Split in Church of England

**Rhyfelwyr** · 07-08-2008, 23:58

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7496216.stm

I'm not sure which side to take over this issue. There does seem to be some foundations for the argument against women bishops, but they are a little vague and the history of male bishops is irrelevant.

Hopefully things will not get to the point where they appoint openly homosexual bishops as has been done elsewhere. There can be a debate over women bishops, but no discussion regarding homosexual bishops.

One thing that surprised me was the talk of reconciliation with the Catholic Church. The BBC always struck me as being a bit hostile towards Rome. But then Anglicans IMO may as well be Catholic, if they want such a hierarchical structure then the Pope seems a better candidate than the Royal Family.

I'm Church of Scotland anyway so I suppose its not my problem.

Well at least officialy, I'm not sure if I believe in predestination. Does that put me somewhere between a Calvinist and a Lutheran?

**Ronin** · 07-09-2008, 00:59

to paraphrase the great Bill Hicks...

"hell..make the women bishops....then there will bishops of 2 sexes I don´t listen too"

It´s their silly organization....they can make their own silly rules to their hearts content.

NEXT!

**Louis VI the Fat** · 07-09-2008, 01:12

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

One thing that surprised me was the talk of reconciliation with the Catholic Church. The BBC always struck me as being a bit hostile towards Rome. But then Anglicans IMO may as well be Catholic, if they want such a hierarchical structure then the Pope seems a better candidate than the Royal Family.

Do you see, InsaneApache!? Do you see!

NOW who was right about that Tony Blair quote, eh?

**InsaneApache** · 07-10-2008, 17:54

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Do you see, InsaneApache!? Do you see!

NOW who was right about that Tony Blair quote, eh?

Are you a gay christian?

"Come out of the toilet, so to speak!"

**Adrian II** · 07-09-2008, 01:24

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

There can be a debate over women bishops, but no discussion regarding homosexual bishops.

Oh yes, there can. Give it five years.

**Redleg** · 07-09-2008, 01:32

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7496216.stm
Hopefully things will not get to the point where they appoint openly homosexual bishops as has been done elsewhere. There can be a debate over women bishops, but no discussion regarding homosexual bishops.

Here in the states the Espicol (SP?) Church, has alreadly split over the issue of homosexual bishops. Its revelant since the church uses as its basis the Church of England

**Xiahou** · 07-09-2008, 02:34

I think their arguments against women bishops went out the window when they allowed women priests. If one, why not the other?

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 07-09-2008, 02:45

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I think their arguments against women bishops went out the window when they allowed women priests. If one, why not the other?

Well, not necessarily, because, as the article says,

Roman Catholic leaders believe this goes against the will of Christ, who chose only men as his apostles.

That being said, I'm not Anglican, so I don't care.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 07-09-2008, 03:28

The liberal branch of the Anglican Church is the one that most closely resembles the church of the anti-Christ in relation to the image that I had in my head since I was a kid. I seriously think that it is what the founders believed would come about prior to the end times; Priests in full vestments that preach Biblical corruption and espouse leaving your wife and children and engaging in extra-marital homosexuality.

That branch is like the un-Holy Church of the Trinity: Vanity, Lust and the tide of popular Opinion.

I'm not saying that this is what it is obviously, but if somebody started dressing up and acting like what I believe a cowboy looked like, I would probably say "Hey, You look like a cowboy!"

High Church Conservative Anglican/Episcopalians simply should be aligned with the Pope in Rome. They could have their own rite and mass (like the Eastern Rite Catholics, etc.). Conservatives of all Christian denominations will find more and more solace in this church over the coming decades from what these trends show us. The second they begin defending their tradition their eyes open up to what the decent people in the Roman Church have been saying since the reformation.

The bible has very different opinions from modern popular culture. It is exceedingly bizarre to attempt to bend the bible to fit the secular mold.

**Devastatin Dave** · 07-09-2008, 07:14

Are these chicks like real butchy lesbos or something? Whats the big deal? Man, gay folks just can't figure out what the hell they want.

**Xiahou** · 07-09-2008, 15:11

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Well, not necessarily, because, as the article says,

Yes, and that was the same argument against women priests. It didn't stop them then, so I can't see why it would make any difference now.

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 07-09-2008, 15:28

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Yes, and that was the same argument against women priests. It didn't stop them then, so I can't see why it would make any difference now.

Well, that's the business of the Anglicans. I just hope it won't happen in the Catholic Church (which it probably won't in my lifetime).

**ICantSpellDawg** · 07-09-2008, 15:43

I hate modular inconsistency. If you say that you are Christian and follow the Bible - follow the Bible. Even if you live in modern society. If you sin, repent - don't ask the church not to consider your sin a sin.

Btw - There are new Islamic banks that get rid of usurious fees. I have to work on my unforgiving wrath and my heavy addiction to internet pornography. Also, I need to marry my girlfriend to get out of this terminal state of sin. I think that I'm going to become a fundamentalist Catholic and see how that works for me.

I have a dichotomy in my understanding of the world. One part of me literally believes that there is no right or wrong. Anytime I hear about rights for gays beyond equal rights of all man in gods eyes, I get confused. If there is no real historical basis for the acceptance of their sinful acts (not the fact that they are alive) and the Bible treat it as an abomination; Where did we get the idea that it is "right" to allow them to marry or become bishops? We are literally starting to pull rights out of thin air and defending them with all ferocity.

I understand why people might want to allow a "Gay" bishop who is celibate and repents of his sins against god. If he views homosexual acts as abominable and takes any vows that he has made with the utmost sincerity, Then I'm not all that sure about my opinion on it.

When you give a bishopric to a guy like Gene Robinson, who left his wife and kids to start banging some dude as a priest and then moved into the rectory with him out of wedlock and continues to live an unrepentant abominable lifestyle - You are insane if you think that is appropriate in a Christian church.

Priests who are unrepentant in theft, murder, hetero/homo adultery or the use of gods name in vain too often etc should be eliminated from the runnings of Bishop and possibly "defrocked".

Also - Jesus took no women to join him as one of the 12 disciples. Are you saying that he was wrong and sexist? Thats what you'd say if he lived today. What makes you more knowledgeable about right and wrong than Jesus (If you are a Christian)?

Come back to the mother church. Hierarchy is here for a reason. The church was never meant to be a representative democracy.