Church elects its first gay bishop

Dr. Ffreeze said:
Natoma,

Well, that is a terrible example.

So basically you're doing it out of fear then, for what this god will do to you if you don't comply with its demands. Frankly, I don't consider that a recipe for willing servitude.

As I said, it was a terrible example. I don't believe or follow my faith out of fear. I couldn't think of much of anything that might create humbleness for an analogy. I myself am not nearly as humble as I would like. I take too much credit for my own success. /sigh

Unfortunately my church/denomination (Pentecostal) based its faith teachings not only on having faith for love of god, but also having faith for fear of god. I don't think that's a way to build trust in any relationship.

And don't worry about it. You have "god-given" talents and you use them to your success. That much alone is enough to be "proud" about. ;)
 
Natoma,

Well, anyways I'm glad this situation is cleared up and the episcopalians can get back to their infighting about it and leave the rest of us out of the situation.
Oh, I was the one to start this thread because I was wondering how they rationalized a gay bishop, or even the option of one. I must say that I have learned a lot, so for me this thread has been an educational one. =p

Dr. Ffreeze
 
Dr. Ffreeze said:
Natoma,

Sounds to me like he was just uncomfortable with the idea of a gay man touching him.

/sigh When are people going to get a weee bit thicker skin?

Dr. Ffreeze

In all honesty there are a lot of heterosexual males who believe that any touching or feeling by another male is signs of homosexuality and to be shunned. Fear that they themselves might be gay? Fear that they themselves might be the object of attraction? Who knows what causes the homophobia, but it is pretty clear in this case with this guy.

It'll take time for things like this to dissipate. I am uncomfortable with people touching me while I'm talking to them as well. But that's just because I don't really like to be touched in discussions. I think it's about this zone of body "privacy" or "space" that I feel comfortable with when engaging others in conversation. Some feel comfortable with arms length. Some feel comfortable touching. But I wouldn't have equated this uncomfortableness with sexual harrassment, as it seems this guy, or the people that took his email and ran with it, did. I thought that was a little over the top. :)
 
Natoma,

In all honesty there are a lot of heterosexual males who believe that any touching or feeling by another male is signs of homosexuality and to be shunned. Fear that they themselves might be gay? Fear that they themselves might be the object of attraction? Who knows what causes the homophobia, but it is pretty clear in this case with this guy.

I know a few homophobiacs, it is a very hard trate to tolerate. I blame it on ignorance. I find homophobia repulsive. You know what I feel regarding the act, but I have had a few homosexual friends (good ones). It is my experience that they are people too! hehehe. I could never see treating them like they had the plague (or blacks, or Jews, or Asians,...).

Intolerance just sux!

Dr. Ffreeze
 
Natoma said:
I never stated that your quote of me was false.

Um, which is exactly why I never said you stated it.

That was never in contention.

Yup. We agree that my sig is a concise, direct quote that faithfully represents your viewpoint at the time you made it. Right...never said anything differently. Agree.

In fact I also stated that I was mistaken wrt my statement. I merely stated that I don't quote people from forums. That is my particular opinion on the subject, as I stated earlier.

And I'm stating that I personally don't see the point in some "standard" of not quoting people from forums. It's fine that you abide by it for whatever reason you have.

If it's an honest representation, (which we both agree I have made in this case), I don't have a problem with it, no matter what the source. That's my standard. I'm not sure why someone else would have a problem with that, and you certainly did not explain why yourself.

So what makes it inherently bad practice to quote other forum members in a sig?

Here's the full text of Bush's comments:

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

You tell me how that's taken out of context.

Um...THAT'S NOT taking him out of context. If that was your sig, we wouldn't be discussing this. The problem is...that's not your sig, is it.

Mary K took it out of context, by ONLY citing "bring them on", and you dutifully relayed it to us.

He's "inviting" them to attack because we have more than enough forces to deal with anything. You tell me how that's taken out of context. :rolleyes:

Read this part again: "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." That to me, is the context. We are confident that whatever comes our way, we can deal with it.

In any case, the White House certainly disagrees with you:

USA Today said:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-02-bush-iraq-troops_x.htm
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush's combative tone was not meant to invite attacks on Americans. "...what the president was expressing there is his confidence in the men and women of the military to handle the military mission they still remain in the middle of," Fleischer said.

A.D.Y.D.T.M.T.T.O.O.C! (Don't know what that means? Maybe you'll find out...;)

Again, can I understand the context as you and Mary K presented it? Sure. Here's an exercise for you.

Reporter #1: In response to being questioned about the ability for the enemy to successfully engage our troops or cause disarray, Bush said "Bring them on".

Reporter #2: In response to being questioned about the ability for the enemy to successfully engage our troops or cause disarray, Bush said "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

Both 100% "factual". Both 100% different contexts, wouldn't you say?

So how can there be a case where the President made BOTH statements (let alone who knows what other statements surrounding those that wwere never reported), yet only one context of "inviting" be deemed the "right" one?

Answer: it can't. You're left with picking and choosing specific statements, and omitting other ones, to derive the context.

Now, again, I'm not saying that taking those statements as you and Mary K did was illigitimate. You may very well believe that's the only way ("inviting") that anyone could ligitimately take it.

But then, that poses a bigger issue with your quote, which logic will bear out in a minute.

Whether or not I truly believe those comments would or would not have an impact on the fighting is moot. The president of the most powerful country in the world should not make idiotic comments like that, publicly "inviting" the enemy to attack our troops, whether in jest, hilarity, trying to make a metaphor, or whatever.

So what you're saying then, is that those comments in "full context" are idiodic...and it's obvious to anyone that taken in their full context that they are idiodic, which makes the President idiodic for making them.

Fair enough....but there one small problem there...you didn't quote Bush in full context in your sig. You quoted Mary K. If the full quote was so condemning and idiodic as you claim, wouldn't it be just as effective, nay, even MORE effective, just putting the President's full quote in your sig instead?

That is the only logical thing to do.

Given that you seem to be telling me that "inviting" is the only legitimate context which could be clearly conveyed by Bush's total words all on their own...there are only 2 possible reasons for quoting Mary K instead of Bush himself:

1) You are lying (or my interpretation is wrong), and you admit there can be multiple contexts (inviting or confidence), but you purposely used a "quote of a quote", to only highlight the specific context of your choosing to suit your personal agenda

2) You really believe "inviting" is the only reasonable context to extract, and you simply want to use the shock value of an American Solider who died in the line of duty for you, to emphasize it.

Take you pick. Either way, I'm disgusted.

And I never said that they want our troops to be attacked. Did I. :rolleyes:

No, they're just "inviting" them to. (As if they haven't joined the party already.)

My quote is based on honesty. Complete honesty. You show me anywhere where it is false.

Read above. If you really believed it was based on honesty, and you intention was to show how "stupid" Bush's comments are...there would be no need to quote Mary K quoting the President. You would just quote the President in his entirety.

Any hack can pull a sentence or two and completely distort the context, or only present one possible context of the message.

Apparently, you didn't feel it would be "effective" enough just to post what the President actually said in full context. And that's the real truth here, isn't it?

Do YOU recant because you have been made aware that their statements were lies, or at least misinformed?

Yup. (Either the republican in question was lying, misinformed, or the reporter misrepresented him.) So?

And this doesn't get past the point that her statement is not a statement of fact. It is a statement wrt Bush telling the enemy to bring it on. Well they brought it on, and now her nephew is dead. You tell me where that's false.

Read above. Specifically "Reporter 1" and "Reporter 2". How can we get such vastly different "contexts" from two completely factual statements?

Do you not agree that "quoting out of context" is bad, and gives false impressions of what was actually meant?

Granted, as I said, you may feel that the "inviting" context is really the only obvious / legitimate one. In which case, you weren't purposely lying. Just purposely using a dead American soldier as a prop to emotionally bolster your case, which I'd argue is worse.

Natoma said:
The facts of the case deal with admissions-based discrimination.

Wrong. The facts of this case deal with a specific person who brought a specific case of racial discrimination.

And the white house briefing spoke about discrimination being wrong.

Hint: Quit while you're behind, Natoma. ;)

Now this can be interpreted in one of two ways. Either Bush believes discrimination in all forms is wrong, even if the motivation is good, or he believes that only race based discrimination is wrong, and legacy is fine, by proxy.

No, it can be interpreted in the most obvious way: Bush believes that racial discrimination is bad, and he has made no comment on any other form of discrimination. Neither you, nor I, can infer his views on anything other that the specific discrimination issue brought by the case he is referring to.

Oh noo. But bush is speaking on the wrongness of discrimination.

Right, and specifically wrt the case, which is racial.

And legacy is also discrimination.

I agree.

So if it's wrong because it is a form of discrimination, he needs to say something about it as well. Right?

Um, no. He also doesn't need to tell us his favorite color either.

When did I say that. Eh? I said that we should get rid of all points in the system.

Yup. What part of "RACIAL discrimination" is PART OF ALL discrimination, don't you seem to understand?

Or am I to believe that if a Supreme Court case emerges concerning the constitutionality of legacy discrimination, you would be posturing the argument that "well, geographic discrimination still exists, and gender discrimination, and admissions boards can still use race to an extent, so we shouldn't strike down legacy discrimination."

I wish I could see you trying to tell me that with a straight face... :rolleyes:
 
Well, they elected him, or so says MSNBC

It will be interesting to see how it works out for the Episcopal church.
 
RussSchultz said:
Well, they elected him, or so says MSNBC

It will be interesting to see how it works out for the Episcopal church.

Yeah...you were pretty excited about "Catholics vs. Protestants"...and now we've got "Protestants vs. Protestants"! :oops:

My guess? There's a split coming...
 
RussSchultz said:
Well, they elected him, or so says MSNBC

It will be interesting to see how it works out for the Episcopal church.

Hopefully it won't be in the news everyday now. :)
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Whole bunch of crap about "Bring it on" being taken "out of context" :rolleyes:

Grasping for straws, Grasping for straws, Grasping for straws..... So sad really.

Shhh. If I say it quietly enough, maybe Joe won't notice and cop a fit again. lol.
 
Whole bunch of crap about "Bring it on" being taken "out of context"

Like I said, you're free to have the opinion that it wasn't taken out of context and if that's in fact your true belief, I don't fault you for that. , because I can definitely see Bush's statements as a whole it being taken that way.

But if that's the case, then I'll just fault you for using dead American Soldiers (who died fighting for this Country, of which you are a part, btw) as a prop for your political agenda. Personally, I think that's downright deplorable.

But hey, as long as you're not truthfully quoting forum members...it's all good, right? Lol...

Natoma said:
Grasping for straws, Grasping for straws, Grasping for straws..... So sad really.

Awwwww....Natoma-woma caught in the middle of the truthy-woothy...its like confronting my 3 year old with an obvious truth that he wants no part of, at which point he just shuts up, folds his arms puts on that big lip frown...kinda cute actually! It's tough to deliver a serious message in those cases without busting out laughing at the response! :D
 
If god is omniscient, then he would know which creatures would fail would he not?

Yes, God knows which creatures would oppose him.

So why create them flawed?

When God created Adam and Eve, they were good. They become flawed when they began to oppose God.

Because God is perfect, the only way for his creature to be good, is to inline themselves with God. Any creatures who oppose God become flawed.

You may asked why not create creatures that can't oppose God in the first place ?

God did, look at all the various plants and animals as well as the sun and planets.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
But if that's the case, then I'll just fault you for using dead American Soldiers (who died fighting for this Country, of which you are a part, btw) as a prop for your political agenda. Personally, I think that's downright deplorable.

So my "political agenda" has anything to do with being disgusted at our president making truly asinine comments about the enemy bringing it on because we have more than enough forces to deal with them? Yea. Why don't you go to the police chief of your city and tell him that you'd love to hear him go on TV and tell the criminal element to bring it on because there are more than enough cops to handle them.

The deeper you get yourself in this crap...... You should have stopped posts ago while you were only slightly behind.

Joe DeFuria said:
Natoma said:
Grasping for straws, Grasping for straws, Grasping for straws..... So sad really.

Awwwww....Natoma-woma caught in the middle of the truthy-woothy...

Natoma-woma? Truthy-woothy? You sure you're even qualified to speak to your 3yr old? Man, your kid must laugh at that deplorable language..... :LOL:

The sad fact is you're still holding on to this belief that "bring it on" was in any way shape or form a responsible or non-reprehensible thing for the leader of our armed forces to say. Now who's caught in the middle of the truth, can't seem to accept it, and pouts saying "no, it can't be. no no no." Please. At least when I make mistakes, I own up to them. It seems some people are too proud to do so. This has officially become a waste of my time. Next.
 
As an aside, its somewhat disingenuous to say that Bush saying such a thing actually caused or influenced that soldiers death.

It wasn't a smart thing to say, but only for the political ramifications. It (in my estimation) had zero effect on why people are still attacking US soldiers.

In many ways, its a good thing that we're still being attacked, assuming those doing the attacking AREN'T Iraqi people, but insurgents and other arabs that have come to do their bit for Jihad. At least we can kill them there in Iraq, rather than having to put our troops in more countries.
 
RussSchultz said:
As an aside, its somewhat disingenuous to say that Bush saying such a thing actually caused or influenced that soldiers death.

It wasn't a smart thing to say, but only for the political ramifications. It (in my estimation) had zero effect on why people are still attacking US soldiers.

In many ways, its a good thing that we're still being attacked, assuming those doing the attacking AREN'T Iraqi people, but insurgents and other arabs that have come to do their bit for Jihad. At least we can kill them there in Iraq, rather than having to put our troops in more countries.

Nor do I believe Bush's comments actually caused or influenced the soldier's death. I just think it was a very stupid thing to say, given his stature and his position as commander in chief. Frankly I read Mary Kewatt's comments with an eye of bitterness and sadness, mixed in with sarcasm. "Oh great. Well you got what you asked for. Happy now?" Along those lines. Not actual blame that his comments all of a sudden caused an insurgency and bam.
 
Natoma said:
So my "political agenda" has anything to do with being disgusted at our president making truly asinine comments about the enemy bringing it on because we have more than enough forces to deal with them?

No, your political agenda has everything to do with using a dead American Solider as a prop for giving that opinion.

As I said...if those comments are truly asinine....then quote the President's comments, not those of someone else.

As I said...there would be no issue with your sig, if you just quoted the President himself. By your admission, the comments themselves are asinine, so your point will be made just by making THIS your sig:

President Bush said:
"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

So, put your money where your mouth is. If they are so horrendously asinine and would cause much ridicule in and of themselves, make that your sig.

Natoma-woma? Truthy-woothy? You sure you're even qualified to speak to your 3yr old? Man, your kid must laugh at that deplorable language..... :LOL:

That's why I don't speak to him that way...I spoke to YOU that way.

The sad fact is you're still holding on to this belief that "bring it on" was in any way shape or form a responsible or non-reprehensible thing for the leader of our armed forces to say.

The sad fact is, I can clearly see it being interpreted . reacted to in that way. And the sad fact is, you can't accept it being taken any other way.

Now who's caught in the middle of the truth, can't seem to accept it, and pouts saying "no, it can't be. no no no." Please.

That would be you. I said repeatedly that I can fully understand how those comments can be interpreted / reacted to that way. I fully understand how thay can be viewed as irresponsible. Absolutely. Who can't handle the truth?

The sad fact is, you're still holding on to this belief that propagandizing an American Soldier's death is in any way, shape or form a responsible or non-reprehensible thing for ANYONE to do.

At least when I make mistakes, I own up to them. It seems some people are too proud to do so. This has officially become a waste of my time. Next.

And what mistake, exactly, should I be owning up to?

1) I have no issue with how "you took" those comments. (I don't force my views on others, or only accept my single view as the only valid one...that would be you.)
2) I'm not the one propagandizing a fellow American Soldier's death to make a point...particularly when you believe in the sheer "idiocy" of the comments themselves, which should be enough to make your point if you have any sense of consistency and logic.
 
Yes, God knows which creatures would oppose him.

Then why would he create them?

When God created Adam and Eve, they were good. They become flawed when they began to oppose God.

Are you so sure abou that? Seems to be an all knowing God would be aware of the fact they would oppose him.

Now would this be in the first or second creation (Gen 1 or 2) :LOL: ?

Because God is perfect, the only way for his creature to be good, is to inline themselves with God. Any creatures who oppose God become flawed.

Exactly what does perfect entail? Does perfect entail allowing your people to starve to the point they cannibalize their own children? Does a perfect God incourage his people to kill homosexuals and disobedient children? Would a perfect God flood his world killing off all life? Your God has done all these things. Is he perfect?

You may asked why not create creatures that can't oppose God in the first place ?

God did, look at all the various plants and animals as well as the sun and planets.

Actually the whole is corrupt in his eyes. Hense the reason he gave Lucifer dominion over it.

I think it is a bit absurd to suggest creating a rock is comparable to creating something like a human don't you think?
 
Legion said:
Are you so sure abou that? Seems to be an all knowing God would be aware of the fact they would oppose him.

Now would this be in the first or second creation (Gen 1 or 2) :LOL: ?

.....

Exactly what does perfect entail? Does perfect entail allowing your people to starve to the point they cannibalize their own children? Does a perfect God incourage his people to kill homosexuals and disobedient children? Would a perfect God flood his world killing off all life? Your God has done all these things. Is he perfect?

Another thing I wrote a while ago during a debate. Basically what you wrote, but with a tad more sarcasm. :)

Natoma said:
Ok, it basically comes down to this. MS-GOD, in his infinite wisdom, created Earth 95. When he saw what a fucked up job he did, he tried to redo some of the codebase and created Earth 98.

But gee, he has infinite wisdom. wtf..

God knows the future. He already knows wtf is going to happen. Why the hell wouldn't he just create the people that he knows will serve him and let them frolic in heaven with him. If 'god' knows that I'm not interested in him, why the hell did he create me then? Why in the world did he create satan?

Why? Because god just fucked up royally from the get go and is now trying to fix all this crap going on in the world.

The apocalypse as explained in revelations is basically god taking the hard drive that is creation, formatting it, and doing a totally clean reinstallation.

God in its infinite wisdom fucked up all of creation, sent himself in a schizoid separation called jesus (he calls 'god' his father, even though he is 'god'? what kind of messed up logic is that. lol) to fix that fuck up (old testament version of the repair man?), still couldn't get anything right, and at the end of the world, will just format us all into oblivion.

But he'll save the few characters he liked onto floppy disks for a restoration onto the hard drive when he gets the code right in version 2.0... :)
 
And lets not forget. God only offered his salvation to the Israelites, for a good 3000 years. Only after they rejected him did he turn to the gentiles with Jesus and say "You can be saved!"

Does that, or does that not, sound like someone on the rebound after a bad breakup? :LOL:
 
Legion,

Exactly what does perfect entail? Does perfect entail allowing your people to starve to the point they cannibalize their own children? Does a perfect God incourage his people to kill homosexuals and disobedient children? Would a perfect God flood his world killing off all life? Your God has done all these things. Is he perfect?

I find a few interesting concepts in the above.

Would a perfect God flood his world killin off all life?

Would a father spank his child and cause him pain? Well, not just for the heck of it, but if the child brought it upon himself by doing wrong things he might.

killin off all life?

I wonder if we put more importance on this thing called "life" than God does. Try to imagine an infinate timeline. Now imagine an infinatly small portion of that timeline. That small portion represents the length of our life. If that infinatly small portion became 50% smaller (if it were possible) who would care? In the overall scope of things, it really has no bearing. Now this thing called life might be important to us because all we really know is it, but maybe it is not quite so important? Just some of my ponderings.....

Dr. Ffreeze
 
Back
Top