US Episcopal Church=PunkAssBitch
 

As I have stated before biblical sodomy encompasses many things, not just same sex relations or anal sex.
So, how does someone today upgrade one part of one of 614 abominations to sin on a whim?
To me it is their sexual obsession and closet homoerotisim that they are unable to deal with coming out as anger and the need to punish others for what they want to do.
There is nothing biblical about it being a sin... that is a myth.

But, for the sake of argument we will pretend that it is a sin, though it is not... so what?
Is a requirement of being a priest in the Episcopal/Anglican church never to have sinned, not to be able to ever sin?
I was under the impression that we are all sinners, that we lust in our heart, tell white lies, etc, etc, etc.... even priests.
How is this one "sin" not even names in the bible worse than the ones, oh say, like on the commandments.
"I wash my dishes on Sunday"... "You can go ahead and be a priest even though that is a mortal sin. We just don't want anyone with one of those unnamed sins, they freak us out".

why exactly does it piss you off so badly what people in a religion you don't believe in choose to do with their clergy that will have absolutely no effect on your life?

seriously, why the constant rage?

These people are afraid of what they don't understand, so they look to their most trusted source for answers. And when you are looking for evidence that agrees with what you think, regardless if it is correct or not, you're usually going to find it. You want something to be true so you find a way for it to be "true".
They believe this one thing, and are choosing to run their private organization that way. Nothing wrong with that. Of course they are incorrect about gays, but they are well within their rights to exclude them from leadership positions in their private organization.

Both the major Episcopalian churches in my town have run off and joined the Africans because they refuse to approve anything having to do with homosexuals. In one of them, I was confirmed, and my children were baptised. It makes me sad and sick.

The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree that organized religion is a blight upon humanity. Bigotry, hatred, and murder have been the most lasting legacy, unfortunately outweighing the good that faith and good works have done.

Stop stalking me punk, do you have a crush or something?
I guess no one should speak out against the Klan then, right, they are a private club that just utilizes their free speech rights and excludes who they like?

don't flatter yourself fukstik. i figured you posted your thread to spark discussion, so i'm discussing. got an answer for the question or do you want to stick with the weak diversion?

and if you want to compare the organizations, when is the last time a bunch of episcopalians marched around burning crosses?

Asking why I posted it is not discussion.
Try again Dr. ad hominem.

Is what you do Poisoning the Well?

The American Episcopal Church is evolving. They are breaking with long-standing traditions and beliefs, some back-sliding is to be expected. Your hatred of religion blinds you to the fact that all bureacracies have difficulty changing. I wish they could make positive change happen seamlessly, but they can't they are people like you and me. People are not perfect.

That's true. The American Episcopal church is the most liberal and accepting of all the major churches. And this is the one rkzenrage is attacking?

The only reason this is in the news is because they are talking about what role gays should have in church leadership. In the leadership!! Other religions don't even want you as a member if you are openly gay, let alone in the leadership.

And not just religions. Look at what happens when sportsmen come out.

i didn't ask you why you posted it. try reading my post before you get all defensive. I asked you why it pissed you off badly enough to post it. I'm still curious.

you don't believe in what that church believes? cool.
you don't want to join? cool.
you think they are full off shit? cool.
they don't want gays in leadership? cool. it is their club, let them have it. why does it piss you off so badly that a club based on ideas you don't believe in doesn't want a certain person in a leadership position?

in theory i could understand a member of the church being upset that a gay priest they know isn't allowed a leadership position because he's gay... but you aren't a member. you're just a hater.

they sell books?

True. Lousy pretend gheys.

who said they were pretend? i was just thinking of the basketball player last year that wrote a book to come out. my thought was, and is, who cares? you're a has been athlete, do i really care who you're bumping and grinding with?
i don't care who is gay or straight.

I was joking - interested in the idea that a professional sportsperson could make more money by pretending to be gay to continue to be in the spotlight after retiring.

I think it says something about the homophobia in sport that it does become a bestseller. Can you imagine a retired popstar writing a book about the fact that they're gay? People would probably think, "Why wait til now and make a big issue out of it? Why not get some great cock when you were at the height of your sucess?"

i actually lose respect (what little i had) for these celebrities that have big coming out parties. seriously, who cares? book tours? interviews?

The one?
You must only be reading a few threads. :D
I have always thought the argument that an organization, party, anything, was doing X amount of good outweighs any negative thing they do, no matter how heinous and/or hypocritical, and makes them immune to criticism. It is a ridiculous statement.
Try again.

Go over to the thread where I call out the Catholic Church and get onto me there glatt... please, I never get tired of hearing what an asshole I am from you.
Please, defend them for me baby... I need it. LOL!
They do so much goood we need to look the other way, right?

:rolleyes:

It's ok Glatt, at least you don't have a one trick pony talking shi... oh, nevermind.

Cool, as long as you feel the same way about the White Power movement.

exactly. why should i be upset if the white power movement requires their leadership to be at least 6 feet tall and have blue eyes? it is their organization, not mine.

The problem is that the church makes it their business to try to get into schools, politics, they are a business that does not pay taxes, they bill themselves as a social service while excluding minorities.
They want the benefits of being a social service while having none of the accountability.
It is time that stopped.
No tax exemption, no breaking of the threshold of church and state in ANY way (that means no public endorsing of any politicians or rallies), no unsolicited evangelizing, no terrorizing/abuse of children with threats of eternal physical torture for unspecified "sinful" infringements or turning their back on some "god".
Religious personnel that serve no other purpose hold rank in the military, there is NO reason for that and it is in complete defiance of the Bill of Rights.
When these things stop, so will I.

So do they let those who have had sex before marriage, adultery, masturbated (ever) or a divorce become administrators?
Of course they do.
More and more, Punk-Ass-Bitches.
Again, why upgrade this one?
Clearly it is because they are hung-up and sexually repressed themselves.

I do feel the same way about the white power movement. In my opinion they are completely incorrect in their racist thinking, but as a private organization they have the right to run their organization how they like and exclude people from joining if they like. They are free to choose who they want in their organization. I'm not a member, I'm not trying to join but being rejected, so it's not my beef.

Right, the difference is that they do not try to influence anyone but their members, other than the occasional pre-arranged legal rally.
If that is all churches did, I would never talk about them.
You don't hear me complaining about the Jewish church, or Wiccans or others, why?
Because they don't try to infiltrate their beliefs beyond where they are wanted and are legally allowed.

cuz you haven't looked hard enough for news articles to whip you into a righteous rage?

All except religious freedom?

Religious freedom to...?

I'm all for religious freedom.
Believe anything you want.

No laws or government involvement IN ANY WAY in your belief is what is proper.

If you truly believe that, why are you so irate about the American Episocopal Church, among others?

The problem I have is with people twisting the tenets of a religion into pretzels to suit their own agenda, so they can get a piece of what they see someone else is having fun doing. Divorce, sex before marriage, homosexuality, boiling a kid in it's mother's milk, whatever.

I have trouble with bigoted hypocrites, especially those who proclaim to be organizations of love and inclusions.
It is separate from my problem with organized religion... well... they meld as they cannot really be separated because you cannot have religion without having bigotry now can you?
I support their right as a group to include who they like, but I reserve mine to call them on their bullshit when they take a stand in the right direction then back-off for cash.
It's fo' da chillin'.

I am all for personal religious freedom, as long as it stays out of the government in all ways, no breech of separation of church and state, and breaks no laws, no special treatment in ANY way.
You teach a kid that hell is real it should be treated in the courts the same way as if you told him you knew a serial killer down the street that will torture him forever if he breaks your rules... as abuse, which is what it is.

Would we be so understanding of this 'club' if they were saying they didn't want anyone who wasnt white in their leadership?

sure. if that was one of their core beliefs. I would call them idiots and move on about my day. there is nothing there for me to take exception with. It is their organization they can run it how they want. If they want a one legged three breasted pygmy as their leader because they have extra special communications with God, then cool by them. If they start campaigning that one legged three breasted pygmies are the only ones eligible to be in charge of the country, then i'll take notice.

I've got no issue with the administration of the NAACP, Black Panthers, The Order or the Klan. Neither has ever pretended to be something they are not.

In the US, at least, Mitt Romney's Mormonism recalled that religion's unpleasant racial history (imagine if they still had the same doctrine!), but the similar treatment of women by Catholics hasn't tainted the candidacies of all the candidates of that faith.

So I hear they are finally going to make the split.

So, would they have suspended him for eating crab legs or wearing mixed thread garments?
This is sick.
So much for "loving the sinner", even though it is not a sin and they, even the "experts" don't know the difference between a sin and an abomination. Pathetic.
As always, what they teach is derision, separation, hate and separation... everything they profess to represent, teach and spread is a lie... it is the exact opposite, consistently.

What the fuck does this have to do with the US Episcopal church?

Better here than in a new thread...

priests are not supposed to have sex with anyone regardless of their sex age or shoe size.

According to catholic law, he should have been fired for breaking the rules.

That's no reflection on what I personally believe of the catholic church. It's a simple statement of fact.

Also, what Bruce said.

Edit: Actually, priests don't get fired. They get defrocked, which in my opinion sounds a bit saucy anyway.

it has exactly nothing to do with the episcopal church. the common themes here are religion, rage, and a poster.

oooohhhh... an editorial... how hip!

It never stated he had sex with anyone... just that he may be gay, not even a sin. Just an abomination... gotta' kick out the ones who eat crab too now.
Wait, not that eat crab, that like crab.

OK, the phrase in one article is 'making advances'. Whether he actually ended up having sex or not is moot, because making advances is enough under catholic law.

He's going to hell no matter what!

Archbishop Desmond Tutu's wise words on this topic:

(quoted from Wikipedia, but I'm sure there are other sources out there)