Your town: Los Angeles, CA
Your town: Los Angeles, CA
No editor statement.
The Real San Joaquin diocese, Episcopal Church file suit to reg...
Actually, that is a false argument. The funds were given to TEC for the church, in some cases over the course of centuries. It is gross;y bad stewardship of that heritage to allow a small group of people to steal that patrimony from the church. The real issue here is whether or not a small group is going to be able to use the threat of stealing the church's patrimony into blackmailing the entire church to abandon democracy. That, of course, is exactly the kind of tactic that was invented and used so effectively by the fascists of europe. So, really, it is the break-away folks who most resemble that political movement. They seem to feel that a "scorched earth" political tactic is more than the christian message. (Sunday Apr 27 | post #7)
6 Other Denominations Support Episcopal Church in VA Suit
Such an interpretation would be contrary to all previous precidents. (Sunday Apr 27 | post #2)
Gay Bishop Out of Anglican Summit
I think we are in agreement about everything EXCEPT the last part. Marriage is something that is defined and created between loving and committed individuals. It wasn't and isn't created by the state. It wasn't and isn't created by the church. It wasn't and isn't created by god. Who am I or who are you to define the meaning of a relationship between two other people. You and I and the state and the church and even God can celebrate that relationship. But the relationship is created by the couple. The sacrament is the outward and visible sign of that inward and spiritual grace: the love between those individuals. The whole of scripture, what I have been calling the 'default setting' is all about honoring deeply unitive love between individuals. If you think there is some part of scripture that sets up some kind of exception to that 'default setting', it needs to be one that is VERY clear. What you are saying about homosexual relationships and even homosexual marriages (for they exist whether you or anyone else like it or not) does not contain that level of substance let alone clarity. (Saturday Apr 26 | post #489)
Gay Bishop Out of Anglican Summit
Funny you should mention it, that happens to be exactly what 2 of my my degrees are in.... I try to read closely what is actually in the text; I demand that others show me where in the text is valid support for their position; and I refuse to allow others to hijack that text for Did you have something constructive to add? Maybe you would like to point out some biblical (or even scientific) support for your views (whatever they may be)? (Saturday Apr 26 | post #487)
In financial crisis, seminary stops admitting students
Perhaps somewhat smaller in the short run (currently running at about 1%) and (deliberately) crippled by the conservatives while we are in the midst of this false "controversy " (who would deliberately want to join this 'food fight'?). But I believe we will end by being much more relevant and much more capable of true evangelization of the good news, than we have been for decades; granted that's just my opinion, but it seems to be one that is shared by most Episcopalians - espcially those who are in the day-to-day business of evangelizing to the un-churched. (Saturday Apr 26 | post #3)
The Real San Joaquin diocese, Episcopal Church file suit to reg...
No, it's just a political disagreement that reflects the political division in this country. On one hand are a people who feel that they know better than the majority and have the right to dictate (word chosen deliberately) to everyone else; on the other are the people who feel that democracy and majority representation and rule are still a valid form of government. (Saturday Apr 26 | post #3)
Gay Bishop Out of Anglican Summit
Just a small clarification. There are 190+ instances of Justice alone (I think the exact number was 194 in the biblical reference guide I was using when I was at home before); references to love are, of course, far greater. I think we are in agreement on the "fact" of the disproportion of justice references to supposed homosexuality references; though we clearly disagree about the 7 supposed "references " to Homosexuality. The central problem, of course, is that, if you actually read what scripture says, there is, in fact, no negative reference to long-term, loving homosexual relationships at all (not even in Leviticus). If you are going to push people away from the message, you need to have a profound justification for doing so. You have not shown me anything that even remotely resembles that kind of justification. (Saturday Apr 26 | post #485)
Gay Bishop Out of Anglican Summit
But it's not a sin and you have not shown anywhere that it is? So, other than your claims (which I believe can only be politically biased in view of the complete absense of scriptural support for your position), how is anyone to come to the same conclusion. Face it, God is all on the side of love. Your insistence that he hates your political opponents is doing serious harm to Christianity. (Saturday Apr 26 | post #484)
Gay Bishop Out of Anglican Summit
Getting to what I think is the core of your question, I think that the difference is that TA and RS have raised anti-homosexualism to core issues in the church. The rest of us, and all of church history, do not agree. It may be a little flip to point out that there are only 7 deeply ambiguous citations used against Homosexuals from the bible, but there 190+ citations in favor of Justice and many many more in favor of love. I think that the real issue, the reason TEC has not tossed these people out and we intend (come what may in the courts over separation) to attempt dialogue with them is that we just don't see this as a core issue to the faith. Those core issues are in the creeds, the prayerbook, and scripture. These folks want to break up the church, separate, based on what is essentially a political issue. TEC's position to these people is that "we can find ways to get around your political problems" AND we are not willing to toss you out solely based on your political positions AND we are willing to go on discussing these problems with you for as long as it takes to come to a resolution of this political problem. They are not being allowed to overrule the political opinion of the vast majority of their fellow congregants, but we will keep listening to them (as we have all along) and they still get a voice in our councils (none can deny that they have been present and voting) until they, themselves, chosse to leave as individuals. I guess the bottom line TEC position is essentially that there can't really be a schism because there isn't a genuine doctrinal difference; just a political difference that is dressed up in docrinal drag. (Saturday Apr 26 | post #479)
Gay Bishop Out of Anglican Summit
There are, however, some benevolent references to homosexuality in the bible. For example, the situation of David and Jonathan is pretty clearly a homosexual one and that relationship is upheld in benevolence. There are other examples as well. But, like I said, those don't seem to me to be essential. What IS clear is that long-term nurturing love is supported in the bible, especially in the new testament; why does it need to be expressly stated that homosexuality is good when it so clearly says that love is good? Do we really need more than that? As for the concreteness of my opponent's argument, it really just is not present. For example, the most concrete opposition to homosexuality is in Leviticus. But it is abundantly clear that these laws were intended for ritual purity and that they were specifically overridden by Jesus ; they simply don't apply for Christians and they are specifically over-ridden by Jesus in favor of love. There is the same concrete opposition to eating pork and shellfish in those passages, too, for example. I think that those who would exclude homosexuals from the church because of Hebrew purity laws, and who do not follow all of the laws are hypocrites: a class of people whom Jesus clearly and repeatedly DID condemn and exclude from his association (yes, TA and RS, that last part IS just my opinion and it isn‘t a basis for casting you out). One might also note that similar "concrete " arguments were made in support of slavery and segregation with the case against slavery and segregation were, like mine against anti-homosexuality , based on the 'default setting' of scripture's advocacy of love and acceptance, full inclusion and grace. (Saturday Apr 26 | post #478)
Gay Bishop Out of Anglican Summit
I don't quite follow you. There's nothing in the bible against riding in trains or cars (or trains vs. cars) either; but we do it all the time and no one seems to question it (though perhaps we should). I do think that Mims, Anderson, et al (and their ilk) spend a good deal more time talking about the "sinfulness " of homosexuals and a good bit less time talking about Akinola's advocacy of murder. They are willing to be in conversation and close relationship with someone who advocates wholesale murder of an entire class of people who‘s only offense is that they want to love one another in peace; but Mims et al are not willing to be in conversation with someone who disagrees with them on what is essentially a political (not a moral or doctrinal) issue. That seems a more than a little un-balanced to me. I do think that there are gradations in acts of discrimination. Simply barring people from full participation in the life of the church and denying their marriages (as would TA and RS, for example) is likely somewhat less reprehensible than those who advocate killing them (which seems to be Akinola's position). But those too are still acts of discrimination and still hateful and still damaging (sometimes even life threatening). Those gradations seem to be a mere differences of degree; they are still entirely reprehensible, if less outright criminal. I do think that some of what we see in terms of emphatic response from homosexuals is due to this factor. How would you respond if your marriage was systematically denied (by both the state AND by the church) based on someone ELSE'S religious interpretation (including hospital visitations, for example, denial of which might well be life threatening); or if you were declared ineligible for full participation in the church because you were married to a woman (but wait... you're Roman so you ARE, in fact, denied full participation in the church because of that... sorry. Different, if similar, subject I guess...). (Saturday Apr 26 | post #477)
1,000 Back Anti-Gay Okla. Lawmaker -- Laws, Oklahoma
What greater authority is there than the plain text of scripture read in context and with eyes open and willing to hear the word rather than trying to impose an agenda. If you look at scripture with unbiased eyes, you, too, will see that there is NOTHING that condemns long-term loving homosexuality and MUCH that affirms long-term, love. (Saturday Apr 26 | post #1129)
1,000 Back Anti-Gay Okla. Lawmaker -- Laws, Oklahoma
Actually, I may have an exception for you (though on theother side of the argument from the slurs you reference). When I was young, I was in church with my mother. The preacher started to preach the "biblical justification " for segregation. To my current pride (and serious embarrassment then as a young boy), she stood up in the congregation, walked down to the front of the nave, turned so that she could face both the congregation and the preacher, and began to tell him (in a loud and emphatic voice) that he was wrong, that he was hijacking scripture away from it's true meaning, and that Jesus' true base message was clearly against segregation. She cited chapter and verse, detailing why the preacher was wrong and unbiblical one verse at a time. After my mother had finished, she picked me up (almost literally) as she walked out of that church never to retun. In an Episcopal church that was pretty startling for all concerned (we're a pretty formal lot), but I have always considered that act to have been one of the most corrageous I have witnessed in my life. My mother was English, so I was completely astonished by this behavior ("making a scene" is not part of our national character) One of the things that continues to bother me about the discussion on the homosexual issue is that those who would oppose full inclusion are using scripture in very much the same way that I heard that preacher use to justify segregation. The answers are very much the same ones that my mother gave 40 years ago. I do think that this is an important act. We must all stand up to the hijackers on these blogs, by all means. But also stand up to them when they are in the pulpit, on the street, or even at family reunions. I will always try to do so myself. Fortunately, I have a good example to follow. (Friday Apr 25 | post #1112)
Gay Bishop Out of Anglican Summit
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. (Friday Apr 25 | post #465)
1,000 Back Anti-Gay Okla. Lawmaker -- Laws, Oklahoma
Show me where. (Friday Apr 25 | post #1100)
