Episcopal Church votes to curb gay bishops - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-22-2006, 06:25 PM   #61
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I think we are reading words typed by a Cut and Paste Christian.

AEON has insulted my church, implied that I and many other in this forum are not Christians, insulted my newly elected Bishop, and has not answed any of my questions in either thread, because an honest answer would have stopped the debate.

You cannot live up to Leviticus. I know not of any church that does.

I will not waste my time on these posts.
Excellent post!!!

Quote:
because an honest answer would have stopped the debate.
This is so true.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 06:42 PM   #62
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 01:04 AM
It's a shame these questions weren't answered, for I do fear for my eternal damnation if I'm teaching falsehoods...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 06:46 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
It's a shame these questions weren't answered, for I do fear for my eternal damnation if I'm teaching falsehoods...
they were not answered because he accused the Bishop of being Cut and Paste.... the reality is that the christian church has cut and paste from its beginnings.

The church will adapt, change, move on again and again. History has shown this.

Otherwise....we would be still sitting there looking at leviticus going shite, I broke a rule.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 08:17 PM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
But, 2,000 years ago did they understand things like this?
If our faith is built on the understanding of people 2,000 years ago, what's the point following it today?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 08:22 PM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Are you seriously suggesting that (for instance) the lifetime of love, support, companionship, shared witness together, and raising of children to one day do the same, that you enjoy with your wife would somehow be rendered analogous to the "sinful" pleasures of indulging in gossip if it were a gay couple pursuing those things instead--simply because the sex involved in their relationship would be gay, and that somehow cancels out all the goodness from the rest of it? Because this really is what sanctioning gay relationships (or relatedly, the fitness of gay men and women to serve their church as clergy) is all about. It's not that they won't be sinners in all sorts of ways, just like anyone else; of course they will be. But if you're categorically saying that gay relationships--including committed, monogamous ones between religious believers--are inherently sinful in and of themselves, then inevitably, you're sentencing virtually all gay religious people (and gay children of religious parents who teach them that) to a lifetime of shame, self-loathing, and constant struggle to suppress urges and longings you would not have suppressed in yourself. And I really don't see a reassurance of "You need feel no shame before God; everyone sins" bringing much comfort to someone whose available paths to a full and productive spiritual life are so stunted and infantilized and truncated by the constant need to suppress an urge to "sin" in a way that (apparently) negates all the good things that we otherwise understand to come from a committed marriage.

Is there even such a thing as a person who is constitutionally unable to refrain from gossiping without experiencing such things? If there is, I have not heard of it.

Or am I simply not understanding you?
My example in the extreme was designed to show the man before God arguments used in this context. Essentially, we can discount God's Word through better and better arguments.

Irvine possed a very good question (in the other Episcopal thread) that, to date, has been the best in quiry into the subject I've seen. I will be pondering this and taking it before my own pastors.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 08:27 PM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


If our faith is built on the understanding of people 2,000 years ago, what's the point following it today?
TThen the faith of 2,000 years ago should be followed to the letter of the law.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 08:30 PM   #67
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:04 PM
No, the Word of God should be followed. They struggled with it 2000 years ago as much as we do today.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 08:39 PM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If our faith is built on the understanding of people 2,000 years ago, what's the point following it today?
If your faith is predicated on imitating the actions of people 2,000 years ago, then there's no point in following it today. It's not remotely the same anymore.

I tend to believe, however, that one's reason for faith has changed with the times. Anyone who believes otherwise is suffering from romanticist delusions.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 08:47 PM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
No, the Word of God should be followed. They struggled with it 2000 years ago as much as we do today.
Then people should stop quoting pieces of scripture to justify their own insecurites. Either Leviticus is wholly valid or it is not. It is thrown around WAY too much to target homosexuals. It is so easy to target homosexuals yet I can be full of sin in my heart, walk through a church door and no one would no the difference. personally the sin in my heart is a million times worse than two people loving each other. But, I guess that would be my Gospel.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 08:51 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


This is my Golden Rule - if Jesus didn't address it, it's not important.
That's a pretty extreme view. I have not yet seen a Bible that only has quotes from Jesus and nothing else. Is there is Scriptural reference to use the Bible in such a way?

However, even if we only use the Do Only What Jesus Says Rule = Jesus does address this issue. All sex outside of marriage is considered adultery. Even having sex in your imagination is considered adultery (Matthew 5:27-30). Jesus clearly lists adultery as a sin. So - all sex (imaginative or actual) outside of marriage is a sin. Homosexual occurs outside of marriage. Hence, homosexual sex is a sin.

Now I'm sure you may ask - well if I mare my same sex partner, then I can have homsexual sex. According to Jesus, this is not a possible solution. Jesus defines marriage in Matthew 19:4-6

4And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’' 5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.."

It seems that even in a "Do Only What Jesus Says Bible" homsexual sex is still a sin.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 08:52 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Melon, you seem to have a good knowledge of Christian history. I love that you quoted Paul here: ""For freedom, Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we can wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." -- Galatians 5:1-6.

I find interesting that you didn't quote Paul a few sentences later in Galatians 5:13: "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature"

And what does the very same Paul write are the acts of the sinful nature? Thank the Lord he answers this question in the very same chapter in Galatians 5:19- "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Christian freedom is about being free from the bondage of the sinful nature, bot about doing what you want.
You know what's funny? I don't disagree with any of the above semantics. However, your entire argument above is predicated on the assumption that "modern homosexuality" (which, by the way, was considered a groundbreaking discovery in 1874 Germany) is addressed in the Bible. It's not.

Contrary to what you might think, most gay people would be equally opposed to idolatrous orgies, rape, and pedophilia--which is closer to what the Bible is really referring to in the supposed "anti-gay" passages.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 08:55 PM   #72
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Then people should stop quoting pieces to justify their own insecurites.

You cannot have it both ways.
Pointing to OT and NT passages regarding homosexuality is a mater of personal insecurity?

Once you start tearing out the pages, you won't have much left.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 09:02 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
However, even if we only use the Do Only What Jesus Says Rule = Jesus does address this issue. All sex outside of marriage is considered adultery. Even having sex in your imagination is considered adultery (Matthew 5:27-30). Jesus clearly lists adultery as a sin. So - all sex (imaginative or actual) outside of marriage is a sin. Homosexual occurs outside of marriage. Hence, homosexual sex is a sin.
If all of this is the case, then the entire world is going to hell, minus the anencephalic.

As such, there's no point in singling out homosexuals for exclusion in the Church, because all the self-righteous heterosexuals are no different. Of course, isn't that why a cornerstone of Protestant theology is that everyone is a sinner, and, as such, it is only through faith and grace that one is saved, not one's works?

In fact, I'll use one of those supposed anti-gay passages, which explains just this exact lesson. Homophobes love to throw around this passage:

"While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. [A blatant reference to an idolatrous temple orgy, not modern homosexuality!] Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator [Idolatry!], who is blessed forever. Amen.

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." -- Romans 1:22-27

However, nobody seems to go onto Romans 2:

"Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things." -- Romans 2:1

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 09:02 PM   #74
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 02:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Even having sex in your imagination is considered adultery (Matthew 5:27-30).



so your average 14 year old male commits adultery ever 45 seconds or so sitting in a really boring geometry class.




Quote:
4And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’' 5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.."

well, it seems clear that Jesus thinks this is what heterosexuals do, but i don't see him prohibiting homosexuals from marrying each other. he's giving advice to the majority of the population -- 90%+ or so -- and that seems to be good advice. but nowhere do i see him mention homosexuality at all.

tell me, how do you feel about a gay man marrying a straight woman? you know, was Liza Minelli and David Guest's marriage non-sinful?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 09:02 PM   #75
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


However, even if we only use the Do Only What Jesus Says Rule = Jesus does address this issue. All sex outside of marriage is considered adultery. Even having sex in your imagination is considered adultery (Matthew 5:27-30). Jesus clearly lists adultery as a sin. So - all sex (imaginative or actual) outside of marriage is a sin. Homosexual occurs outside of marriage. Hence, homosexual sex is a sin.
Oh please, this is such lame reasoning, and you know it, or you would have addressed my questions regarding this line of logic earlier.

You'll have to do a lot better than that.


Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

4And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’' 5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.."

Where in this does it say homosexuals can't marry? So because priests were defined as men in the Bible does that mean women shouldn't be allowed to be priest, preachers, etc? See where your logic is flawed?
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com