishes that have left the mother church over their objections to Robinson's ordination to meet on the grounds of his Southern California church, Saddleback. But because the inaugural events are purely ceremonial?which is not to say unimportant?why wouldn't he be able to pull it off?

There's no symmetry around the reaction of political groups - 'left hates one, right hates one'.

One is a voice for bigotry, one is not. There's no such 'symmetry' as implied in your original commentary.

Having said that, Warren seems to have some redeeming qualities leading him to soften his position lately - we'll see if that progresses.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: loki8481
the democratic party has a history of paying lip service to the gay community and then sweeping us into the kitchen when company comes over. it's oddly enough pretty comparable to the republican's relationship with the christian right. stuff like this just reinforces that in my mind, but there's going to have to be a time when they put up or shut up. Obama can't ride the fence forever and there are no compromises that are going to please everybody.

As a straight democrat who supports gay equality (not that gay agenda you guys have to force us all to wear pink all the time), I agree with your post.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: halik
Yeah that's why they're hypocrites also, but that doesn't excuse this particular guy either. As a christian priest you're supposed to be a paragon to the people.

I really don't see how you can subscribe to the dogma and comfortably ignore the parts that talk about your sexual orientation. If that's ok, then you might as well have the swinger priest, combo christian/hindu priest (save time!), the klepto priest etc.

You mean... the parts in Leviticus, which is pretty much gleefully ignored when it warns against eating shellfish, wearing clothing of two different materials, men shearing the hair from their temples, etc?

Yeah,
not to mention getting stoned for:
- cursing at your parents
- incest
- inter species erotica (5 points if you know the reference)
- being Miss Cleo
- using Lord's name in vain

Don't hate the messenger though, I'm not the religious one here, that guy is. I'm only trying to point out the absurdity in having a gay christian priest.

What is absurd is judging a modern Christian Bishop by old testament, fundi' values.

How far away from the Bible can you go and still consider yourself a Christian? Why bother at all when ultimately you'll end up doing whatever is convenient for you?

Like I said, can you be a swinger priest? Contract killer priest? I always figured if you want to subscribe to Christianity, you have to follow the rules... or at least try.


Disclaimer: I don't consider myself a christian or any other religious persuasion; it just doesn't make any sense to me to do it half assed if you do.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: halik
Errr gay bishop?

Isn't that in itself hypocritical?

let he who is without sin throw the first stone

Yeah, you missed the end of that story:"... go and sin no more."

I'm don't consider myself religious, but having a gay pastor to me makes about as much sense as having a practicing contract killer pastor. Your job is to steer people clear of sins and lead them to haven/jesus/* ... being a practicing gay guy doesn't exactly set a good example.

But not everyone thinks that being gay is a sin or that it precludes you from going to heaven.

I was born and raised Catholic and I never once got the impression that Jesus would have hated gays or denied them a place next to Him in heaven for being gay. Nor do I think Jesus would have castigated one of his apostles from having had the audacity to spread His word while being gay.

I do however; have the impression that Jesus would not have been pleased with His so called followers who think themselves divine enough to place judgment on others in His stead. He was actually pretty clear on judging others.

 

[her209]

Do people have sex in the afterlife?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: halik
Errr gay bishop?

Isn't that in itself hypocritical?

let he who is without sin throw the first stone

Yeah, you missed the end of that story:"... go and sin no more."

I'm don't consider myself religious, but having a gay pastor to me makes about as much sense as having a practicing contract killer pastor. Your job is to steer people clear of sins and lead them to haven/jesus/* ... being a practicing gay guy doesn't exactly set a good example.

But not everyone thinks that being gay is a sin or that it precludes you from going to heaven.

I was born and raised Catholic and I never once got the impression that Jesus would have hated gays or denied them a place next to Him in heaven for being gay. Nor do I think Jesus would have castigated one of his apostles from having had the audacity to spread His word while being gay.

I do however; have the impression that Jesus would not have been pleased with His so called followers who think themselves divine enough to place judgment on others in His stead. He was actually pretty clear on judging others.

Well not for being gay alone, but practicing gay = continuing sinner. So unless your argument is "everyone gets into heaven, regardless of what you do" it wouldn't work. Here's a good back test: replace the word "gay" with "contract killer" in what your wrote and see if you believe it (all sins are equal).

Also for the last time, I'm not a christian or follower of of Jesus. I'm merely drawing a conclusion based on the stories in the bible.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: halik
Well not for being gay alone, but practicing gay = continuing sinner. So unless your argument is "everyone gets into heaven, regardless of what you do" it wouldn't work. Here's a good back test: replace the word "gay" with "contract killer" in what your wrote and see if you believe it (all sins are equal).

Also for the last time, I'm not a christian or follower of of Jesus. I'm merely drawing a conclusion based on the stories in the bible.

Jesus H. Christ, I have never once in my life been Christian, and even I know that your logic is completely retarded. Jesus never once said "thou shalt not be queer;" that primarily came from Leviticus (who also said you shouldn't eat shrimp or fuck donkeys... he was a weird guy). The Ten Commandments, however, do make it pretty clear that you shouldn't kill people, and they are taken a lot more seriously by the Judeochristian religions than the writings of Leviticus, regardless of the fact that you can find both in the Bible. Jesus preached "do unto others," "love thy neighbor," etc.; contract killing pretty much flies directly in the face of these teachings. Homosexuality does not. So while certain branches of Christianity do condemn homosexuality with the Bible as a base, it is not the words of Jesus that they are using to do so, nor the Ten Commandments, which are fairly universal.

Good God man...

-EDIT- Also, since you've admitted to being a non-Christian, it seems to me a bit presumptuous on your part that you would think you would know more about the Christian religions than the various faiths that practice it. How the Hell can you possibly think you know more about Episcopalian Christianity than the Episcopal church? Are you daft?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: halik
Errr gay bishop?

Isn't that in itself hypocritical?

let he who is without sin throw the first stone

Yeah, you missed the end of that story:"... go and sin no more."

I'm don't consider myself religious, but having a gay pastor to me makes about as much sense as having a practicing contract killer pastor. Your job is to steer people clear of sins and lead them to haven/jesus/* ... being a practicing gay guy doesn't exactly set a good example.

But not everyone thinks that being gay is a sin or that it precludes you from going to heaven.

I was born and raised Catholic and I never once got the impression that Jesus would have hated gays or denied them a place next to Him in heaven for being gay. Nor do I think Jesus would have castigated one of his apostles from having had the audacity to spread His word while being gay.

I do however; have the impression that Jesus would not have been pleased with His so called followers who think themselves divine enough to place judgment on others in His stead. He was actually pretty clear on judging others.

Well not for being gay alone, but practicing gay = continuing sinner. So unless your argument is "everyone gets into heaven, regardless of what you do" it wouldn't work. Here's a good back test: replace the word "gay" with "contract killer" in what your wrote and see if you believe it (all sins are equal).

Also for the last time, I'm not a christian or follower of of Jesus. I'm merely drawing a conclusion based on the stories in the bible.

So was I.