From Episcopal church to Islamic center

Posted in the Episcopal Church Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Think Again

Kinston, NC

#1 May 18, 2010
From the article:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Defaul...

"In 2007 Fr. Kennedy and other representatives from Good Shepherd met with their Bishop and explained why they felt they could no longer, in good conscience, remain in the Episcopal Church. Despite their theological differences, Fr. Kennedy describes their relationship with the Bishop as very positive. Good Shepherd offered to purchase the property for $150,000 in cash plus a large bequest. A verbal agreement was reached. Several more meetings were held throughout 2008 which were cordial and positive."

"For the record, the Diocese of Central New York sold -- or perhaps sold out -- to the Imam for a mere $50,000. It is astonishing to note the lengths the Episcopal Church, under the leadership of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, went to in order to keep a "traditional" congregation from remaining in its buildings."

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#2 May 19, 2010
from perspectives:

"But as the church grew, so did a rift between the traditionally-minded congregation and priest of Good Shepherd and the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church. Like so many Episcopalians, Fr. Kennedy and his flock watched as the Episcopal Church slowly but surely slid into heresy ..."

In retrospect, the slide seemed much quicker.
Think Again

Kinston, NC

#3 May 19, 2010
Joe DeCaro wrote:
from perspectives:
"But as the church grew, so did a rift between the traditionally-minded congregation and priest of Good Shepherd and the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church. Like so many Episcopalians, Fr. Kennedy and his flock watched as the Episcopal Church slowly but surely slid into heresy ..."
In retrospect, the slide seemed much quicker.
I am sure the Iman and his "congregation" would be much more inclusive towards homosexuals and women than would the former congregation.

Make no mistake, Schori is vindictive and it is all about the money.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#4 May 19, 2010
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure the Iman and his "congregation" would be much more inclusive towards homosexuals and women than would the former congregation.
Make no mistake, Schori is vindictive and it is all about the money.
Your perspective is in full erotic display.

But, perhaps the sale to the Imam will give pause to those self-proclaimed former Episcopalians who thought they could get away with the theft of Church property and assets.

The Iman will be completely open about his attitudes and those of his faith toward women and homosexuals. But, the self-proclaimed former Episcopalians who proudly profess their unwavering Christianity will persist in their bigoted and misogynistic hypocrisy. So, let them weep and gnash in their pitiful victimhood, along with those who sympathize with their plight.

May the mercy of St. Peter be shown to them.

KGC
Think Again

Kinston, NC

#5 May 19, 2010
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your perspective is in full erotic display.
But, perhaps the sale to the Imam will give pause to those self-proclaimed former Episcopalians who thought they could get away with the theft of Church property and assets.
The Iman will be completely open about his attitudes and those of his faith toward women and homosexuals. But, the self-proclaimed former Episcopalians who proudly profess their unwavering Christianity will persist in their bigoted and misogynistic hypocrisy. So, let them weep and gnash in their pitiful victimhood, along with those who sympathize with their plight.
May the mercy of St. Peter be shown to them.
KGC
You are delusional. Read the article before you make a total butt of yourself. The former congregation offered to pay more for the property than what the Iman paid.
The bottom line is this was nothing more than a vindictive move by Schori et.al. The saddest thing is the Gospel will no longer be preached in this building.
George

Jacksonville, FL

#6 May 19, 2010
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your perspective is in full erotic display.
But, perhaps the sale to the Imam will give pause to those self-proclaimed former Episcopalians who thought they could get away with the theft of Church property and assets.
The Iman will be completely open about his attitudes and those of his faith toward women and homosexuals. But, the self-proclaimed former Episcopalians who proudly profess their unwavering Christianity will persist in their bigoted and misogynistic hypocrisy. So, let them weep and gnash in their pitiful victimhood, along with those who sympathize with their plight.
May the mercy of St. Peter be shown to them.
KGC
But they don't weep and gnash their teeth, Ken. They moved on. The diocese lost $100,000 and a church became a mosque - a church that ministered to the hungry and homeless in the community. How was the Kingdom advanced by what the Diocese did? How was God served and how was the commuity benefitted?

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#7 May 19, 2010
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
You are delusional. Read the article before you make a total butt of yourself. The former congregation offered to pay more for the property than what the Iman paid.
The bottom line is this was nothing more than a vindictive move by Schori et.al. The saddest thing is the Gospel will no longer be preached in this building.
Maybe not but the GOD of Abraham will still be praised and according to Jesus, that's what it's all about.

People of the Book should come together, although with all the discrimination and difference in the Christian faith, how unlikely.

Did we forget the founding fathers principle of freedom to worship?.........
Think Again

Kinston, NC

#8 May 19, 2010
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe not but the GOD of Abraham will still be praised and according to Jesus, that's what it's all about.
People of the Book should come together, although with all the discrimination and difference in the Christian faith, how unlikely.
Did we forget the founding fathers principle of freedom to worship?.........
Hey scholar, maybe you should spend some time in John's Gospel. Jesus is the way and the only way or do you only pick and choose what sayings from Jesus you want to follow the way you do the rest of the Bible.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#9 May 19, 2010
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
You are delusional. Read the article before you make a total butt of yourself. The former congregation offered to pay more for the property than what the Iman paid.
The bottom line is this was nothing more than a vindictive move by Schori et.al. The saddest thing is the Gospel will no longer be preached in this building.
The perspective of a fool is in full view above.

Since when does TEC have to sell its property to any who would have taken it without offering a penny - until it became obvious that they could not have what they wanted by squatting in it?

You are the delusional one.

Then you, a self-proclaimed former Episcopalian, claim to be saddened by the fact that the self-proclaimed former Episcopalians can no longer occupy and use the edifice to harbor and preach their hypocrisy and call it Gospel.

You belong with them. But, by your own professing, you could not stand to condone their hypocrisy.

So, you'll just have to settle for stagnation from a distance.

KGC
Think Again

Kinston, NC

#10 May 19, 2010
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
The perspective of a fool is in full view above.
Since when does TEC have to sell its property to any who would have taken it without offering a penny - until it became obvious that they could not have what they wanted by squatting in it?
You are the delusional one.
Then you, a self-proclaimed former Episcopalian, claim to be saddened by the fact that the self-proclaimed former Episcopalians can no longer occupy and use the edifice to harbor and preach their hypocrisy and call it Gospel.
You belong with them. But, by your own professing, you could not stand to condone their hypocrisy.
So, you'll just have to settle for stagnation from a distance.
KGC
I would rather stand with them than stand with a apostate organization ( I can no longer call TEC a church) or a heretic like yourself.
George

Jacksonville, FL

#11 May 19, 2010
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
The perspective of a fool is in full view above.
Since when does TEC have to sell its property to any who would have taken it without offering a penny - until it became obvious that they could not have what they wanted by squatting in it?
You are the delusional one.
Then you, a self-proclaimed former Episcopalian, claim to be saddened by the fact that the self-proclaimed former Episcopalians can no longer occupy and use the edifice to harbor and preach their hypocrisy and call it Gospel.
You belong with them. But, by your own professing, you could not stand to condone their hypocrisy.
So, you'll just have to settle for stagnation from a distance.
KGC
Correct me if I am wrong, Ken, but is it your position that there is no room in the Episcopal Church for those who adhere to a more traditional understanding of human sexuality and Biblical morality? Your comment above makes it clear to me that you b elieve that to preach those traditional claims is hypocrisy and a false Gospel. Now I came to the conclusion several years ago that your position and mine are fundamentally incomaptible and that the same church could not harbor both but I keep hearing from "your" side that there is room in this big church family for both. Which is it? Traditionalists can stay but only if they are willing to be treated by TEC as hyppocrites? So which is it? Is "inclusion" a communion breaking issue or not?

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#12 May 19, 2010
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey scholar, maybe you should spend some time in John's Gospel. Jesus is the way and the only way or do you only pick and choose what sayings from Jesus you want to follow the way you do the rest of the Bible.
Jesus ALWAYS directed us to HIS FATHER.

Maybe you should read ALL the Gospels.

Still waiting for your in depth research of what ancient writing you read and what YOU pick and choose (or let others decide for you)....
Think Again

Kinston, NC

#13 May 19, 2010
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus ALWAYS directed us to HIS FATHER.
Maybe you should read ALL the Gospels.
Hey Einstein, this is all I need to know.

John 3:16-18 (New International Version)

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[b]

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#14 May 20, 2010
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Einstein, this is all I need to know.
John 3:16-18 (New International Version)
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[b]
Well, if that's all you need to know, you're doing a great job.

Selective reading can be so fun for bigots....

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#15 May 20, 2010
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Einstein, this is all I need to know.
John 3:16-18 (New International Version)
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[b]
Now I recognize you, you're the one at every football game holding the John 3:16 poster.

Someday when you grow up you'll be able to read the rest.....

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#16 May 20, 2010
George wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct me if I am wrong, Ken, but is it your position that there is no room in the Episcopal Church for those who adhere to a more traditional understanding of human sexuality and Biblical morality? Your comment above makes it clear to me that you b elieve that to preach those traditional claims is hypocrisy and a false Gospel. Now I came to the conclusion several years ago that your position and mine are fundamentally incomaptible and that the same church could not harbor both but I keep hearing from "your" side that there is room in this big church family for both. Which is it? Traditionalists can stay but only if they are willing to be treated by TEC as hyppocrites? So which is it? Is "inclusion" a communion breaking issue or not?
George,

I go to an Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Springfield. Though we are presently in search of a new bishop, the recent past in this Diocese has seen leadership which does not condone ordination of an openly gay or lesbian person. That was the choice of the bishop. The new bishop may see things differently.

Some priests within the Diocese oppose g/l/b/t as potential people for candidacy to the priesthood. Some look to the person and their faith, without any prejudgment on the basis of their sexual inclination. None would condone the ordination of a promiscuous or pedophile person.

I personally have no problem with ordaining a gay or lesbian. I also read in the bible that such people are not, in the view of St. Paul, ideal candidates for the leadership post. But, that was almost 2000 years ago. We don't see people and their personal motivations today the same way that people were seen then.

There is plenty of room for the traditional view. But, in many Dioceses, that has become a minority view. Its probably about 50-50 in the Diocese of Springfield. In the neighboring Diocese of Quincy, the libertarians are in the minority. In the Diocese of Quincy, there are no women or G/l/b/t persons in ordinate positions of authority.

Where I have a disagreement is with people who define themselves as Ex or former Episcopalians, now strictly Anglicans, who have rejected their affiliation with TEC and then comandeered the bank accounts, endowments, financial holdings and church properties.

Although I can see why they are upset with TEC leading in the direction it is proceeding - because of differences in the interpretation of scripture and changes in tradition - I do not believe that they can justify the taking and retaining of any of the tangible assets of the Church when they throw off the yoke of its hierarchy. But, I do understand how they think they can.

It is my opinion that these who do this are being improperly led into a compromised position. Because they are stewards of the Church assets - not owners - they fail to realize that their divorce from the Church is a personal choice to walk out. It is not a no-fault type of a decision, if you will.

I understand that there are legal situations in some dioceses and parishes that may have bearing upon the determination of ultimate ownership, including possible outcomes requiring parting of some assets.

But, to me these determinations, although legal, will be academic even if tangible in their outcomes. I would tell my fellow parishioners that if they choose to leave, they are to go out the door, shaking the dust off of their sandals and taking nothing of tangible value on their way out. Go like Lot went, not looking back. Begin the process of starting to build and devlop a new Church.

Look forward a hundred years just like one can look back. A new Church so formed would be seen as a Church formed upon faith, integrity and Christian principle, without the clouding blemish of the righteous accusation of thievery.

KGC

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17 May 20, 2010
George wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct me if I am wrong, Ken, but is it your position that there is no room in the Episcopal Church for those who adhere to a more traditional understanding of human sexuality and Biblical morality? Your comment above makes it clear to me that you b elieve that to preach those traditional claims is hypocrisy and a false Gospel. Now I came to the conclusion several years ago that your position and mine are fundamentally incomaptible and that the same church could not harbor both but I keep hearing from "your" side that there is room in this big church family for both. Which is it? Traditionalists can stay but only if they are willing to be treated by TEC as hyppocrites? So which is it? Is "inclusion" a communion breaking issue or not?
George,

Please allow me to go one step further in answer to your question.

In the last fifty years - fifty years - we have witnessed a fundamental change in our understanding of the nature of the Human being. We have taken apart the DNA and have identified the Human Genome. We have made major advances in the understanding of the human mind and the functions of its subconscvious realms in the context of our physical being.

We have discovered and identified pheromones. We have gained understanding of our endocrine systems and our hormones and the physical results of their activities and balances and imbalances. We are constantly boring into misunderstood aspects of our mental, emotional, physical and spiritual capabilities.

To deny these advances on the basis of our desire to prevent any reinterpretation of divinely inspired scripture is the ultimate foolhardiness. God has given us the tools of exploration of ourselves and our surrounding world and cosmos.

What then? Are we not to use them to explore and gain understanding of ourselves?

Example: Wild oil well in 5000' of water in the G. O. M.
What were BP and TransOcean doing? Was it their plan to kill eleven of their workers and vent millions upon millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf, creating the absolute worst oil spill ever known - outside of Saddam's wreckage of the Kuwaiti fields?

No. It was not. It was laxity in engineering and planning on the part of a handful of expert companies along with our government and failure in proper maintenance of equipment, combined with stupendous pressures encountered while drilling in a new high pressure/high temperature frontier that is full of potential to be harnessed for the benefit of all.

The consequences of this exploration effort are many and not yet well understood. There are negative aspects that will eventually be outweighed by positive benefits. But, we will retool and accomplish the harnessing of the resource. What we learn and develop to make sure the exercise can be done in safety will be put to use elsewhere and it will be much appreciated.

I see modern research into the nature of the Human being in much the same way. There will be unintended consequences that discovery will present to us. In some cases it is not going to be a comforting path. But, every step is important.

We can't prove it yet, beyond any legitimate refutation. But, it is looking more and more every day like homosexuality is a result of genetic effects. Most who grow up to be homosexuals have never understood themselves to be any other way. Others try like ever to fit into the heterosexual role, only to finally realize that they do not fit the role and the behavior. Some simply find themselves somewhere in the middle.

As the research continues, clarification will come.

But, I don't think they are sinners because of this. And, I am unwilling to teach children that they are headed for eternal damnation because of this. Futhermore, I believe that Jesus very specifically taught this.

My opinion. Thanks for listening.

KGC

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#18 May 20, 2010
George wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct me if I am wrong, Ken, but is it your position that there is no room in the Episcopal Church for those who adhere to a more traditional understanding of human sexuality and Biblical morality? Your comment above makes it clear to me that you b elieve that to preach those traditional claims is hypocrisy and a false Gospel. Now I came to the conclusion several years ago that your position and mine are fundamentally incomaptible and that the same church could not harbor both but I keep hearing from "your" side that there is room in this big church family for both. Which is it? Traditionalists can stay but only if they are willing to be treated by TEC as hyppocrites? So which is it? Is "inclusion" a communion breaking issue or not?
George,

Please allow me to go one step further in answer to your question.

In the last fifty years - fifty years - we have witnessed a fundamental change in our understanding of the nature of the Human being. We have taken apart the DNA and have identified the Human Genome. We have made major advances in the understanding of the human mind and the functions of its subconscvious realms in the context of our physical being.

We have discovered and identified pheromones. We have gained understanding of our endocrine systems and our hormones and the physical results of their activities and balances and imbalances. We are constantly boring into misunderstood aspects of our mental, emotional, physical and spiritual capabilities.

To deny these advances on the basis of our desire to prevent any reinterpretation of divinely inspired scripture is the ultimate foolhardiness. God has given us the tools of exploration of ourselves and our surrounding world and cosmos.

What then? Are we not to use them to explore and gain understanding of ourselves?

Example: Wild oil well in 5000' of water in the G. O. M.
What were BP and TransOcean doing? Was it their plan to kill eleven of their workers and vent millions upon millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf, creating the absolute worst oil spill ever known - outside of Saddam's wreckage of the Kuwaiti fields?

No. It was not. It was laxity in engineering and planning on the part of a handful of expert companies along with our government and failure in proper maintenance of equipment, combined with stupendous pressures encountered while drilling in a new high pressure/high temperature frontier that is full of potential to be harnessed for the benefit of all.

The consequences of this exploration effort are many and not yet well understood. There are negative aspects that will eventually be outweighed by positive benefits. But, we will retool and accomplish the harnessing of the resource. What we learn and develop to make sure the exercise can be done in safety will be put to use elsewhere and it will be much appreciated.

I see modern research into the nature of the Human being in much the same way. There will be unintended consequences that discovery will present to us. In some cases it is not going to be a comforting path. But, every step is important.

We can't prove it yet, beyond any legitimate refutation. But, it is looking more and more every day like homosexuality is a result of genetic effects. Most who grow up to be homosexuals have never understood themselves to be any other way. Others try like ever to fit into the heterosexual role, only to finally realize that they do not fit the role and the behavior. Some simply find themselves somewhere in the middle.

As the research continues, clarification will come.

But, I don't think they are sinners because of this. And, I am unwilling to teach children that they are headed for eternal damnation because of this. Futhermore, I believe that Jesus very specifically taught this.

So, yes, the traditional teaching should be realized as an hypocrisy of spiritual intent.

My opinion. Thanks for listening.

KGC
George

Jacksonville, FL

#19 May 20, 2010
Ken
You have not really answered my question: Your comment was to the effect that Fr. Matt and his church taught hypocrisy and a false Gospel. They teach what traditionalists have taught for 2,000 years. By implication, you have suggested that all who hold to those views are hypocrites and follow/teach a false Gospel. Can such purveyors of lies, falsehoods and hypocrisy be at home in this new church you folks have divined? I can't see why they would want to but then I am not the spokesperson for big tent inclusivity. I hear that from "your" side but it sounds like mere lip service - or is that hypocrisy?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#20 May 20, 2010
George wrote:
Ken
You have not really answered my question: Your comment was to the effect that Fr. Matt and his church taught hypocrisy and a false Gospel. They teach what traditionalists have taught for 2,000 years. By implication, you have suggested that all who hold to those views are hypocrites and follow/teach a false Gospel. Can such purveyors of lies, falsehoods and hypocrisy be at home in this new church you folks have divined? I can't see why they would want to but then I am not the spokesperson for big tent inclusivity. I hear that from "your" side but it sounds like mere lip service - or is that hypocrisy?
Ok. I see your point.

But, here. What am I to do? There are only a few places in the text of the Gospels where Jesus gets very specific - really pointed in his clarification and directives.

Among his own brethren and rabbinical leaders, he calls them hypocrites for exercising the "letter of the Law" versus adhering to the intent, the spirit. Not only does he preach this, he repeatedly acts on it to the extent that he gets crucified for it.

In another place, he very specifically warns against preventing the children from coming to him. From my perspective, to teach a child that homosexuality is a sin and that its practice is likely to land you in everlasting damnation and Sheol is a direct affront to this teaching given by Christ. Such teaching immediately puts a child in conflict and generates a deeply impressed fear, especially if that child is at a point of beginning to understand personal sexuality. I won't do it.

We may have a tradition of having done it for two thousand years. But, in my opinion and the opinion of a growing number of many others, in light of what we have learned about ourselves in the last 50 years and, really, in the last ten years, we can no longer teach that homosexuality is a sin.

Am I wrong? I might be. But, I don't think so. If I am wrong, I am going to have to take whatever comes to me for operating under this idea that homosexuality is not a sin. Will Jesus forgive me if I am wrong? I sure hope so. Maybe he won't.

As to the destructive value of hypocrisy and the compatibility of opposing viewpoints held among parishioners of the same congregation or even just as Christians, I will say this;

I am not going to call for eternal damnation for any of my Christian brothers and sisters, no matter how hypocritical they may be from time to time. The Lord knows I am less than perfect in many ways and would have little ground from which to stand and condemn another. We all have multiple opportunities to learn from our mistakes and from new sources of information and revelation. The Holy Spirit, I believe, is at work in each one of us. So, the real objective should be to do whatever we can perceive to do which facilitates the working of the Holy Spirit.

This, to me, means that we should give each other a whole lot of latitude. Also, I'm going to leave the judgment of others up to Christ Jesus, unless and until he comes to me personally and saddles me with the responsibility of making a final judgment of another. If and when that happens, I'll do as I am told and will do my best to bear the responsibility. But, even then, if I am to err, it will be on the side of allowance.

Hope this helps you to see from my point of view for a bit. Also, please accept my apology for exaggerating my beliefs from time to time and for making uncalled for statements. I do get worked up about some things.

KGC

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Episcopal Church Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 5 hr Manuel 31,842
News Rethinking the Bible on homosexuality (Feb '11) Apr 17 WasteWater 22,382
News A Call to the Episcopal Church to Recognize the... Apr 15 RevKen 2
News Letter: Episcopal convention deserves in-depth ... Apr 14 QUITTNER Apr 14 2015 2
News Pastor Fails Hard In His Demonstration Of Why M... Apr 13 RevKen 5
News 4th Circuit sends Episcopaliansa federal lawsui... Apr 9 RevKen 7
News Churchman warns of "rising anti-Semitism, Islam... Apr 9 Listen to the Word 1
More from around the web