Well its begun

[rahmota]

The schisim of the Episcopal Church.

http://http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12....ap/index.html

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- An Episcopal diocese in central California voted Saturday to split with the national denomination over disagreements about the role of gays and lesbians in the church.

Well in case anyone hasn't been aware of it here stateside the Episcopal church, a member of the International Anglican Communion, has had a bit of an internal disagreement that has at times becoem rather heated and spilled into the public.

The root cause of this is an interpretation of the holy scriptures regarding homosexuals and homosexuality. One side taking the stance that the scriptures do not outright condemn it and that in the christian spirit of forgiveness, acceptance and turn the other cheek that homosexuals should not be shunned and condemned. That it is not whom you sleep with as long as you are in a committed and loving relationship. So with that viewpoint the church back in 03 concsecrated an Openly Homosexual Bishop.

The opposing viewpoint holds that homosexuality is a sin and that practitioners are going to hell and no good christian should accept or tolerate their behavior. That the scripture condemns homosexual behavior and promotes intolerance against homosexuals,e specially those that cannot be "saved" and turned away from homosexuality.

Those are the two extremely polar viewpoints in the church. There are others across the spectrum of course within the church but the polar views are the ones that get the most play and unfortunately are also among those who have the most power and authority in the church.

*sigh* The biggest problem with a schisim is that this is goign to get dragged into the court system very quickly as diocese like the one in Fresno decide to secede from the mother church there are going to be property ownership issues among others at the least. Also this is not going to be very good PR as one side of the church fights with the other.

What gets me about the whole thing is that from what I can recall in the bible homosexuality isnt discussed or dealt with too much if at all. I mena there is a lot of other sex, violence and drugs in the bible but not much on homosexuality. (Song of soloman for the sex and some drugs, violence well lets just say that he MPAA would give the bible a mature rating so pick a chapter and I'm sure you'll find some prime examples of violence)

[AFPheonix]

Paul had a rather large blurb in Romans against homosexuality, which is usually used by most denominations to condemn homosexuality. Death was also ordered for homosexuals in Leviticus, and Sodom and Gomorrah were ultimately destroyed because the men of those towns wanted Lot to send his houseguests (the angels sent by god to destroy the towns) out so they could bugger them.

I can't say that I'm particularly surprised by all the goings on.

[Seshat]

St Paul's letters are personal opinion, not the Word Of God Handed Down To Man.

I know, I know. Some people would condemn me as a heretic and an unbeliever just for saying that. (Heretic I'm not - you can't be heretical if you don't proclaim yourself a member of the faith you're supposedly heretical to.)

Sodom and Gomorrah - I'd have to read that section of the bible again. Do you happen to know which book that bit's in? I might nip down to the library and check it in the Torah or Talmud, see what that translation of the original says.

[AFPheonix]

It's in Genesis, not too long after the start of Abraham's story. I can't recall what chapter. Yes, Sodom was already screwed, but God was going to give the town one last chance because Lot asked it. The whole ass-raping thing pretty much pushed God over the edge, though.

I don't disagree with you on the Paul thing. I'll take it a step further, and remind people that his epistles were essentially Cliff Notes to his sermons, too. They don't even totally cover everything that he preached while at the new churches he'd started. However, since it is included in the Bible and people tend to just accept this sort of stuff without question, they give it equal weight to any other book in the Bible. Most actually will assign MORE weight to it since it's in the NT.

Furthermore, you have to remember these guys were still formulating this stuff on the fly. You can definitely see the evolution of ideas as you go through the epistles chronologically by age.

Also, as Paul aged, he had helpers assisting him, as his eyes were crappy. Those helpers tended to be Jewish converts, and you can see the injection of Jewish conservatism as they start plugging in their thought processes, too. For example, Paul will go through which people are eligible for grace, who should follow commandments, etc, as in, "Every man and woman, slave and free, Jew and Gentile". You'll notice as you get into the newer epistles that those lists get shorter, depending on who his apprentices felt qualified. It's unfortunate, because you can almost feel the giddy joy Paul had abandoning the strict Pharisee law and embracing this new idea initially, and the gradual rebinding of conservative, strict thinking on that original elation.

I just find it interesting how people pick and choose which of the Talmudic laws to follow and which to ignore. Despising gays is ok, but it's not like we stone children for having a smart mouth. Women do not have to leave camp when it's period time. Cracks me right up.

[rahmota]

AFP: Thank you. I'll admit it has been a while since I did any in depth bible study. Since 04 at the least. And from what I had recalled sodom and gamorah had a lot of ther things going on such as heresies and disobedience to the other religious rules and stuff.

Death was the general recommendation for most crimes in leviticus so I should have remembered that. Have a whore? Stone her. Disobedient sone? Stone him. Cheating wife? Stone Her. Thief? Stone him. Not a very imaginative lot there where they?

And yeah it is funny when you point out to people who say the bible should be obeyed totally as its the word of god and all laws should be based off it. That was one of the problems my exfriend and I blew up over.

I recalled Paul's comments as those are the ones that get used the most to support the religious discrimination agaisnt homosexuals.

So yeah it is discussed a bit more than I had recalled. Still though more of the book is devoted to other topics than just homosexuality.

Anyhow back to the original topic: No I'm not surprised by this either. I am kinda sad by it though. I grew up episcopalian and mother went to the church up until she died. And she told me about how it was tearing things apart even in our small town church. People where starting to either leave the churhc because they disagreed with the official stance or if they didnt feel strong enough to leave they wound up splitting up into this little cliques that would sit near each other and only talk and all with each other. Communion has yet to be with held but the previous to the current one had commented that those who dont toe the line should'nt have it. So much hatred and ignorance in a religion that is supposed to be about light and love.

[AFPheonix]

It is unfortunate, although in some ways I do feel bad for the more conservative split because they are getting their toes stepped on from their point of view. I do understand why they're upset.
I don't agree with their viewpoint, but I understand why they have it. Unfortunately, a lot of it is due to them not really reading their religious texts with a critical eye. But then again, how many of them have ever been encouraged to do just that? I know anytime I brought up the work of a secular Bible scholar, the elders at my church would get all serious and fret about Satan clouding the Message. One got kind of in my face when I asked about the Jesus Seminar. Boy howdy, did I open a can of worms with that one....

[Rapscallion]

I don't mind this, really. It's a good old tradition - after all, I regard christianity to be a jewish splinter sect.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

I don't mind this, really. It's a good old tradition - after all, I regard christianity to be a jewish splinter sect.

Rapscallion

hehehe. Sort of a little schisim now and again is good for the soul eh?

Afp: True critical study of the bible was rather hit and miss growing up. It basically depends on how the leadership/power structure is within that particular church/diocese. Since Episcopal is basically catholic light (More savior less guilt!) it is a very top down sort of social structure.

[Pedersen]

Hey, for those of you who like to ponder some of what Paul had to say, let me point this out:

Paul was born Saul. Saul grew up in an area which followed the deity Mithras.

Now, here's where it gets to be interesting: If you completely remove the book of Paul from the NT, and then read the NT, you will find a largely consistent message of love, peace, and brotherhood. You will also find a striking absence of many things considered crucial by modern Christianity, including the taking of the sacraments.

Now, read the book of Paul all by itself, and you will find many of the pieces that were missing from what you might otherwise expect. This book is where much of the justification for the Spanish Inquisition came from.

If you look up details of the religious ceremonies held by Mithra-ites, you will also find some very striking parallels between Christianity as Paul told people to practice it, and modern practices of Christianity.

This is going by memory, so I might have some details wrong, but one of the bigger parallels: Mithraic belief centered around the bull, and that Mithra's representation in this world was the bull. One ritual involved the consumption of the meat of a bull and of its blood. This was all done in the springtime of each year (possibly at other times as well, but I do not remember them).

All in all, when you look at Mithraic beliefs, Paul/Saul instructions, and modern Christianity, it makes you wonder if Paul didn't manage to subvert Christianity somehow.

Just some food for thought.

[AFPheonix]

There is no single book of Paul. Rather, he wrote several Epistles, like Romans, I & II Corinthians, etc.
But yes, he probably has the highest number of writing credits in the NT, with John being right up there too.
Interesting on the Sacrament thing, but the Last supper showed up in the Gospels, none of which were written by Paul. (although I think a few were written after Paul's lifetime). Did he just take an idea and run with it?

What I also find very interesting is how closely related the mystery religions and cults found in the ancient Roman Empire are so very similar to Christianity, including adherence to one deity, who died and came back to life. One must wonder about how the transfer of culture affected our religion as it is today.

[CancelMyService]

The whole mess just reminds me how "hate the sin, love the sinner" might just be the most insulting and/or degrading concept to come out of organized religion.

Nothing shows Christ-like compassion than feeling sorry for people having feelings you don't agree with just so you can live with your own bigotry.

[rahmota]

Pedersen: Interesting. I may have to take some time and look into that closer.

Given that modern christianity is a collective conglomeration of pagen rituals that have been sublimated to help pacify the natives, political compromises to help keep papal power and authority and generally attempts to take disparate interpretations over several hundred years and combine them into somethign approaching a coherent message I'm surprised it worked out as well as it has.

But yeah looking at the history of christianity and religion in general you do see a lot of crossover/similarities.

Cancel: Yeah I'll agree with you on that. The whole attitude of "Oh I don't haet you I just hate what you do" Is so sick. Imagine saying that to one of the right wing christian's who spread that message. (I've done that) Let me tell you they don't appreciate getting their own words used right back at them. Kinda hypocritical.