Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

isn't this like putting Capone in charge of the FBI?

Mar 7, 2004 8:25PM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Bishop Whoever? That was a fictional character Jonah created. What Bishop do YOU mean?
Mar 8, 2004 3:00PM PST

What new Bishop do you refer to? I see Jonah is speaking of Bishop Whoever, but I doubt that is the one you may be thinking of. You really must define your questions a bit more clearly.

- Collapse -
Re: And the truth shall make you free....izzat so?
Mar 8, 2004 1:34AM PST

Jonah, I'm tired of you folks trying to make a link between pedophelia and consensual homosexuality among consenting adults. There are just as many, if not more, heterosexual pedophiles as homosexuals -- one thing has nothing to do with the other, other than both involve sex.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re: you may not be able to grasp this dave, but if i had to choose between
Mar 8, 2004 5:23AM PST

a female heterosexual pedophile and a homosexual for my 12 yr old sons first sexual experience....guess which i would choose...

- Collapse -
WOW! THAT certainly made it all OK!! Hurry, Read all about it! Heterosexual Pedophiles...
Mar 8, 2004 3:05PM PST

now justify Homosexual Pedophiles. Dave, all pedophiles should be removed from any position they might have undue authority over children, whether it be in a church, a public school, a daycare, a team coach, or any other place.

- Collapse -
Re: WOW! THAT certainly made it all OK!! Hurry, Read all about it! Heterosexual Pedophiles...
Mar 8, 2004 9:08PM PST

Hi, James.

Did I say anything about justifying pedophelia of any sort? I don't appreciate your twisting my words into something they're not.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
You are right but wrong Dave...
Mar 9, 2004 12:22AM PST

so very wrong!

NUMERICALLY there are more heterosexual child molesters/sexual predators than homosexual child molesters/sexual predators BUT a far greater PERCENTAGE of such criminals are HOMOSEXUAL.

EVERY legitimate "study" has confirmed this and you have been pointed to them many times but with your closed mind and inability to grasp the facts you simply choose to ignore them.

If there are 100 sexual criminals and 90 of them are heterosexuals from the 98% of the population that is heterosexual and only 10 of them are from the 2% of the population that is homosexual it becomes quite clear that an inordinate number of the predators are homosexual. This even ignores the fact that NO same sex molestations are considered homosexual if the child is under 12 years of age--if those were counted as homosexuals the heterosexual numbers would drop below 60 of 100.

I am getting real tired of your denial of the facts that there is a STRONG link between pedophilia and homosexuals.

- Collapse -
Re: You are right but wrong Dave...
Mar 9, 2004 4:29AM PST

Hi, Ed.

I'd be interested in your definition of a "legitimate study," because those in the psychiatry literature generally reach the opposite conclusion...

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:who the heck needs psychiatry? it's simple maths
Mar 9, 2004 5:12AM PST

if pedophelia is spread across the scale of humanity, and the majority of humanity is hetero, isn't it logical (and mathematically correct) that the majority of pedophiles will be hetero......

- Collapse -
Re: it's simple maths -- But that's not the message of the 'gay = NMBLA' crowd! (NT)
Mar 9, 2004 9:49PM PST

.

- Collapse -
If you had bothered reading the links posted several times...
Mar 10, 2004 1:02AM PST

rather than turning up your nose you would have seen the legitimacy of the studies.

Most were by rather liberal academics.

They were recently posted for Rick and you told him to ignore them as you didn't approve of the site they were on. You miss a lot through skimming and avoiding links to material because you think the material referenced is also a product of the site rather than an outside work.

Do a wee bit of research and you too will see how unavoidable the conclusion is--you can start with Justice department stats if you desire.

EXACTLY NONE of the "psychiatry literature" i have read reaches any conclusion other than what I stated. If you have seen otherwise it should be easy for you to reference them. Should I hold my breath?

- Collapse -
Re: isn't this like putting Capone in charge of the FBI?
Mar 7, 2004 10:23PM PST

Hi, Jonah.

Only to those who think that sexual morality is the be-all and end-all of Christainity (it's aminor portion of Christ's Good News, according to the Gospels), and that a committed homosexual relationship is somehow not really love.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:if a committed homosexual relationship is really love.
Mar 7, 2004 11:23PM PST

is not the question or the problem here.....

the way i see it, putting a declared gay in a superior position (forgive the pun Wink) over a bunch of priests, who, according to latest figures, anywhere between 4-8% of them are willing to touch/fondle/****** little boys, is NOT acceptable...

i find it hard to believe that complaints to him of paedophilic/homosexual activity amongst his priests will be treated with the severity that is deserved...

- Collapse -
By definition, homosexual activity will get a pass.
Mar 7, 2004 11:50PM PST

The bishop thinks it's OK.

- Collapse -
Don't give me that
Mar 8, 2004 10:35PM PST

That's like saying that heterosexual pedophilia is OK to me because I'm a heterosexual. It is wrong no matter who commits it and homosexual pedophilia should be as disgusting to a gay priest as it is to a straight priest.

- Collapse -
I said homosexual activity not pedophilia. (NT)
Mar 9, 2004 12:03AM PST

.

- Collapse -
NT - But you were responding to a post on homosexual pedophilia
Mar 9, 2004 12:12AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Agreed. That's why I spelled out 'homosexual activity'. I saw two sides
Mar 9, 2004 4:01AM PST

to the thread, and was responding to one of the two, but not both.

- Collapse -
Re: pedophile priests
Mar 8, 2004 1:37AM PST

Hi, Jonah.

Now you're mixing the Anglican Church (which has both married and women priests) and the Roman Catholic church, which doesn't, and is generally thought to have much more of a problem with pedophiles in the ranks (the recently published 4-8% estimate is for the RC priesthood; I don't believe there's an accepted figure for Anglican priests, but it's generally though to be much lower).

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re: a priest is a priest is a priest
Mar 8, 2004 3:26AM PST

my argument stands whether it's 1-2 or 4%....

- Collapse -
Yes Jonah, it is. Here is an example of Gays killing a church.
Mar 8, 2004 2:49PM PST

It seems those same Gays are cheapskates too when it comes to supporting their concept of a church. If it wasn't for funds given in years past by those who would never have approved of the current situation, this Gay Church would have already been almost dead, a branch pruned off from the vine of Christ.


short URL

"Once at the center of the homosexual ordination debate in the Presbyterian Church (USA) ? when it unsuccessfully tried in 1990 to install lesbian activist Janie Spahr as a co-pastor ? Downtown United is in a freefall.

To cover its 2003 expenses of $869,002, it withdrew 9.2 percent of its invested funds (roughly $560,000). The advertisement for a new interim co-pastor did not say whether the drawdown depleted some of its endowment capital, but it did note that the congregation's leaders want to limit future withdrawals from the endowment to no more than 6 percent....


But its members are well below par when it comes to supporting that complex and the work of the church. The advertising profile of the congregation said the 2003 budget included only about $220,000 in pledges and offerings, which is roughly $618 per member. As a whole, members of congregations throughout the PCUSA gave an average of $827.37 in 2002. The average annual giving per member among the 1,315 Confessing Churches within the Presbyterian Churches (USA) is nearly $1,000....

The congregation's advertisement says membership at the end of 2003 was 356. That's a decline of 47.8 percent from its 1992 membership of 681, according to congregational data reported by the Presbyterian Church (USA). In 2003 alone, the congregation removed the names of 49 members from its rolls, an 8 percent drop.

The Rochester congregation has a 500-seat sanctuary, but average worship attendance is only 145 ? 40.7 percent of the membership.
"

- Collapse -
As much as I hate to talk about Paul
Mar 8, 2004 11:00PM PST

considering how often he is misquoted and taken out of context, I will have to this time.

He does say that a Christian should refrain from doing things that will cause a brother (or sister) to slip. Whether that is eating meat that has first been offered to idols or accepting the position as bishop as a practicing homosexual.

His being a priest doesn't bother me as long as it doesn't bother his church. His accepting the nomination and election as a bishop is dividing the church and he should have declined from the get-go.

- Collapse -
What about ending his continuing sin of homosexual behaviour? {nt}
Mar 9, 2004 2:00AM PST

.

- Collapse -
The church has a history of doing things like this. It just shows that hierarchy
Mar 7, 2004 10:57PM PST

may be a particularly weak form of church government.

Remember the Popes in the middle ages, or before, who had children, and/or who were corrupt princes rather than spiritual leaders. Notice that Anglican leaders abroad have condemned the American branch of the church for this action, and that many American bishops have denounced the action of their church as a violation of biblical teaching.

The Bible is quite clear that a practicing, homosexual, Christian leader is an oxymoron. At best, he has not repented of a sin which is condemned by God. Christianity is NOT about sexuality, it is about repentance, faith and salvation. A true Christian must strive to obey God's commands. One of those is to abstain from sex outside of a marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Jesus was quite clear about this teaching as is the rest of the Christian scripture.

- Collapse -
Re:The church has a history of doing things like this. It just shows that hierarchy
Mar 8, 2004 2:47AM PST

Amen to that! (NT)

- Collapse -
Oh? Please cite chapter and verse (from Jesus, not Paul!)
Mar 8, 2004 4:47AM PST

>>One of those is to abstain from sex outside of a marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Jesus was quite clear about this teaching...<<

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I was afraid you'ld never ask.
Mar 8, 2004 8:39AM PST

I assume you are talking about the 'marriage relationship between a man and a woman'. Jesus covered this in at least two places. Here is one:

Mark 10:5-12 NIV
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Did you notice Dave? Jesus talks about marriage as exclusively male and female. He even talks about sexual sin as exclusively male and female. Why? He was clarifying the understanding of divorce. Homosexuality never entered into the discussion because no clarification was needed. The penalty for homosexuality was death.

What did Jesus think of sex outside of marriage? Here's one of His comments.

Matt 15:16-20 NIV
6 "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'"

Any doubt about what he means by 'sexual immorality'?

- Collapse -
Re:I was afraid you'ld never ask.
Mar 8, 2004 9:10PM PST

Hi, KP.

Sorry, but there's no mention of homosexuality at all in what you cited, or in any of Christ's teachings. "Sexual immorality" is as vague as you can get...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
As usual, you ignore the main point Dave.
Mar 8, 2004 11:58PM PST
Jesus defined marriage as between a man and a woman. He quoted the Old Testament when he did so, and He quoted it as authoritative. In fact, in another place, He said that not one jot or tittle of the Old Testament would pass away. The Old Testament says that the practice of homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Therefore, homosexual marriage is impossible. If Jesus wanted to clarify that point, He would have done so. Instead, He continued the definition of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. He also refered back to Genesis, which also makes it crystal clear that marriage is between a male and a female.

If you argue that homosexuality is OK because Jesus didn't use the word, then you must also argue that pedophilia is OK. Jesus didn't use that word either.

The argument you rely on tries to use the letter of what Jesus said rather than the clear meaning and spirit of His words. That's legalism, and it's combined with throwing out the Old Testament and a large part of the New Testament. How can you claim that this is Christianity?
- Collapse -
Re:As usual, you ignore the main point Dave.
Mar 9, 2004 12:07AM PST

How do you select which bible passages to follow and which to ignore?

Dan

- Collapse -
That's easy Dan. I don't pick and choose. I accept and try to follow
Mar 9, 2004 4:05AM PST

them all. With passages taken in isolation, you can make the Bible say anything you want. It has to be taken as a whole so that one passage can help interpret another.