|
Dan
|
bookguybaltmd wrote: <quoted text>
I don't really know much about TEC's ordination process. I do know that candidates are examined very carefully and that a large number of them are rejected for one reason or another.
Are you perhaps, back at the question of relativism? If so, it is clear that, contra TA, TEC is not relativist at all, but still holding true to pretty much the entire core of christianity. A sin is still a sin etc... We are just open to a dialogue on matters on the edge of faith and especially open to new ways of evangelizing the good news. Got it-I am just trying to navigate the discussion, really I am obviously not "there" and don't want to speak out of turn nor mis-represent anyone else's thoughts.
|
|
RISING STAR
|
bookguybaltmd wrote: <quoted text>
These citations can also all be applied to you. Unfortunately, the direct result of your position is evil. I am concerned that your imposition of a hateful and false political ideology onto scripture results in an evangelical disaster for Christitanity. It is, in that contect, you that are playing the snake here.
Here are a few citations from other blogs that show what the direct result of your position of excluding people from god's love. I hope you are happy, this is the direct result of your hijacking the good news to your evil ways.
<quoted text>
<quoted text> The only thing that woman is proof of is that God made some things just because He's God...like mosquitos, rats and Margie. Your come back should/might be - well He made homosexuals.....no, that is a chosen lifestyle and there are those who wish to slant that fact otherwise.
|
|
RISING STAR
|
KGC wrote: <quoted text>
How would you know, Rising Star?
Are you a Mormon? Are you an Apostle?
A thousand years ago, most everybody thought the Earth was flat and was the center of the Universe. They also believed that Malaria was contracted by breathing swamp air. They also believed that Satan, the Devil, existed in a fiery lair below the Earth's surface.
What Truths have been revealed over the past 1000 years that would make us believe otherwise, today?
What have we to learn about ourselves and our fellow humans that we do not yet know or understand?
What do you not know that you don't know, Rising Star?
You know, sometimes it becomes quite obvious that being a Christian is a whole lot more than just having and developing an internal personal thesaurus of scripture.
As to self-will versus disease and disability, what about the third option - you know, the one from which you assume that you are speaking from - that is, "I am normal and I was born a normal person with normally developing views and attitudes and instincts," ???
If the normal homosexual, a Child of God, is born to become a normal homosexual, free from disease and disability, with normal homosexual attitudes and normal homosexual instincts, what's that to you?
KGC
KGC Any word from any man is to be tested and proved...if it doesn't produce fruit (excuse the pun), then it doesn't pass the litmust test. As a Jew, Jesus would have explicitly follow those very same things that some of your compatriots wish to deny and then, and then - want to say that, well He didn't say this or say that. However, we should know as Christians what is implied. While practicing homosexuals can profess that Christ loves them, and they are absolutely correct, He does not and will not love their sin - which it is. I am NOT being disgusting here, but can you imagine Jesus saying..."go and sin no more, but I bless you two guys" knowing full well as the God in the Flesh that you are going to have anal sex, just to show an expression of love? Where's the love in that? Where's the propagation of the faith in that. Where's the multiplying and filling the earth in that. There is no dominion there, only domination over a human being, yet - enslaved to an animalistic lustful nature.
|
|
Think Again
|
KGC wrote: <quoted text>
Dear Think Again,
You fancy yourself to be an expert on what expertise is.
You appear to be a self-proclaimed authority on what authority is.
On the Episcopal Forum, you answer the questions of Roman Catholics about what Episcopalians are from the perspective of a Roman Catholic who appears to believe that Episcopalians do not have a legitimate foundation in reality.
You are the classic example of a relativist, not with a capital "R."
What do you regard as True, Think Again? Jesus said, "Seek the Truth and the Truth shall set you free." In a previous post you cite a modern clinical study that finds approximately 20% of homosexuals who are identical twins share the same trait with their twin (vs. a probability of 1-3% in the general population depending upon the general physical sex of the twin-set).
Most legitimate clinical studies have placed this likelihood percentage at about 52-53%. So, whether 20% or 53%, either group shows the same thing. There are, undoubtedly, confirmed genetic and in-utero chemical factors, not completely understood yet, but, well enough understood at this time to remove such individuals from the realm of a self-willed homosexual choosing. They are not sinners because of this, Think Again.
However, it is quite obvious that they are generally misunderstood, especially among people who have been indoctrinated in traditional Christian dogma.
That is what is presently in question, isn't it? Whether or not such traditional Christian dogma is based upon Truth or whether certain parts and concepts that have been held for centuries have now reached the end of their usefulness.
KGC I fancy myself as neither an authority or an expert. I am just a Bible-Believing Christian. I try to back up my points with either Scripture or citations. If you consider this fact as me viewing myself as an authority or an expert, that is your right. I don't believe someone just because they, like you or bookguy, throw out figures of studies without citations. Dan asked me a question and I answered it from my POV. Much like you do when you are asked a question. There are many Truths, KCG. But for them to be Truths they must be measured against something. I measure "Truth" against Scripture because I believe it is the inspired Word of God. If it is contradictory to Scripture than it cannot be a Truth. You tend to frame your discussion of truth around science. New discoveries are made so quickly these days how can you be certain that you really have the truth today when two months from now today's truth may be proven false?
|
|
KGC
|
Think Again wrote: <quoted text>
There are many Truths, KCG. But for them to be Truths they must be measured against something. I measure "Truth" against Scripture because I believe it is the inspired Word of God. If it is contradictory to Scripture than it cannot be a Truth.
You tend to frame your discussion of truth around science. New discoveries are made so quickly these days how can you be certain that you really have the truth today when two months from now today's truth may be proven false? Think Again, I certainly do value science, not as Truth, but, as demonstratable fact. If fact is demonstratable next week that disproves today's best understanding, you will find me residing with next week's understanding. I, too, value scripture and define its value as inspired Divinely. But, the Word of God is the living presense of Divinity within Man, not the words assigned to paper and placed in any book that we call the Bible. Such words are the most excellent guidance, to be sure. They are a tapestry of Man's relationship with God. But, few today can manage to remain strictly within the absolute literal word of the Bible, and with good reason. The Earth is not just 5000 years old. The entirety of creation was not placed into being in seven earth days. KGC
|
|
Luigi
|
Dan wrote: <quoted text>
Think Again-
I posted early on in this thread and have been reading subsequent posts.
I'm Catholic, so bear with me if I'm not attenuated to TEC practice.
Here's my question and or comment:
Bishop Robinson has been installed; he IS a Bishop and from what I understand, his standing as such is not in question, at least from the standpoint of the US PB and/or the General Council. He's the Bishop of New Hampshire.
Assumptively, this makes the TEC position clear, if not theologically, at least operatively, unless Diocesan concerns/wishes trump the GC or the PB.
As is evident, there is a faction within the TEC that considers this situation to be of sufficient contention to the point where parishes are willing to and working to 'break away', as it were.
While this is occurring, the response from TEC is to again vet, debate, discuss and read out the issue, ad nauseum (to the outsider).
Will this cycle of activity never have an end?
The proponents of homosexual ordination can claim "victory", as an ordination has occurred, yet the PB or GC will not (cannot?) "call the question" and declare those who disagree in schism.
Those who disagree are enabled to do so via the same circumstance with the PB/GC.
TEC's property statutes are delineated at least to the degree where they can present documents in court; if I go to the local TEC church and ask to get married there, I am sure I will be presented with some degree of a defined 'term of engagement' for that.
Why can TEC not simply decide, or if they HAVE decided, say what they DO believe with this issue? Pretty soon, the point will be academic if members keep jettisoning off.
Thanks - sorry so windy. You're not windy at all. But technically, as you know, he's not a real bishop. And the 'Anglicans'(good little pragmatists that they are) are trying to keep all their 'sects' in line by not inviting himm there. In other words, the charading mimic catholicism must be saved for public view. But the back door to infiltrate w/ homosexuality continues.
|
|
Luigi
|
Dan wrote: <quoted text>
Think Again-
I posted early on in this thread and have been reading subsequent posts.
I'm Catholic, so bear with me if I'm not attenuated to TEC practice.
Here's my question and or comment:
Bishop Robinson has been installed; he IS a Bishop and from what I understand, his standing as such is not in question, at least from the standpoint of the US PB and/or the General Council. He's the Bishop of New Hampshire.
Assumptively, this makes the TEC position clear, if not theologically, at least operatively, unless Diocesan concerns/wishes trump the GC or the PB.
As is evident, there is a faction within the TEC that considers this situation to be of sufficient contention to the point where parishes are willing to and working to 'break away', as it were.
While this is occurring, the response from TEC is to again vet, debate, discuss and read out the issue, ad nauseum (to the outsider).
Will this cycle of activity never have an end?
The proponents of homosexual ordination can claim "victory", as an ordination has occurred, yet the PB or GC will not (cannot?) "call the question" and declare those who disagree in schism.
Those who disagree are enabled to do so via the same circumstance with the PB/GC.
TEC's property statutes are delineated at least to the degree where they can present documents in court; if I go to the local TEC church and ask to get married there, I am sure I will be presented with some degree of a defined 'term of engagement' for that.
Why can TEC not simply decide, or if they HAVE decided, say what they DO believe with this issue? Pretty soon, the point will be academic if members keep jettisoning off.
Thanks - sorry so windy. http://pontifications.wordpress.com/anglicani...
|
|
Luigi
|
Dan wrote: <quoted text>
Thanks-another question-
TEC can act unilaterally on whose authority? What I mean is, it appears that this Lambeth Conference is for purposes of discussion, since resolutions are non-binding.
Where does the Archbishop of Canterbury figure in any of this? Dan, get the book 'The Panther & the Hind.' Excellent study on the Anglican/Episcopal problem. It's by the scholar Aidan Nichols, O.P. Also, go to www.RealViewBooks.com & check out the wealth of Cardinal Newman's materials by Stanley Jaki.
|
|
|
|
Luigi
|
KGC wrote: <quoted text>
How would you know, Rising Star?
Are you a Mormon? Are you an Apostle?
A thousand years ago, most everybody thought the Earth was flat and was the center of the Universe. They also believed that Malaria was contracted by breathing swamp air. They also believed that Satan, the Devil, existed in a fiery lair below the Earth's surface.
What Truths have been revealed over the past 1000 years that would make us believe otherwise, today?
What have we to learn about ourselves and our fellow humans that we do not yet know or understand?
What do you not know that you don't know, Rising Star?
You know, sometimes it becomes quite obvious that being a Christian is a whole lot more than just having and developing an internal personal thesaurus of scripture.
As to self-will versus disease and disability, what about the third option - you know, the one from which you assume that you are speaking from - that is, "I am normal and I was born a normal person with normally developing views and attitudes and instincts," ???
If the normal homosexual, a Child of God, is born to become a normal homosexual, free from disease and disability, with normal homosexual attitudes and normal homosexual instincts, what's that to you?
KGC
KGC Your presumptions are as goofy as that arch-druid hailing from the stolen episcopal chair @ Canterbury; on how faithful gay partnerships could be accepted by all Christians who endorse contraception. pg.51 in Rupert Shortt's book,'Rowan Williams, an Introduction.
|
|
Luigi
|
KGC wrote: <quoted text>
Think Again,
I certainly do value science, not as Truth, but, as demonstratable fact. If fact is demonstratable next week that disproves today's best understanding, you will find me residing with next week's understanding.
I, too, value scripture and define its value as inspired Divinely. But, the Word of God is the living presense of Divinity within Man, not the words assigned to paper and placed in any book that we call the Bible. Such words are the most excellent guidance, to be sure. They are a tapestry of Man's relationship with God.
But, few today can manage to remain strictly within the absolute literal word of the Bible, and with good reason.
The Earth is not just 5000 years old. The entirety of creation was not placed into being in seven earth days.
KGC Typical gnostic , & more contradictions!
|
|
Luigi
|
bookguybaltmd wrote: <quoted text>
Now you're being plain silly. Adultary is pretty clear when you are married. When anyone is married, sex with someone outside marriage is pretty clearly adultary. Homosexuals can and do marry. Robinson, for example, is pretty clearly married. Quit trying to hijack the word 'married.' Gays, mollies, whatever, will have to etymologically clothe themselves w/ some other word that best describes the substance of their masterbations.
|
|
Luigi
|
|
|
RISING STAR
|
Luigi wrote: <quoted text>
Quit trying to hijack the word 'married.'
Gays, mollies, whatever, will have to etymologically clothe themselves w/ some other
word that best describes the substance of
their masterbations. Luigi - you are quite right on that point...there is no such thing as a "married" homosexual and/or lesbian. The idea of normalcy is also being promoted, which is the furthest thing from the truth. It is unfortunately these men and women begin from a flawed premise and then try and build an argument around it. If only they would bring themselves to recognize that normalcy and "marriage" don't belong in the homosexual lexicon. And for those who tout the fact that Jesus loves them, and they are quite right - they conveniently leave behind the fact that they are sinning in the eyes of the Lord...not married and partaking in bestial sex (if not, then having thoughts of improper relations with women/men.).
|
|
KGC
|
RISING STAR wrote: <quoted text>
Luigi - you are quite right on that point...there is no such thing as a "married" homosexual and/or lesbian. The idea of normalcy is also being promoted, which is the furthest thing from the truth.
It is unfortunately these men and women begin from a flawed premise and then try and build an argument around it. If only they would bring themselves to recognize that normalcy and "marriage" don't belong in the homosexual lexicon.
And for those who tout the fact that Jesus loves them, and they are quite right - they conveniently leave behind the fact that they are sinning in the eyes of the Lord...not married and partaking in bestial sex (if not, then having thoughts of improper relations with women/men.). Rising Star, neither you or Luigi are right in this issue. Both of you are hanging on to a misconception; a disproved, stereotyping view of your fellow man. If there is a parable told by Jesus that gives insight to the misconception - and that is all it is - the parable of the Good Samaritan is the one. As the Rabbi passed by the injured man, he crossed to the other side rather than offerring needed help. His religion required him to do so because the injured man was "unclean" and therefore a sinner unworthy of assistance and who by receiving assistance would threaten the Rabbi's ability to serve others in righteousness. But, to the Jew, one of the chosen and a recipient of the benefit of the Covenant of Abraham, the Samaritan was a sinful reject and a heretic, unworthy of any consideration. Yet, it was the Samaritan who stopped, helped the wrongly injured man and saw him taken care of at the local inn. Finally, it was the Samaritan who Jesus said would receive the Heavenward Grace despite his non-Jewish inferior birthright because he had seen through the injustice, having shown compassion for and providing help and assistance without regard for the "uncleanness" or any sin of the wrongly injured man. KGC
|
|
“Reader”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
|
RISING STAR wrote: <quoted text>
The only thing that woman is proof of is that God made some things just because He's God...like mosquitos, rats and Margie.
Your come back should/might be - well He made homosexuals.....no, that is a chosen lifestyle and there are those who wish to slant that fact otherwise. The central problem, of course, is that you and those who follow your argument have not, in fact, shown that homosexuality is a sin. You have not shown it in scripture, you have not shown it in science, you have not shown it in Christ's message of truth for us all. My concern is that when you abuse scripture for these purposes, clearly false, you are driving people away from the true word of god. "That woman," as you described her, is at least engaged in the discussion. Recent research (the Pew study) shows that, although 75% of Americans believe in god, less than half attend church regularly. That means that more than half have tossed christianity out as either not relevant to them or their lives or as something that is outright pernicious. Those people are not even engaged in the conversation anymore. When we look at your arguement and it's fruits of hate (sorry Dan, but murder and other forms of oppression or even advocating these things, is hate and that is what we are talking about here), there is some justification for their belief. This is even more true when we look at the way the same arguments and the same form of hijacking scripture have been used in the past for other hateful and/or pernicious political purposes: slavery, segregation, opressing women, preventing entire classes of people from full participation in the church. What bothers me is that when you hijack scripture in the way you are attempting to do, you are actively pulling the rug out from under attempts by good christians to evangelize the unchurched. So read the bible closely and with as little prejudice as you can before you begin casting anyone out or even limiting their access to the church. Look at the scriptural citations very closely in as early a translation as you can manage. When you look at scripture with clear eyes, it rapidly becomes clear that the citations that those who would oppress homosexuals (or blacks or women, or children, or hispanics, or anyone else for that matter) simply do not support their case. Don't just assert it to be so, look at them for yourself.
|
|
Dan
|
Judged:
1
bookguybaltmd wrote: <quoted text>
The central problem, of course, is that you and those who follow your argument have not, in fact, shown that homosexuality is a sin. You have not shown it in scripture, you have not shown it in science, you have not shown it in Christ's message of truth for us all. My concern is that when you abuse scripture for these purposes, clearly false, you are driving people away from the true word of god.
"That woman," as you described her, is at least engaged in the discussion. Recent research (the Pew study) shows that, although 75% of Americans believe in god, less than half attend church regularly. That means that more than half have tossed christianity out as either not relevant to them or their lives or as something that is outright pernicious. Those people are not even engaged in the conversation anymore.
When we look at your arguement and it's fruits of hate (sorry Dan, but murder and other forms of oppression or even advocating these things, is hate and that is what we are talking about here), there is some justification for their belief. This is even more true when we look at the way the same arguments and the same form of hijacking scripture have been used in the past for other hateful and/or pernicious political purposes: slavery, segregation, opressing women, preventing entire classes of people from full participation in the church.
What bothers me is that when you hijack scripture in the way you are attempting to do, you are actively pulling the rug out from under attempts by good christians to evangelize the unchurched. So read the bible closely and with as little prejudice as you can before you begin casting anyone out or even limiting their access to the church. Look at the scriptural citations very closely in as early a translation as you can manage.
When you look at scripture with clear eyes, it rapidly becomes clear that the citations that those who would oppress homosexuals (or blacks or women, or children, or hispanics, or anyone else for that matter) simply do not support their case. Don't just assert it to be so, look at them for yourself. Understand you point-I perhaps did not make my position strong enough opposing acts of discrimination i.e. Akinola etc. I oppose it. To the matter here, you would concede at least that homosexual behavior is not treated benevolently when mentioned in Scripture; there at least is no affirmation or benign treatment of the practice evident to me. If you would extrapolate meaning from your reading saying that it is not sinful, you must at least admit that your opponent (of whom I am not one) possesses something a bit more concrete declaiming it.
|
|
Pat
|
I guess all the religious folks who cling to the foolish idea that homosexuality is a choice are bisexuals then for that is what would be required to actually have a choice. Maybe they are attracted physically to both sexes but I certainly am not. I couldn't get aroused by a member of my same sex if my life depended on it so me being straight could never be considered a choice. Yet these religious idiots will never admit to being bisexual which is what everybody would have to be for it to be a choice yet they claim it is a choice for gays. Religion is just an IQ test and if you follow it you flunked.
|
|
KGC
|
Judged:
1
Dan wrote: <quoted text>
Understand you point-I perhaps did not make my position strong enough opposing acts of discrimination i.e. Akinola etc. I oppose it.
To the matter here, you would concede at least that homosexual behavior is not treated benevolently when mentioned in Scripture; there at least is no affirmation or benign treatment of the practice evident to me.
If you would extrapolate meaning from your reading saying that it is not sinful, you must at least admit that your opponent (of whom I am not one) possesses something a bit more concrete declaiming it. Dan, I can't speak for BookGuy. But, I've got a pretty fair idea about where and how he is establishing his position. And, I concur. In all of accepted scripture there is simply no mention of homosexuality in terms of long-term committed and caring same-sex relationships. There is, however, one passage in the New Testament where Jesus is expounding on marriage and similar issues. He mentions eunuchs who are born that way. He says that this involves a teaching that some will not be able to understand. Then he says, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." It is a rather cryptic passage, inconclusive, vague and not definitive. But, it indicates that He was aware of variations in the human sexual expression and that such variations can be expected. I do not believe He regarded the variations as intrinsically sinful. This is a passage that is not well understood and to which reference is not frequently made. But, I think it is a significant acknowledgment on the part of Jesus that can be construed to have bearing on the present dispute over scriptural interpretations. It leaves a door open. KGC
|
|
RISING STAR
|
bookguybaltmd wrote: <quoted text>
The central problem, of course, is that you and those who follow your argument have not, in fact, shown that homosexuality is a sin. You have not shown it in scripture, you have not shown it in science, you have not shown it in Christ's message of truth for us all. My concern is that when you abuse scripture for these purposes, clearly false, you are driving people away from the true word of god.
"That woman," as you described her, is at least engaged in the discussion. Recent research (the Pew study) shows that, although 75% of Americans believe in god, less than half attend church regularly. That means that more than half have tossed christianity out as either not relevant to them or their lives or as something that is outright pernicious. Those people are not even engaged in the conversation anymore.
When we look at your arguement and it's fruits of hate (sorry Dan, but murder and other forms of oppression or even advocating these things, is hate and that is what we are talking about here), there is some justification for their belief. This is even more true when we look at the way the same arguments and the same form of hijacking scripture have been used in the past for other hateful and/or pernicious political purposes: slavery, segregation, opressing women, preventing entire classes of people from full participation in the church.
What bothers me is that when you hijack scripture in the way you are attempting to do, you are actively pulling the rug out from under attempts by good christians to evangelize the unchurched. So read the bible closely and with as little prejudice as you can before you begin casting anyone out or even limiting their access to the church. Look at the scriptural citations very closely in as early a translation as you can manage.
When you look at scripture with clear eyes, it rapidly becomes clear that the citations that those who would oppress homosexuals (or blacks or women, or children, or hispanics, or anyone else for that matter) simply do not support their case. Don't just assert it to be so, look at them for yourself. No, it is you who choose NOT to accept the proof and Truth as it is written. You choose to oppress yourself by accepting the guiling lie of the enemy that homosexuality isn't a chosen lifestyle, that you can't break free of it - and, that it's okay with the world. Indeed, it is okay with the world - but as a Christian it is stated..."you are in the world, but not of the world". There is all manner of perversion acceptable to the world and sorry to inform you - actively practicing the homosexual lifestyle is a part of that. You vehemently deny the fact that homosexuality is against the Word, well you engender me to actively and aggressively engage you against that point of view. As Christian, we are called to battle various issues that confront us; hunger, poverty, disease, evangelizing, racial issues, etc. For every one I win with my argument for the Kingdom, there is one to be lost. This is the same result that another brother or sister in Christ will have with their battle. So you see, disengaging because you think (or the enemy wishes you to put forth) would be a big mistake - because then I wouldn't be doing what is presently required of me.
|
|
Think Again
|
Judged:
1
KGC wrote: <quoted text>
Dan,
There is, however, one passage in the New Testament where Jesus is expounding on marriage and similar issues. He mentions eunuchs who are born that way. He says that this involves a teaching that some will not be able to understand. Then he says, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." It is a rather cryptic passage, inconclusive, vague and not definitive. But, it indicates that He was aware of variations in the human sexual expression and that such variations can be expected. I do not believe He regarded the variations as intrinsically sinful.
This is a passage that is not well understood and to which reference is not frequently made. But, I think it is a significant acknowledgment on the part of Jesus that can be construed to have bearing on the present dispute over scriptural interpretations. It leaves a door open.
KGC KCG, Matthew 19: 10-12 (NIV)“The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." I am glad you brought this up but you are only half right. Sure eunuchs who are born that way could mean homosexual males. But it also could mean men who have genital abnormalities that result in impotence and men whose genitals are still capable of begetting children. It would also include both asexual persons and persons who, in time, develop exclusive same-sex attractions. Jesus replied,“Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.” What word was given? The answer is in verse 10. The disciples ask,“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” The word Jesus is referring to is celibacy (not to marry). He goes on to discuss “others” who have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of Heaven. Referring again to celibacy for the kingdom of Heaven. No orientation isn’t sinful, just the act. So the only answer for any under the description of eunuch is celibacy.
|
Judge it!
Most Popular
