Can I be a lesbian too please?

[Carpathian Wolf]

I was reading in the thread about the Swedish Church and the lesbian Bishop and of course the politically correct theist bashing types come in and talk about "oh equal rights" and "oh those Christians they're out to hunt gays jews blacks and eat babies" and taht usually non sense. Here I don't want to discuss the Lesbian Bishop in the Swedish Church but how we use the definition of words, terminology, political correctitude, and libertine morality in an attempt to guilt others in accepting everything else.

So the idea of lesbian Bishop. Let's look at this term.

First we have lesbian. Homosexuality between women.

Then we have Bishop. Etymology: Middle English bisshop, from Old English bisceop, from Late Latin episcopus, from Greek episkopos, literally, overseer.

For the Church, say my Church, the Orthodox Christian Church the definition of Bishop does not entitle the previous definition. Now to the politically correct liberal, he will say "But you must change your definition to include everybody." But by changing that definition you are also imposing your definition upon an already established group. In turn the politically correct person is now not being accepting of the Church party.

"You have to change the meaning of Bishop to include lesbians or else there is something wrong with you. You're discriminating."

And just by that then they are also discriminating as well. Why does one have to accept everything in order not to be regarded as a racist, sexist, homophobe, islamophobe and everything else. I think as long as someone does not go out of their way to do harm to anyone else, they should be left alone.

Why does someone come to me all angry with their fist tight telling me to change? I am calm and peaceful. I do not go to their door and tell them to do this and that. They are the ones to come to me. To me this says there is something wrong with them, and not me.

As for the title, my point was that we can't just change definitions of terms. If for the established group Bishop doesn't mean a lesbian, don't impose them to it. Just as I can't be a lesbian and I am not crying about being treated unfairly, like wise neither should a lesbian complain about not being a Bishop. If she wants to be a Bishop, make your own church where the definition of Bishop includes that. But don't come to me and tell me to change.

[Arch-hereticK]

A fair point.
I'm almost tempted to say tough , get with the times, but that may seem arrogant. But I also think that as long as an organisation isn't funded by the state, the state shouldn't get a say in how it is run.

So I can't pick a side.

[motiv-8]

I'm somewhat confused.. How does a lesbian becoming a bishop force one to change the definition of bishop?

[Ummon]

But you see, a lesbian cannot be a bishop just because of etimology. Who can you supervise if

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

I am tempted to say:

Modernity = Ignorance = Stupidity = Sin

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

M.I.S.S.

[Playfishpaste]

The obvious question is what makes your sect of christianity (where homosexuality is viewed as banned in the bible) better then this particular swedish sect of christianity (where homosexuality is viewed as not talked of in the bible)?

You all only follow some of the rules, and the interpretations of those rules are so malleable that it's justifiable to say eve is a metaphor for dirt.

[cfmonkey45]

The obvious question is what makes your sect of christianity (where homosexuality is viewed as banned in the bible) better then this particular swedish sect of christianity (where homosexuality is viewed as not talked of in the bible)?

Because Sweden is, according to those chest-pounding atheists, increasingly secular, and the Church over there is trying to accommodate itself to a much different audience, whereas Orthodox Christianity is a continuation of the Church established by the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the first century AD.

You all only follow some of the rules, and the interpretations of those rules are so malleable that it's justifiable to say eve is a metaphor for dirt.

Kind of irrelevant.

1 Corinthians Chapter five is a part where the apostle Paul openly condemns the Church of Corinth for having a "sexually immoral" person within their congregation. He married his mother, apparently. Paul argues that if he is unwilling to change, they should cast him out until he does and is made pure again. He goes on to further state:

But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

[Playfishpaste]

Because Sweden is, according to those chest-pounding atheists, increasingly secular, and the Church over there is trying to accommodate itself to a much different audience, whereas Orthodox Christianity is a continuation of the Church established by the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the first century AD.

It doesn't matter what sweden is, it matters what the swedish church is, and it's sect of christianity. There are many other sects of christianity with view openly homosexual priests as just fine, in fact I recall one being let into the church of england.

Kind of irrelevant.

1 Corinthians Chapter five is a part where the apostle Paul openly condemns the Church of Corinth for having a "sexually immoral" person within their congregation. He married his mother, apparently. Paul argues that if he is unwilling to change, they should cast him out until he does and is made pure again. He goes on to further state:

Sounds like the guy's guilty of incest, not homosexuality.

The key is that the bible never uses the term homosexuality, but "sexual immorality", which is defined as a whole host of things, and only in one instance, as part of the law of moses, is it specifically mentioned that a man should not lie with another man. This law can be interpreted as strictly for the isrealites following moses at the time, just like the law that you must stone your son if he is disobedient was. To accept one as still applicable is to accept them all as still applicable.

[cfmonkey45]

It doesn't matter what sweden is, it matters what the swedish church is, and it's sect of christianity. There are many other sects of christianity with view openly homosexual priests as just fine, in fact I recall one being let into the church of england.

Sounds like the guy's guilty of incest, not homosexuality.

The key is that the bible never uses the term homosexuality, but "sexual immorality", which is defined as a whole host of things, and only in one instance, as part of the law of moses, is it specifically mentioned that a man should not lie with another man. This law can be interpreted as strictly for the isrealites following moses at the time, just like the law that you must stone your son if he is disobedient was. To accept one as still applicable is to accept them all as still applicable.

1Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

The problem here isn't discrimination or antipathy. The problem is the fact that they are rather unrepentant and still placed into positions of authority. Would you be equally unopposed if an adulterer, child molester, or incestuous person were placed as an overseer or a church leader? It's perfectly acceptable to have people with sins in the congregation. In fact, its required by default.

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

However, to put this person in a position of authority is to commit a grave mistake. It'd be like making a blind man into an instructor of art.

[Hakkapeliitta]

As for the title, my point was that we can't just change definitions of terms. If for the established group Bishop doesn't mean a lesbian, don't impose them to it. Just as I can't be a lesbian and I am not crying about being treated unfairly, like wise neither should a lesbian complain about not being a Bishop. If she wants to be a Bishop, make your own church where the definition of Bishop includes that. But don't come to me and tell me to change.

But didn't the choice come from inside the Church? No one as far as I know forced the Swedish church to accept lesbian bishops. And I don't think anyone is telling you to change the definition of 'bishop', the Swedish Lutheran church just decided that a lesbian can be a bishop in their church. It doesn't affect you.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

@CW,

It can all be summed on few words. Modern Churches that bow down to the threats of the group of people known as "Liberals" (let's just collectively group all sexually libertine, avant-garde, LGBT rights and such kind who would demand that in just a single term) are in fact worshipers of Liberal canon, and not Christianity. Thus the Swedish Church is the Church of Socialism, or "Liberalism" if you prefer.

The point is that the religion of the common man assumes many subtle disguises, and when that religion becomes widely believed it must necessarily dominate. Thus people are careless of the differences between Protestants and Orthodox and emphatically state that none of both should be considered superior to another, but when it comes to comparing the whole aggregate of dogmatic statements known as "Modern Morality" with Christian dogma, then Christian dogma must necessarily bow down or be forced out of space, sight and name. There is no such thing as "tolerance", all morality must be necessarily absolute even when it makes all Religious thinking relative; that, at least, as far as we are concerned.

[MaximiIian]

If you don't like what the Church of Sweden is doing...then, don't join the Church of Sweden?
Seems like a really simply solution to all those who've gotten butthurt over the Swedish Church's decision. Which, by the way, was theirs to make.

[Thalassocrat]

I think it revolves how they may misinterpret Christianity to the world. By their actions while still maintaining they are Church they are tarnishing the perception and image non-Christians have regarding the beliefs of Christians

[Manco]

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I really don't see a problem.
So one denomination changed the rules a bit, or interpreted them a little different. How does this affect your denomination?
If you truly feel this will somehow result in the Orthodox Church also changing it's definition because of social pressure, I'd say either that means that deep down you know you there's something wrong with how your denomination works, or you're afraid your denomination and faith aren't strong enough to cope with change.

The beauty of freedom of religion is that the Swedish Church doesn't have to listen to what you say, just like you don't have to listen or do what they say.

[Thalassocrat]

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I really don't see a problem.
So one denomination changed the rules a bit, or interpreted them a little different. How does this affect your denomination?
If you truly feel this will somehow result in the Orthodox Church also changing it's definition because of social pressure, I'd say either that means that deep down you know you there's something wrong with how your denomination works, or you're afraid your denomination and faith aren't strong enough to cope with change.

The beauty of freedom of religion is that the Swedish Church doesn't have to listen to what you say, just like you don't have to listen or do what they say.

The problem is they call themselves Christian.

It is not a question of resolve but rather slander if I my, this action of some self declared churches are tarring the perception non-believers have on Christianity. Think, there is post arguing the supposed position of Christianity citing a wikipedia compilation.

[Manco]

The problem is they call themselves Christian.

It is not a question of resolve but rather slander if I my, this action of some self declared churches are tarring the perception non-believers have on Christianity. Think, there is post arguing the supposed position of Christianity citing a wikipedia compilation.

So? A Protestant calls himself a Christian as well, despite having some obvious and theologically quite more far-reaching differences with Catholicism and the different Orthodox Churches.

Why would a lesbian bishop matter more in being Christian than the veneration of Saints? More than the Sola Scriptura belief that didn't exist till the Reformation?

And what do you care what non-believers think of Christianity?

[Thalassocrat]

So? A Protestant calls himself a Christian as well, despite having some obvious and theologically quite more far-reaching differences with Catholicism and the different Orthodox Churches.

Why would a lesbian bishop matter more in being Christian than the veneration of Saints? More than the Sola Scriptura belief that didn't exist till the Reformation?

And what do you care what non-believers think of Christianity?

Just because the faithful are fractured doesn't mean it should be allow to get more divisive, rather the effort should be to heal schism.

Taking scripture as the sole source is neither a post reformation practice nor has it been completely upheld.
IT MATTERS BECAUSE it runs in the face of the Christian belief, imagine some one declaring himself a practicing Jew or Muslim and sitting down to a plate of pork ribs.

Because I am Christian, in a racial context it is tantamount to saying why should anyone care that others are making disparaging remarks e.g. Blacks resembling apes, Caucasians resembling pigs or Jews having large noses.

Not only is it demeaning it is slanderous, it results in Christians being grouped and associated together with non-Christian attitudes.

[Flavius Nevitta]

So the idea of lesbian Bishop. Let's look at this term.

First we have lesbian. Homosexuality between women.

Then we have Bishop. Etymology: Middle English bisshop, from Old English bisceop, from Late Latin episcopus, from Greek episkopos, literally, overseer.

For the Church, say my Church, the Orthodox Christian Church the definition of Bishop does not entitle the previous definition. Now to the politically correct liberal, he will say "But you must change your definition to include everybody." But by changing that definition you are also imposing your definition upon an already established group. In turn the politically correct person is now not being accepting of the Church party.

I don't see where the definition/etymology of the word bishop excludes lesbians/homosexuals. Sorry. Care to elaborate?

Maybe you have a different dictionary but mine doesn't say:

Bishop: heterosexual overseer

[Ummon]

The Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, unless people modify the Bible, a lesbian bishop is a sinner bishop.

[Arch-hereticK]

The Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, unless people modify the Bible, a lesbian bishop is a sinner bishop.

Does the bible allow a liar bishop? Or a bishop that eats shelfish, or a divorced one, or a gambling one, or a convicted felon, or a thief. Is homosexuality a greater sin than all those? I'm not trying to catch you out or anything, I am genuinely curious.

[Sadreddine]

The Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, unless people modify the Bible, a lesbian bishop is a sinner bishop.

I would say homosexuality is not a sin unless 'exercised' (which would amount to fornication, a sin). But for those people being born homosexuals, how could you accusse them of sinners without actually doing nothing but being born like that, by God's will?

Now, if that woman has been widely known for being homosexual that means she fornicated...or maybe not?