Episcopal Church votes to curb gay bishops

[BVS]

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!!!

because an honest answer would have stopped the debate.

This is so true.

 

[BVS]

It's a shame these questions weren't answered, for I do fear for my eternal damnation if I'm teaching falsehoods...

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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]

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

No, the Word of God should be followed. They struggled with it 2000 years ago as much as we do today.

 

[melon]

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

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

 

[AEON]

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.

 

[melon]

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

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[melon]

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

 

[Irvine511]

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.

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?

 

[BVS]

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.

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?

 

[melon]

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.

I hardly believe that condemning homosexuality was the main point of the Bible, contrary to what "Focus on the Family" might have you all to believe.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

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.

i would love to hear the answers. please share the content of the future discussion.

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

Yes, I view at such. That is the nice thing I guess about where I am with God. I am happy for the two adopted children I see at church. They have two fathers who love them very much. they are not sitting in some foster home getting raped. They are being loved. I am not sitting there in my pew, looking at the two men going, you sinners. The shit in the depths of my heart is far worse than what I witness in church every Sunday. Period.

And yes, I am a pissed off person tonight. A child has crossed my path who was raped in foster care. A child that five years ago, I thought I was safe and protected, and was not going to suffer the abuse the other siblings in the family had suffered. This child could have been so lucky to have had the loving relationship that these two men offer their two children.

So yes, pardon me, if I look at parts of the Old testament, and think, yep, I understand 2,000 years ago, the promiscuity of the Roman empire and understand that that was sexually immoral. I as a thinking human being believe that human beings can be sexually immoral just as I believe human beings can love one another without it being sexually immoral. Heterosexual or Homosexual matters not.

 

[nbcrusader]

I hardly believe that condemning homosexuality was the main point of the Bible, contrary to what "Focus on the Family" might have you all to believe.

Melon

It is hardly the main point of the Bible.

This whole thread (or two) deals with a denominations attempt to separate out homosexuality (placing it in the spotlight) in two different directions.

 

[nbcrusader]

Yes, I view at such. That is the nice thing I guess about where I am with God. I am happy for the two adopted children I see at church. They have two fathers who love them very much. they are not sitting in some foster home getting raped. They are being loved. I am not sitting there in my pew, looking at the two men going, you sinners. The shit in the depths of my heart is far worse than what I witness in church every Sunday. Period.

And yes, I am a pissed off person tonight. A child has crossed my path who was raped in foster care. A child that five years ago, I thought I was safe and protected, and was not going to suffer the abuse the other siblings in the family had suffered. This child could have been so lucky to have had the loving relationship that these two men offer their two children.

So yes, pardon me, if I look at parts of the Old testament, and think, yep, I understand 2,000 years ago, the promiscuity of the Roman empire and understand that that was sexually immoral. I as a thinking human being believe that human beings can be sexually immoral just as I believe human beings can love one another without it being sexually immoral. Heterosexual or Homosexual matters not.

My prayers are with you and the child who has suffered so cruely.

 

[nbcrusader]

i would love to hear the answers. please share the content of the future discussion.

I will follow up with you my friend.

 

[melon]

It is hardly the main point of the Bible.

This whole thread (or two) deals with a denominations attempt to separate out homosexuality (placing it in the spotlight) in two different directions.

I figured you believed that (I'd have honestly been shocked if you'd have said it was).

However, I tend to think that most people think that any acceptance of homosexuals is "placing it in the spotlight." If that's the case, then it will end up being in the spotlight a whole bunch more.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

This is my Golden Rule - if Jesus didn't address it, it's not important. If Jesus addressed it, it's important. Jesus did not address things like homosexuality, polygamy, etc. Jesus addressed things like practicing tolerance and condemned things like hypocracy, hatred, greed, and intolerance. CHRISTians follow Christ and Christ has yet to address the issue of homosexuality (at least in our cannonized Scriptures), so therefore, I will continue to go about my Christian ways and assume that homosexuality, like ANYTHING, is not something people should be judging others against.

What say you to that?

Isn't Calvinism drawn from the non-red letter portions of Scripture?

 

[maycocksean]

I'd like to address this Leviticus issue. I'm curious to know why Aeon and Nbc have not responded to this.

Because clearly we do NOT follow all of Leviticus and it's doubtful that any Christian denomination does. Some follow more than others (my denomination for example eats kosher--I wish A_wanderer was around. He'd find that interesting--no pork, shellfish or other "unclean" foods). And Aeon and Nbc know full well that other under circumstances they would quickly be able to explain why the Levictical laws about diet, dress, as well as the various ceremonial laws don't apply to Christians (modern and those in the past). In fact I'm guessing they'd go further then Leviticus and explain how the 4th Commandment (about the 7th day Sabbath) found all over the Bible doesn't apply to Christians either. (And I would disagree with them).

So yes, we do pick and choose. Cut and paste. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. I believe that all of Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16. I also believe that "no prophecy of scripture is matter of one's own interpretation." We can't make the Bible say whatever we want it to. The whole purpose of studying the Bible is to try to understand what God wants to say to us. However that does not mean that we can't think about what Scripture says, try to reconcile what may seem to be it's "inconsistencies." We have to be especially careful about what seems "obvious" in scripture, especially when what seems "obvious" is going to lock whole swaths of people out of God's kingdom through no choice of their own.

So Leviticus. The book was written to the people of Israel at a particular time and place and in a particular culture. Does that mean it is totally irrevelant to our lives today? No. Not if you believe that all of Scripture is still valid. The question is, WHAT is still valid? I would suggest (and I'm guessing Aeon and Nbc would agree) that most of the specific law, prescriptions, and instructions are not. What we do is try to understand (yes, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, you are right AEON) is the principles behind those laws, prescriptions, and instructions. Those principles are what we apply to modern life today. Leviticus also provides us with historical insights into how God's people lived at that time, and helps us understands what it was to be a follower of God's in "Pre-Grace" world.

At least that's the Christian take on the Old Testament, as I understand it.

 

[nbcrusader]

For purposes of this thread, I haven't cited Leviticus based on prior experiences with these discussions.

I appreciate your comments as a summation of the issue and would look to Romans 6:15-23 for insight on the continuing validity of things like Leviticus.

I would say if we have continuing statements that cross through both Old and New Testaments, we must address them as a collective unit, rather using a different basis to question or challenge each statement.

 

[maycocksean]

For purposes of this thread, I haven't cited Leviticus based on prior experiences with these discussions.

I appreciate your comments as a summation of the issue and would look to Romans 6:15-23 for insight on the continuing validity of things like Leviticus.

I would say if we have continuing statements that cross through both Old and New Testaments, we must address them as a collective unit, rather using a different basis to question or challenge each statement.

Since I'm fairly new to FYM I don't know what those prior experiences were but I'll take your word for it.

The reason I decided to address it was because we do have people who keep talking about "cut and paste" approach to Scripture and they kept referencing Leviticus. I felt it was important to point out, that yes we all do pick and choose (hopefully not based merely on what parts of scripture we "like.")

Course that's going to inevitably raise the question of if we pick and choose, why do we pick homosexuality?

 

[Irvine511]

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

so, for you and me, having sex with a woman would be giving up our natural relations for the unnatural.

right?

 

[Irvine511]

Course that's going to inevitably raise the question of if we pick and choose, why do we pick homosexuality?

because it's the topic du jour, it deals with forcing people to give up comforting notions of normalcy, and because homophobia is quite ingrained in society. heck, i was as homophobic as any other 12 year old boy -- i remember talking about what "flamers" all the olympic ice skaters were (which did beg the question as to why i was watching ice skating )

it seems that homophobia is under fire right now, so we're seeing a backlash.

old prejudices die hard.

as i'm sure you know.

 

[melon]

so, for you and me, having sex with a woman would be giving up our natural relations for the unnatural.

right?

Essentially--and no one seems to really want to come out and say this--St. Paul is describing a pagan temple orgy, which were commonly bisexual in nature. He--or, at least, the translators--have the eloquence of a bad romance novel.

Complicating things is that the Greek word translated as "unnatural" is "para-physin." In other parts of the New Testament, God is described as "para-physin." So something tells me that passage is just a mess no matter which way you want to look at it.

Melon

 

[AEON]

People are not "homophobic" because they believe that God teaches that homsexual activity is a sin. There are numerous sins listed in the Bible and I, along with my brothers and sisters, commit these sins regularly. I am no better and no worse than anyone struggling with this sin issue. I have my own, different issues, my own "thorn in my side" if you will.

I do not claim that homosexual activity is worse than any other sexual sin - I just claim that the Bible states that it is indeed...a sin. There are volumes of information out there that debate both sides of the issue (is it a sin or not a sin?). Heck, some people have made a career out of it.

Melon makes some interesting insights and I respect his intelligence. However, with a quick google search you can find many articles that both support and defeat his argument. Most of those articles are way too lengthy to cut and paste into a forum. It is not an issue that can be discussed properly in a few paragraphs. I suggest that if you are really interested, do the research and come to your own conclusion...prayerfully. As I said before, without the Holy Spirit's guidance, it will be impossible to come to the conclusion that God intends.

I did not join this debate with any illusion of winning. The emotions surrounding this subject make it impossible to have a calm, objective discussion. However, I do feel it is important to call out when I see Holy Scripture being misrepresented and misquoted. I doubt I convinced anyone of anything, but I hope that a few of you at least looked at your Bibles to see what it actually says. If that happened, I am pleased. God can take over from there.

If you can honestly say, after all the research, and all the prayer, that God condones homosexual sex, then by all means - enjoy it and live a Spirit filled, Holy life. Personally - I think it is extremely clear that ANY sexual activity outside of male/female marriage is a sin - and I try to live accordingly. But you are free to disagree with me