|
“Reader”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
|
Luigi wrote: "in support of loving relationships.." is quite right, but
no "sense" of homosexual rel.
As for "my standards", I have none.
I am not a "relativist".
Your "interpretation" of me exposes
you as a "rationalist", never really getting anywhere, but more wind than Nature! Your credibility is shot!
There is no argument w/you.
You won't even be able to explain
why St. Paul equates lust w/man with
mankind,woman w/womankind, & then
goes on to tell married MEM & WOMEN
to come back together BEFORE they fall into TEMPTATION! Notice, prayerful separaton, but not for too long. But when man lies w/man, & woman w/woman, it's a no-go!
Better yet, it's a no-no!!!!!!!
And by the way, it is YOU who hijack
Scripture, YOU who looks for "literal" condemnation(it's there, but you have been de-"sensitized" to the "senses" of Scripture.
Martin Luther himself regretted what he started by calling everyone that believed in their Spirit-filled
interpretive skills "clowns".
So please quit bitchin' & running
around in rationalist circles.
Get to your MAIN EVIDENCE, & then prove your line of continuity to the Apostles & Jesus. I tell you,
I've already done that research,
and the only bona-fide lines you
will EVER be able to pinpoint, are
the gnosti-manichaean line of descent. I'm afraid that I don't find your post coherent, so I have to pass on a reply. I simply don't understand enough of what your contentions might be to reply to them. It looks as thogh KGC has made a good reply in any case (much along the lines of what I intended in my less articulate way in my original post).
|
|
Luigi
|
Bookguy;
That's OK. I refer you to the post I
gave to KGC.
Love you all!
( I mean that )
|
|
KGC
|
Dear Luigi, Luigi wrote: Bookguy;
That's OK. I refer you to the post I
gave to KGC.
Love you all!
( I mean that ) I sense that you are comfortable with the standard Roman Catholic line about these issues. Now, before anybody gets their hackles up about what may or may not be such a standard line or why it may or may not be justifiable, I'm going to make a reasonable assumption. That is, that both Luigi and BookGuy have given a fair amount of effort and time to the development of their own personal perspectives. Also, that theirs is not solely based upon someone else's conclusions, such as a papal bull or a positional essay provided under the authority of the Magisterium or a consensus delivered by the House of Bishops. In other words, we look to the authoritative expressions of others to give ourselves and our own opinions a reliable foundation. We rely upon Scripture in the same way. But, this too, has the potential to substantiate a flawed conclusion. I do not expect to entertain a great debate about either papal infallibility or the divine guidance upon the hand that writes scripture. Although, these two principles are the foundations of what most Christians recognize as the primary points of the establishment of authority. There are many essays written in debate of the validity of both principles. There is also a third principle. That is, the primacy of the Holy Spirit and the embodiment of the Light of Christ, expressed through one's own self and soul. This is more of a Gnostic view. However, since it is so subjective, it was and is generally rejected by the Orthodox view, which would prefer to place the ultimate decision-making authority outside of our selves or at least in committee such as the Magisterium or House of Bishops. Yet, it is precisely this Gnostic - subjective authority that must be acknowledged - "I am the Way, the Truth and the Light..." and "The Kingdom of God is within you." But, for us "Born again in the Spirit" mortals, we still have this one paradoxical problem. Every one of us is still capable of error - capable. Every one who serves in the Magisterium, every one of the members of the House of Bishops, everey past pope, every present and accountable Christian. This is what I was getting at, when I suggested that we may have to acknowledge the capability of error and, therefore, may have to permit the sacramental blessing of same-sex unions. KGC
|
|
cool kitty
|
bookguybaltmd wrote: <quoted text>
So just show ONE place where there is a legitimate instance of what you claim in the bible. It does not exist. The bible also doesn't say any legitimate instance where child labor or pollution is wrong either, but you can extrapolate from earlier texts on how God desires us to care for the earth, and protect the disinfranchised that these things are wrong, just as the bible considers same sex and non man and woman marital relations (even if they are long term and loving) an abomination. If you don't like that the bible says these things, don't try and follow it, like most people.
|
|
connecticut democrat
|
If you really all claim to be Christians, limit your reading, and interpretions, to the four gospels. Jesus had little use for the legalistic parsing of the old testament. He was put to death by the "religious" people of his day.
|
|
KGC
|
Dear Luigi, KGC wrote: Dear Luigi,
<quoted text>
...
But, for us "Born again in the Spirit" mortals, we still have this one paradoxical problem. Every one of us is still capable of error - capable. Every one who serves in the Magisterium, every one of the members of the House of Bishops, everey past pope, every present and accountable Christian.
This is what I was getting at, when I suggested that we may have to acknowledge the capability of error and, therefore, may have to permit the sacramental blessing of same-sex unions.
KGC I am reminded of the Scripture; Genesis 18, v. 32,...Then he said, Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there." He answered, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it." KGC
|
|
James
|
Good, get the perverts out of the church.
|
|
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate
|
James wrote: Good, get the perverts out of the church. So anyone who sins should be thrown out?
|
|
|
|
Luigi
|
My dear KGC,
A flawed conclusion? Obviously, we &
a host of others have different
beliefs on what "the Church" is,&
the function provided from this
Apostolic set-up. So just to keep it short & Historic, I reject the many
forms of Gnosticism that "truly"
flow from false premises, which
lead to (a) flawed conclusion(s).
I stand by the Catholic Church. It's
the only hospital for sinners.
The hotel for saints belongs to the
Gnostics.
Let me end with Pope Leo XIII stating in his encyclical to the Church in America; The true Church is one...Wherefore, if anybody wishes to be considered a real Catholic, he ought to be able to say
from his heart the selfsame words
Jerome addressed to Pope Damasus:
'I, ackknowledging no other leader
than Christ, am bound by fellowship with your Holiness; that is, with the Chair of Peter. I know that the Church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth
not with you, scattereth.'"
Now I tell you all. Is this not the situation today? How much more
scatterings can the world take?
How much more sickness can be turned upsidedown & be called a good?
Many, inside the Church & outside It have tried to destroy Her. To this day! they keep trying, but they have failed & will continue to fail.
It is Divine & human, like our Master, Jesus, the Christ, God's only
Begotton Son.
Tell me, if you say that man, even w/ God Himself behind him, can fail
in giving us God's way of Life,
then how can your "own" statement
about this be true? By what authority
do "you" speak?
Luv Ya!
|
|
KGC
|
Luigi, Luigi wrote: My dear KGC,
A flawed conclusion? Obviously, we &
a host of others have different
beliefs on what "the Church" is,&
the function provided from this
Apostolic set-up. So just to keep it short & Historic, I reject the many
forms of Gnosticism that "truly"
flow from false premises, which
lead to (a) flawed conclusion(s).
I stand by the Catholic Church. It's
the only hospital for sinners.
The hotel for saints belongs to the
Gnostics.
Let me end with Pope Leo XIII stating in his encyclical to the Church in America; The true Church is one...Wherefore, if anybody wishes to be considered a real Catholic, he ought to be able to say
from his heart the selfsame words
Jerome addressed to Pope Damasus:
'I, ackknowledging no other leader
than Christ, am bound by fellowship with your Holiness; that is, with the Chair of Peter. I know that the Church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth
not with you, scattereth.'"
Now I tell you all. Is this not the situation today? How much more
scatterings can the world take?
How much more sickness can be turned upsidedown & be called a good?
Many, inside the Church & outside It have tried to destroy Her. To this day! they keep trying, but they have failed & will continue to fail.
It is Divine & human, like our Master, Jesus, the Christ, God's only
Begotton Son.
Tell me, if you say that man, even w/ God Himself behind him, can fail
in giving us God's way of Life,
then how can your "own" statement
about this be true? By what authority
do "you" speak?
Luv Ya! I answer thusly: I did not say that either the Church or the Magisterium makes or made a "mistake." I did not say that any pope or Christian makes or made a mistake. I did not advocate any particular view of the Gnostics. Instead, I acknowledged that Gnostic views were rejected by the Orthodox because of their peculiar reliance upon the subjective, which the Orthodox regarded as too fluid. But, the Lord Jesus clearly regarded spiritual development as an inward journey and repeatedly cautioned against falling into a system of judging the appropriate righteousness of others. Why? Because each of us has our own personal journey to negotiate. Luigi. If we cannot absolutely judge others from a point of personal perfection, our only alternative path is acceptance, mercy and forgiveness. And, even though we may make a correct judgment, if there is no more than a "capability" of error - even the slightest capability - because we recognize that we may personally harbor imperfection, forgiven or not, then we must permit ourselves and others to be saved. Can any of us do a better job at saving than the Lord Jesus Christ? KGC
|
|
Luigi
|
My Dear KGC,
How "absolutley fluid" of you to judge me. You are riddled w/contradictions. And you speak like a politician. Your equivocations remind me of Darwinists.
Truly bad philosophers!
You still haven't answered my last question. By what authority do YOU
speak? You seem to be floating above
your very own accusative standard
against me. This, of course, I always catch Gnostics doing all the time, be it in religion, politics,
science,etc.
Besides, why overlook one sin?
Why not overlook ALL SINS?
Why throw criminals in jail?
Who are we to judge?
You have opened up the treasury of
worms. Your own philosophy condemns
you! But I don't. That's for the Lord
to do or not. I just merely follow the certainties He left w/us &
continues to guide with; the very certainties you deny! You keep wanting to swing me towards a relativistic stance. But by now you
should know better. This is why so many Christians stagnate and fall
into Satan's clutches.( do you
still believe there is a Devil?)
They refuse to love the intellect
because they have never really known
the Logos correctly.
I like your statement about the capability of error. purely from a philosophical point of view, of course. It's a shame , though, how you don't catch all your toe stubbings upon this gigantic meteor
you have introduced into this dialogue.
My best in the Lord for you & all!
|
|
Anthony
|
Reality wrote: BooHoo - "it caused me considerable pain"
I'm sure having a gay bishop has caused considerable pain to the rest of the Eipiscopal Church and a large portion of the congregations since it's causing the entire church to run contrary to the teachings of what the church is supposed to believe, the Bible. Do they? I mean, the Episcopal church, or the Church of England, formed because King Henry wanted a divorce, so seperated from the church. He then went on to bastardize England from the Vatican. The religion was founded upon sin... why is it that Episcopalians tend to forget - or rather, supress - their own history?
|
|
“Reader”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
|
Anthony wrote: <quoted text>
Do they? I mean, the Episcopal church, or the Church of England, formed because King Henry wanted a divorce, so seperated from the church. He then went on to bastardize England from the Vatican. The religion was founded upon sin... why is it that Episcopalians tend to forget - or rather, supress - their own history? Actually, that is one of those popular misconceptions that seems to have poped up over the years. Henry didn't seperate himself from Catholicism, he just took back civil authority over divorce and a host of other clearly civil issues. Those civil factors were not being regulated by the church in other countries (Spain or France, for example). Essentially Henry wanted to get his ex-brother-in-law out of the ruling of England. Of course, it is too easy to think about "what might have been," but many historians think it is clear that, had Henry not taken civil authority back from the roman church in England, he would not have found himself king for much longer. To some extent, Even the Roman church did not recognize a formal division between the churches (English vs Roman) until the time of Elizabeth.
|
|
Anthony
|
James wrote: Good, get the perverts out of the church. Not possible; perverts run the church. And the congregation is generally not much better.
|
|
James
|
Becareful what you wish for. If we remove all gay priests there may not be any left.
|
|
“Reader”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
|
James wrote: Becareful what you wish for. If we remove all gay priests there may not be any left. ...not to mention all the folks in the choir, decorating, social committees, the theatre outreach, and, not least, the liturgists... I mean, let's face it, things could get UGLY.... ;)
|
|
KGC
|
Dear Luigi, Luigi wrote: My Dear KGC,
How "absolutley fluid" of you to judge me. You are riddled w/contradictions. And you speak like a politician. Your equivocations remind me of Darwinists.
Truly bad philosophers!
You still haven't answered my last question. By what authority do YOU
speak?...
... They refuse to love the intellect
because they have never really known
the Logos correctly.
I like your statement about the capability of error. purely from a philosophical point of view, of course. It's a shame , though, how you don't catch all your toe stubbings upon this gigantic meteor
you have introduced into this dialogue.
My best in the Lord for you & all! Hold on a minute there, brother. If I gave the impression that I was judging you in any way, I apologize. My message was intended for conversation, in order to delve into and explain how I had come to certain conclusions. By what authority? By what authority does any man speak or write? For every one of us, even those who are ordained or who have taken vows, authority is from the collective such as the Church; from Gospel and scripture, such as the New Testament or Torah or Quran; from personal experience and reflection - from within. The weight and preponderance of evidence of each of these sources must be considered. But, for any of us to rely solely upon one established line of belief and thought, while denying all else, is to leave ourselves vulnerable to being swayed by the errors of the past. The world is no longer flat. Man is no longer believed to be the only growth of sentient and prescient beings in the Cosmos. The Patriarchs did suppress and nearly eliminate the role of women in the early Church - a role that Jesus had specifically fostered. The Kingdom of Heaven is within, not "up" there or somewhere other than where each of us is. There is much to discuss without jumping to conclusions about each other. And, no one has all of the answers, yet. KGC
|
|
Luigi
|
Henry the 8th DID break away. Divorce never existed in the Church.
Towards the end of his life, he was moving back toward unifying w/Rome again. He died before he could.
Besides, if you look at Bertrand
Russell's book, " The History of Western Philosohpy," he spells out the REAL meaning of the Protestant
Reformation: to legalize USURY1
He should know; he was the great,
great, great, grandson of just ONE
of the Church looters, Lord Russell.
But it was Martin Luther, prior to Henry & the CECIL crowd, who went along with the barrons who hid &
used him & his heresies to make
USURY( charging interest ) legal
for the 1st time in Christendom.
It is contrary to Nature, for money
doesn't produce progeny.
Remember, people, when the Federal Reserve Bank winks, we're supposed
to wink back!
Bookguy, quit placing spin on history!
|
|
Luigi
|
There you go again, KGC;"..if I gave you the impression..." Learn to say what you mean, not mean what you say. Too many polititians (utilitarians) always seem to get away w/that. Seems your more interested with what's "within" than the Apostolic weight without. You are a Gnostic. You sound like an "ordained minister" of the Episcopal Church. Take a look at the great cover-up of the spiritual journey of John Henry Cardinal Newman. And why he REALLY left for ROME. realviewbooks.com
|
|
Luigi
|
It's getting very hard to find this blog. Why is
that? Why does the tribune do that?
I hope to find this area again.
|
Judge it!
Most Popular
