The controversy over the appointment of the suffragan Bishop of Reading
 

Extracts from 2 emails quoted in today's Guardian.

1) "If you disagree with the Bible then refrain from reading it."
Indeed, but as long as fundamentalist Christians insist on trying to force the rest of us to follow their beliefs, I retain the right to criticise the Bible. Fair enough, is it not?

2) "What a loving Father we have who would send his Son for my sins and all of mankind's."
The unspoken Evangelical subtext is that if you do not believe this, then the same loving father will arrange for you to be tortured for all eternity. Would any Evangelical care to argue that this is doctrinally incorrect?

I thinks its pretty pathetic that we should live in a world where equal oppurtunities cant be offered even by religion. The fact he is gay does not make him any better or worse then if he was not gay. I cant see the problem of appointing him.

A further quote is "If the church has the authority to bless homosexuality . . . then why not polygamy?" One of the main stirrers of this controversy is the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria. I believe that polygamy is still a common occurrence in Nigeria. Would anyone care to supply some quotes from the Archbishop of Nigeria condemning polygamy in the same terms as he has comdemned homosexuality?

Who cares about his sexual orientation as long as he is doing his job right, he wouldn't have been appointed otherwise.

The controversy should only be if the Bishop consumates his relationship with his.....other half. He claims to be celibate for 27 years so I cannot see where he has sinned.

to be honest i couldnt care less being an atheist.

but just for my 2penneth i seem to remember my RE lessons at school, doesnt the bible denounce homosexuality? or was that me living in my head again?

sure someone will either back me up or blow my point out of the water...

:walk:

It points more to the sexual activities of homosexuals, rather than the people themselves.

"Who cares about his sexual orientation as long as he is doing his job right, he wouldn't have been appointed otherwise"

The C of E is no different from the catholic church, and that is full to the rafters with paedophile's and perverts, and they got the job, and it is covered up, where the hell does it end? no wonder the places are empty.......

To be honest I for one see no real place for ORGANISED religion in the world today.

If people want to believe in whatever deity they want then so be it, it is their entitlement, HOWEVER I refuse to let ANY of them try to impose their beliefs on me.

When you look at mainstream religion, and it doesn't matter which one, you see a doctrine founded in the blood of others...

Roman Catholics throwing christians to lions.
Christians - crusades or Holy wars, the torture of people who followed pagan faiths

Moslems - 9/11 ring any bells? or perhaps Iraq?

Egypt - slavery etc in the name of the egyptian gods...


and yet people follow these religions in the name of peace...

I believe that most, if not all religions were created as a form of mass control. Easy to convince a slave or subordinate to do your will by promising him untold riches after his death... he aint gonna contradict you and you don't have to PROVE anything...

I am not denouncing the existance of an all pervading entity, merely stating that the formation of an organised religion was to control people.. why else would an all forgiving god need to effectively threaten people into believing in him? (or her)

(sigh)

I was wondering how long it would take for this to rise it's head over here.....

Making that kind of generalisation could land you in court. There is no evidence to suggest that kind of activity goes on in any more quantities than in other sections of society.

Excellent, however when people say "There is no God" and "It's all a load of BS" then they are imposing their beliefs on us.

Er sorry, but the crusades were Catholics.

Yes indeed we do, but anyone who persecutes or causes pain to another in the name of 'religion' is not a true follower of that faith.

of course it will rear it's ugly head..because it is true, it has got to the stage where in the catholic church they have to vet their own, and they still can not weed them out..

They've been vetting their own for hundreds of years, just as is done in the Police, the Education service, and any institution where adults are exposed to minors.

Russ. Not a direct criticism of your belief but an observation.

You say that anyone who commits violence in the name of religion is not following the faith....


[Rev 19:2] For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.


Rev 19:11] And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
[Rev 19:15] And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.


And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
- Deuteronomy (ch. XIX, v. 21)


while the bible may not directly sanction violence, it does nothing to condemn it either...

It's so refreshing to discuss such matters with someone who actually does some research! :)

This is an act of God who punishes those who have repeatedly sinned against His word.

That's the antichrist, for God's plan to unfold he has to cause death and war.


Deuteronomy is part of the Old Testament, a lot of which was, for lack of a better word 'revised' when Jesus came (hence the New Testament starts), he brought with Him many many new ideas and teachings.

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse"

as quoted in the film "Pale Rider" did it not go on..."behold a man on a white horse, and his name was death"