the way i see it

The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks that all the clamor over whether gays should serve as priests in the Anglican church is causing problems within the church. So his solution is to allow homosexuals to serve yet remain celibate. How brilliant! Does he not understand why this issue causes clamor in the first place? Perhaps it's because Anglicans believe that gays are entitled to the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals? And why would they think that? Perhaps because lots and lots of other people around the world believe that homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals? Some would say that more problems will be caused if gays are allowed to serve. I think that the possibility of problems is increased umpteen-fold by restricting sex. Just look at the Catholic church and all their pedophiles and perverts serving in churches around the world. Sex is not the evil here; the evil is attempting to deny human beings from being human beings. It seems that the Archbishop may not personally know any gay people. If he does then he maintains a position of superiority over his gay friend/s, which in quite disrespectful, if you ask me. That's the way I see it...

Another article in the news is one speaking to the issue of Eddie Long. Churches will continue to have problems with pastors and others in leadership when it comes to inappropriate behavior. Given enough money, power, prestige, and "Jesus will forgive me" doctrines, any man or woman could fall to the temptations available. Entitlement is not something from which religious people are immune. Politicians suffer the same fate, why shouldn't religious folks? Should there be tighter scrutiny on leaders of religious groups in order to keep them in line? Good luck with that one. Most religious people are so scared of having to deal with sex publicly. They'd rather turn the other way and ignore it. "Let God deal with it." (cop-out thinking). That's the way I see it...

On a recent Facebook thread I noticed a bit of a battle of words going back and forth between Christians. One was espousing the grace message while the other was certain that law and grace were still in effect. Despite the convoluted thinking necessary to put forth either of these two messages I thought to myself... "this message of grace sounds a lot like atheism except for the "righteousness" part. I'm not too keen on self-righteous thinking, so I tend to wince when I hear people talk about righteousness in general. I do agree that freedom is what we humans thrive on. Without it we are less human in the here and now. And that's the only place I chose to live... here and now. Looking towards the hereafter tends to lessen the experience that I'm trying to have now." That's the way I see it...