New US church leader says homosexuality no sin

[DaKCMan AP]

New US church leader says homosexuality no sin

Mon Jun 19, 3:50 PM ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.


Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected on Sunday as the first woman leader of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. She will formally take office later this year.

Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual.

"I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.

"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."

Jefferts Schori's election seemed certain to exacerbate splits within a Episcopal Church that is already deeply divided over homosexuality with several dioceses and parishes threatening to break away.

It could also widen divisions with other Anglican communities, including the Church of England, which do not allow women bishops. In the worldwide Anglican church women are bishops only in Canada, the United States and New Zealand.

Three years ago when the Church last met in convention, a majority of U.S. bishops backed the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican history.

The Robinson issue has been particularly criticized in Africa where the church has a growing membership and where homosexuality is often taboo.

Jefferts Schori, who was raised a Roman Catholic and graduated in marine biology with a doctorate specialization in squids and oysters, supported the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican history.

The 52-year-old bishop is married to Richard Schori, a retired theoretical mathematician. They have one daughter, Katharine Johanna, 24, a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and a pilot like her mother.

Asked how she reconciled her position on homosexuality with specific passages in the Bible declaring sexual relations between men an abomination, Jefferts Schori said the Bible was written in a very different historical context by people asking different questions.

"The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear -- there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today," she said.

"The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings, and that's certainly the great message of Jesus -- to include the unincluded."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/...HBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

[FringeNC]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I guess that as a woman, it also doesn't bother you that women make 75 cents on the dollar for what a man makes in the same occupation. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face

It doesn't bother me at all. Ever ask yourself why women only make 75 cents on the dollar? Why wouldn't a profit-maximizing firm hire all women? There's an obvious reason women earn less than men, and it has nothing to do with disrimination.

For low-skilled jobs with no training required, women make as much as men. For high-skilled jobs that require long-term on-the-job training, women make much less than men. Why? Because women are much more likely to temporalily or permanently leave the job market, in which case the firm is ****ed for having invested in the employee who will not be around very long.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

It doesn't bother me at all. Ever ask yourself why women only make 75 cents on the dollar? Why wouldn't a profit-maximizing firm hire all women? There's an obvious reason women earn less than men, and it has nothing to do with disrimination.

For low-skilled jobs with no training required, women make as much as men. For high-skilled jobs that require long-term on-the-job training, women make much less than men. Why? Because women are much more likely to temporalily or permanently leave the job market, in which case the firm is ****ed for having invested in the employee who will not be around very long.

Oh yeah?? Well what about the LION-esses, Marthafocker???!!!!

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Another thing Hamas Jenkins;

Have you ever heard of a thing called division of labor?

It's very efficient. That is really all a traditional family set up is.

I have a gf who told me recently that when she doesn't work and takes care of the house and her two kids that her husband's ( who has his own business ) income actually goes up. Interesting eh? Division of labor, same concept, that a successful business, even a successful economy is based on. But no, to collectivists we're all alike and should all be same, doing the same thing with no individual talents or abilities...one big androgenous society wearing socialist scrubs! How boring!

Of course a woman must always also perform the household chores in order for this to work. It's funny that you are the one running your mouth about people being all the same when you are the one advocating that women stick to the same tired professions that they have held for centuries. Well, thanks, but no thanks Phyllis Schafly. Believe it or not, a man can do the household work, and a woman can be a primary breadwinner, but a great deal of men (who still hold the overwhelming amount of political power in this country) still feel threatened by the possibility of a woman in position of power, so why not just collectivize them into mindless "bitches" who are always pregnant and barefoot making dinner for their husbands.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

It doesn't bother me at all. Ever ask yourself why women only make 75 cents on the dollar? Why wouldn't a profit-maximizing firm hire all women? There's an obvious reason women earn less than men, and it has nothing to do with disrimination.

For low-skilled jobs with no training required, women make as much as men. For high-skilled jobs that require long-term on-the-job training, women make much less than men. Why? Because women are much more likely to temporalily or permanently leave the job market, in which case the firm is ****ed for having invested in the employee who will not be around very long.

Because god knows, men can't be the ones at home rearing the children, now can they??

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Because god knows, men can't be the ones at home rearing the children, now can they??

Jason Seaver, bitches!!!

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Brock

Which one of the ten commandments covers homosexuality?

My response was not on the 10 Commandments itself but as the bible being a sovergn document. Either you believe what it says or you don't you can't pick and choose what rules and commands to or not to follow as I believe she was saying. She is not the only one who does this. All denominations are having this battle today maybe not in the forfront like the Episcopal Church, but they are with their infrastructure as in a liberal intertpretation or a conservative interpretation.

[redbrian]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Well, your parishes are the exception then...

http://www.demographia.com/db-religlarge.htm

33% drop in actual membership, 58% drop in per capita membership since 1960 would qualify as a pretty precipitous drop in the minds of most people.....I would think.

I will talk trash with the best of them. However, if I cite a stat or research, generally, I'm not talking out of my ass; and I've usually done my homework. I realize stats can be twisted, but this one's pretty clear...

As for your personal experience, fine. The Episcopal Church, and some other liberal churches seem to be pursuing this "niche" if you will.....perhaps as a strategy to attract new members for the first time in decades, or to stop the bleeding so-to-speak. And it may be working.....however, it goes against the trends.....

If you look at that same page, see which churches are losing members.....and, generally, they are the more liberal churches, with a couple of exceptions. The conservative churches? Most have been growing....several of them, substantially. But I'll let you look at the stats yourself, since you seem dubious.....

http://www.demographia.com/db-religlarge.htm

The large drop in “Episcopal” population is in large part due to the break away of the 1929 group and the charismatic group.

Whole churches left the fold if you will, on an individual base most parishes have grown along with the reemergence of religion in the US population.

The 1929 group is steadfast in it’s belief that only the 1929 prayer book should be used, this group I believe is dying off as it’s members die off.

The charismatic faction is more in line with the evangelical movement and includes such things as the talking in tongues.

Will there be another break in the Church over this whole issue of gays and women in the pulpit, very likely, although I’m guessing a very small group will break away over this. At the parish which I attend I know of only one family who is upset by this, historically G&HT Cathedral has been a very open parish, gays have been attending service as far back as the 40’s (and maybe even since the churches started back in the 1800’s, although I do not have personal information to state such).

To tag the Episcopal Church liberal I don’t know if that is an accurate statement, the service for the most part is very traditional.

We have a weekly mass with communion in accordance to Catholicism, from this stand point the Episcopalians and the Lutherans are the conservatives compared to the other Protestant religions.

I guess the radical and “liberal” ideology is that we do not believe in restricting people from worship nor do we dictate to them how they should strictly interpret the scriptures.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Stinger

My response was not on the 10 Commandments itself but as the bible being a sovergn document. Either you believe what it says or you don't you can't pick and choose what rules and commands to or not to follow as I believe she was saying.

I doubt very seriously that you or anyone else adhere to all the rules proscribed in the bible.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Of course a woman must always also perform the household chores in order for this to work.

I never said that either. You favor a loose construction of what someone writes to suit your antagonism.

I said woman are choosing more to stay home if they have children.
These are choices they are making and such choices lower thier pay overall.

It's funny that you are the one running your mouth about people being all the same when you are the one advocating that women stick to the same tired professions that they have held for centuries.

I'm not recommending anything. Again, I used the word "choose" on their own self-determined basis.

Well, thanks, but no thanks Phyllis Schafly.

That's a compliment for me.

Believe it or not, a man can do the household work,

No one said they couldn't. I never did that part, I paid someone.

...and a woman can be a primary breadwinner, but a great deal of men (who still hold the overwhelming amount of political power in this country) still feel threatened by the possibility of a woman in position of power, so why not just collectivize them into mindless "bitches" who are always pregnant and barefoot making dinner for their husbands.

Again, my original point is that it's free choices that ARE being made. Some do the role-reversal but most aren't. It's a free country at least what's left of it. And I don't care what you say, this does not mean woman aren't capable of other skills. Technology has freed her more than politics and laws.

So are you telling me you won't let your soon-to-be new bride grow hair on her legs and under her arms?

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Brock

I doubt very seriously that you or anyone else adhere to all the rules proscribed in the bible.

Why would a Christian follow a rule the bible condemns?

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

You favor a loose construction of what someone writes to suit your antagonism.

D@mn near sig-worthy.

[noa]

Originally Posted by Brock

I doubt very seriously that you or anyone else adhere to all the rules proscribed in the bible.

I second this point. Nobody actually follows the bible literally today, which is a good thing IMO.

[redbrian]

Originally Posted by Stinger

My response was not on the 10 Commandments itself but as the bible being a sovergn document. Either you believe what it says or you don't you can't pick and choose what rules and commands to or not to follow as I believe she was saying. She is not the only one who does this. All denominations are having this battle today maybe not in the forfront like the Episcopal Church, but they are with their infrastructure as in a liberal intertpretation or a conservative interpretation.

The bible (especially the gospels) must be read from a historical perspective that quite frankly most people do not posses.

The Bible for the most part was written down after hundreds of years of an oral tradition, the art of leading ones life based on the bible is to understand what the circumstances were surrounding the passage and how it relates to the modern world (kind of like the US constitution if you will).

The whole purpose of this exercise is to lead a life which is spiritually rewarding and of benefit to your self, your family, the community and the world.

It should not be forced on anyone nor denied to anyone.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by redbrian

The bible (especially the gospels) must be read from a historical perspective that quite frankly most people do not posses.

The Bible for the most part was written down after hundreds of years of an oral tradition, the art of leading ones life based on the bible is to understand what the circumstances were surrounding the passage and how it relates to the modern world (kind of like the US constitution if you will).

The whole purpose of this exercise is to lead a life which is spiritually rewarding and of benefit to your self, your family, the community and the world.

It should not be forced on anyone nor denied to anyone.

Don't forget the part about the dumbass schizo Hebes.

[el borracho]

"What is the riddle of steel?"