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-

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by bogie

If a criminal breaks in to my house and I'm holding a shot gun in another room and I yell out to the criminal "hey, I have a gun, I don't want to kill you, but in 5 seconds I'm going to!" and then I rack my shot gun really loud and the person runs away, is that protecting myself with violence, or non-violence?

No, but it is protecting yourself with a credible and undeniable threat of violence.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

And you're relying on a superficial reading for people to think being 'reduced' to 'arguing semantics' is the same as 'arguing irrelevancies.'
You posited that hate clouded my judgment, and supported that position by my admitted dislike of you personally. Well that might suffice to establish subordinate issue of 'hate.' But it says nothing about the primary issue of clouded judgment. You've done nothing to prove that, outside of asserting it, and I've provide unequivocal evidence to the contrary.

That is preposterous and you know it. If you were prosecuting a defendent that you had had provable acrimony with before this case, the defense would make a motion to strike you as the prosecuting attorney because of an obvious conflict of interest that would cloud your better judgment. What unequivocal evidence have you proved?? You've shown absolutely nothing.

[bogie]

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

No, but it is protecting yourself with a credible and undeniable threat of violence.

Cool, it's the best of both worlds.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

Now you have direct experience with with school terrorists? OK I guess you don't refer to yourself as Hamas for nothing.

Your example has nothing to do with defending yourself when being assaulted instead of having to run and snitch or get expelled. What a ludicrous example.

As far as guns go there are 2.5 million successful defensive gun uses in this country every year. There are only 35k deaths by gun in this country every year including cops shootin criminals, gang on gang violence and suicide. I knew you would be on the wrong side of this issue. I think we should start shooting people who try and take our guns away. Forcing us to live through what has happened in England and Australia simply shouldn't be an option.

How blindly obtuse can you be?? I'm glad you find it so funny that dozens of teenagers were placed in the way of a potentially deadly explosion, yet you find it a damnable offense that a group of people don't want specific dogs in their community.

Show me where I said we should take our guns away, you dumb fuck. I only said that if you use a gun you are more likely to be killed, you then jumped to the conclusion that I am against private ownership of guns. Actually, I have no problem with it. If you get shot because you had a gun in your home, that's a choice that you made that had dangerous ramifications, and you paid the price for it. I'd like to see your source for the 2.5 million successful defensive gun uses, surely that wasn't provided by the NRA. Does shooting at a pack of coyotes going after sheep count as a successful gun defense? Are you really dumb enough to believe that nearly 1% of all Americans fire a gun at someone else to defend themselves every year?? To you have any idea of the sheer mountains of paperwork and litigation that would involve, if in fact it were true, which it no doubt isn't??

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by bogie

Cool, it's the best of both worlds.

Yep, that it is. Nothing like firing a round of shot over the head of some asswipe who doesn't get it when you put the first round in the chamber.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

Amen.

So, Fax. Are you a theologian?

No, Mr. bunnytrdr. Just a guy relentlessly chasing down truth, justice, and good pie wherever that pursuit may lead.

I don't know why I even posted on this dumbass thread. I guess I've just had a bellyfull of the shallow naiveté laid down by some people in an attempt to present themselves as wise and informed.

My biggest concern right now is coming up with the proof necessary to demonstrate that Tony G. actually has redefined the position of tight end in the NFL.

FAX

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by FAX

No, Mr. bunnytrdr. Just a guy relentlessly chasing down truth, justice, and good pie wherever that pursuit may lead.

I don't know why I even posted on this dumbass thread. I guess I've just had a bellyfull of the shallow naiveté laid down by some people in an attempt to present themselves as wise and informed.

My biggest concern right now is coming up with the proof necessary to demonstrate that Tony G. actually has redefined the position of tight end in the NFL.

FAX

O.K. Mr. Fax, as you wish.

I believe, that it was a confluence of events, of which Tony G happened to be at the center of, that redefined the position.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

O.K. Mr. Fax, as you wish.

I believe, that it was a confluence of events, of which Tony G happened to be at the center of, that redefined the position.

That's a pretty interesting thought, actually. Thanks.

I've looked at the stats and, so far at least, am unable to find anything that would reasonably confirm that he did, in fact, redefine the position from a performance standpoint. At first, I thought that he would have had a longer ypc average which would be reflective of greater athleticism, but that's not the case. He's only near the top in that category. Then, I looked at size in the position, but nothing stands out there either.

I hate to admit it, but I think Mr. milkman may turn out to be right about this. Unless, of course, I can construct a compelling argument around your theory.

FAX

[noa]

Hey FAX, where in the New Testament does Jesus talk about homosexuality?

[Jesus]

Originally Posted by noa949

Hey FAX, where in the New Testament does Jesus talk about homosexuality?

I didn't talk about lots of things. I never addressed a whole host of sins, directly. The Old Testament teachings are pretty clear on it already. Because I neglected to address it doesn't mean I approve. Afterall, I only lived 33 yrs. Why should I have been redundant? Whatever I didn't change, stayed the same. Regardless, Paul cleared it up in his letters--in case anyone had any doubts.

[Logical]

Good for Schori, progress is slow but it will happen.

[|Zach|]

Quite a thread.

[Logical]

Originally Posted by Laz

bet you would if she was pimping pitbulls.

[noa]

Originally Posted by Jesus

I didn't talk about lots of things. I never addressed a whole host of sins, directly. The Old Testament teachings are pretty clear on it already. Because I neglected to address it doesn't mean I approve. Afterall, I only lived 33 yrs. Why should I have been redundant? Whatever I didn't change, stayed the same. Regardless, Paul cleared it up in his letters--in case anyone had any doubts.

So I'm confused Jesus. Should we follow what the Old Testament says or not? If we're supposed to follow everything in the Old Testament except what you directly challenged, then I think we're all in a lot of trouble.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Now you're reduced to arguing semantics to avoid the inevitable plunge off the cliff of sanity...

We had a good conversation going on last night, is it worth looking back 3-4 pages to keep up?...