Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Remove XXX to contact Irrelevant. Being a full citizen in a democratic society entails certain responsibilities as well as privileges. One of these is contributing to the common good by paying taxes. This is NOT the same as being wholly owned by another human being or state apparatus. Mycroft I spend around 33% of my time working exclusively for the state. If I don’t work, I am imprisoned and my possessions are taken away. How am I not owned by the state in which I live. It owns at least a 33% share in me, doesn’t it? Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager M: No, it does not own a portion of you. You ignore my explanation above: as a citizen who enjoys the conditions established for the common good, we have a responsibility to contribute to that common good. Man is a social being, dependent on the group for his welfare. In a large complex society such as ours, this results in certain obligations, taxes among them. As far as I know, all countries today levy some taxes; ours are less than most. To maintain, as you do, that because we must pay taxes, we are owned by the state is just wrong. After all, Jesus did say to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s – money. Slavery is completely different. Being wholly owned: no freedom to move around, vote, have a say in one’s life or work, etc. Slaves in the ancient world were often prisoners of war, born into it, etc. Did they have any choice? Maybe it’s unfair to criticize Paul for his acceptance of it, after all he was a product of his times and more interested in their spiritual than temporal lives. However, it would have been nice if he had seen beyond his era and criticized an unjust institution.
Okay. You make a nice point. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager
Response:
I agree with your observation concerning the wording of one part of my message. I would not have to be a theologian to report that God looks very unfavorably on homosexual people. Well, I have to take exception to this. I think God looks unfavorably on homosexual acts, but that He looks favorably on all people. Regards, Ranee
There would be no end to the list of acts we all do everyday which displease God. God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. It is the realization that we are in a state of sin which seperates us from God, and then repenting, in order to bring us back in communion with the Lord. Eclzeastes * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
I would not have to be a theologian to report that God looks very unfavorably on homosexual people.
Well, I have to take exception to this. I think God looks unfavorably on homosexual acts, but that He looks favorably on all people. Regards, Ranee Microsoft is preparing for the next millenium with a new version of Windows called Windows 2000. The target for release is first quarter, 1901
Response:
Irrelevant. Being a full citizen in a democratic society entails certain responsibilities as well as privileges. One of these is contributing to the common good by paying taxes. This is NOT the same as being wholly owned by another human being or state apparatus. Mycroft
I spend around 33% of my time working exclusively for the state. If I don’t work, I am imprisoned and my possessions are taken away. How am I not owned by the state in which I live. It owns at least a 33% share in me, doesn’t it? Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager
Response:
– Remove XXX to contact
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Irrelevant. Being a full citizen in a democratic society entails certain responsibilities as well as privileges. One of these is contributing to the common good by paying taxes. This is NOT the same as being wholly owned by another human being or state apparatus. Mycroft I spend around 33% of my time working exclusively for the state. If I don’t work, I am imprisoned and my possessions are taken away. How am I not owned by the state in which I live. It owns at least a 33% share in me, doesn’t it? Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager
M: No, it does not own a portion of you. You ignore my explanation above: as a citizen who enjoys the conditions established for the common good, we have a responsibility to contribute to that common good. Man is a social being, dependent on the group for his welfare. In a large complex society such as ours, this results in certain obligations, taxes among them. As far as I know, all countries today levy some taxes; ours are less than most. To maintain, as you do, that because we must pay taxes, we are owned by the state is just wrong. After all, Jesus did say to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s – money. Slavery is completely different. Being wholly owned: no freedom to move around, vote, have a say in one’s life or work, etc. Slaves in the ancient world were often prisoners of war, born into it, etc. Did they have any choice? Maybe it’s unfair to criticize Paul for his acceptance of it, after all he was a product of his times and more interested in their spiritual than temporal lives. However, it would have been nice if he had seen beyond his era and criticized an unjust institution. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
I don’t believe that divorced persons should be in the pulpit. Because a church allows it does not (in itself) mean that it’s in accord with God’s will.
I agree. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Slavery in ancient Rome operated quit differantly than the brutal form that it took in American. It was more in the lines of low wage employment and was more carefully proscribed by law and practice. Not the best place to be.. but neither was it totally dehumanizing. In fact, Marcus Aurilius was born into slavery and arose to Ceasar. Slaves had the opportunity to save, invest, and eventually purchase their own freedom. Many persons voluntarily sold themself into slavery in order to meet their debts. My point is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Frankly, I don’t know first hand of any competant woman Bishops, but I suppose that such a thing might be conceptually possible.
Excellent points. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager
Response:
— M: I’m constantly amazed to what lengths Bible literalists will go to salvage Paul’s apparent approval (or at least acceptance) of slavery. Tell me, if slavery was so great, why did the great slave revolt occur (remember Sparticus)? Thousands were butchered and crucified as a result. The ownership of one human being by another is indefensible, no matter what age it occurs in.
Do you pay taxes? Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager
Response:
The Bible has many references concerning homosexual behavior. As you may all know, none of them cast a very positive light on the subject. I would not have to be a theologian to report that God looks very unfavorably on homosexual people. It is also very apparent that this is not a new subject. The Old Testament lists punishments for homosexual people which shows that this has been around for a long time. Unfortunately, writers of messages which appear to be in favor of the idea of gay priests do not have a very good Biblical basis for their conviction other than their own personal beliefs. Due to this fact, many of the messages seem to attempt to redirect the conversation into unrelated areas such as women’s rights and slavery. These tend to be topics we can all agree on no matter what our opinions on gay priests. What it doesn’t do is get us away from our original question: Should we have gay priests? I would start by saying that it is likely we all believe that certain positions in life bring with them a increased amount of benefit, restrictions or liabilities, to name just a few. We have certain minimum expectations of people in our society. For instance, I would expect that my local fireman is not an arsonist. I would like to believe that there is no member of my police department that has robbed banks before. I might even go out on a limb and hope my elected officials were honest people. Whatever the title we all realize there are basic standards which go with it. It doesn’t look like any ‘gay bashing’ is going on here. I don’t think anyone has said homosexuals should not or can’t be Christians. This topic is about should Christian priests be gay. The answer is a very obvious NO. It is in complete disregard for clearly stated principles which are laid down by the Word of God. There are many things which clearly dated or lend themselves to the context of the time; but this is NOT one of them. If a priest were engaged in sexual relations with a animal or incestuous relations, or any deviant sexual behavior then I’m sure this would be a short conversation and that priest would be out of a job. Homosexuality is clearly grouped with these areas and it is not our job or our right to alter them. Our religious leader must be just that – leaders. Unlike some other message topics I have seen, no one has left any Biblical citations. I will conclude with a few : 1 CORINTHIANS 6 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ROMANS 1 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. LEVITICUS 18 22" `Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. 29" `Everyone who does any of these detestable things–such persons must be cut off from their people. 30Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.’ " LEVITICUS 20 13" `If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. I assume that God would not want to put his priests to death as much as I would like to get my spiritual counsel from someone who will not be denied the Kingdom of Heaven. Thanks for your time, Eclzeastes! * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
– Remove XXX to contact
I don’t believe that divorced persons should be in the pulpit. Because a church allows it does not (in itself) mean that it’s in accord with God’s will. Slavery in ancient Rome operated quit differantly than the brutal form that it took in American. It was more in the lines of low wage employment and was more carefully proscribed by law and practice. Not the best place to be.. but neither was it totally dehumanizing. In fact, Marcus Aurilius was born into slavery and arose to Ceasar. Slaves had the opportunity to save, invest, and eventually purchase their own freedom. Many persons voluntarily sold themself into slavery in order to meet their debts.
M: I’m constantly amazed to what lengths Bible literalists will go to salvage Paul’s apparent approval (or at least acceptance) of slavery. Tell me, if slavery was so great, why did the great slave revolt occur (remember Sparticus)? Thousands were butchered and crucified as a result. The ownership of one human being by another is indefensible, no matter what age it occurs in. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My point is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Frankly, I don’t know first hand of any competant woman Bishops, but I suppose that such a thing might be conceptually possible. Paul’s attitude toward homosexuality was quite specific. If we believe that Paul spoke for the Lord Jesus, we have no choice but to reject homosexuality. I really don’t see how you can get around that, unless you reject parts of the Holy Bible. If you do that, you have changed the Word of God. Christ told the apostles that whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven and whatever they retained on earth would be retained in Heaven Bill Yep. Paul’s attitude was quite specific. And he was quite specific about the role of women in church: they should keep silent, and ask their husbands for interpretation when they got home. He was quite specific about the role of slaves: they should submit to their masters. Christ himself did not speak about homosexuality, but he did speak about divorce, and he was quite opposed to it. The church has somehow managed to "deal" with all three of these situations. Women not only speak in church, they’re Bishops! Slavery is repugnant to all true Christians (or it should be.) One half of all marriages end in divorce, and not a few of these divorces are among members of the clergy. What we have bound on earth, has been bound in heaven. And the church is still alive. I think it is time for the church to begin to deal with the issue of homosexuality and stop acting as if it were the worst sin imaginable. ….and that’s just *MY* $.02 worth! Lew
Response:
Irrelevant. Being a full citizen in a democratic society entails certain responsibilities as well as privileges. One of these is contributing to the common good by paying taxes. This is NOT the same as being wholly owned by another human being or state apparatus. Mycroft — Remove XXX to contact
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — M: I’m constantly amazed to what lengths Bible literalists will go to salvage Paul’s apparent approval (or at least acceptance) of slavery. Tell me, if slavery was so great, why did the great slave revolt occur (remember Sparticus)? Thousands were butchered and crucified as a result. The ownership of one human being by another is indefensible, no matter what age it occurs in. Do you pay taxes? Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager
Response:
It’s not worth the effort. Mike
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My comments were not meant to be hateful in any manner. I’m sorry if it seemed that way. One can have the divine or agape love for those who are committing what are described by the Scriptures as immoral and destructive acts, but we are still required to reject these practices. One can’t be in the middle. One is either a follower of Christ or they are not. If they are, then there are certain requirements. I don’t recall the Scriptures teaching that there certain exceptions to the rules. One can’t live in two worlds. Most people who tried ended up self destructing. I have a love in my heart for drug addicts, people in prisons, unethical business people and corrupt politicians too, but that doesn’t mean I condone what they do or want to be like them. The voice of evil is very seductive and can easily convince people that what they do isn’t wrong; it’s just another form of expression. If it feels good, it must be o.k. God didn’t say that following him was going to be easy. He said to pick up your cross and follow Him. Bill
Response:
You make a good argument for your case, assuming, of course that your premise is valid. It is my contention; however, that the Scriptures which give us the rules for living the Christian life forbids the homosexual life style as being unnatural and immoral. The Scriptures are quite specific. To say that homosexuality is permitted is to teach something other than that which is Scriptural, which is also forbidden. I won’t presume to tell people how to live, but in the context of the Christian faith I would suggest that one can be a homosexual and a Christian who prays for guidance from the Holy Spirit as to how to live their life, but one can’t be a practicing homosexual with no intention of stopping and still say they are a follower of Christ. If one wants to live an alternative life style and still be part of "mainstream" society, why not join the Elks club or the Moose club or some group like that. Their rules can be changed by voting. The Body of Christ has rules to live by that have been handed down from generation to generation for 2,000 years. These rules are not subject to discussion. I don’t recall our Lord or any of the Apostles saying, "if you don’t like the rules, take a vote and change them". Bill
Response:
– Remove XXX to contact
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You make a good argument for your case, assuming, of course that your premise is valid. It is my contention; however, that the Scriptures which give us the rules for living the Christian life forbids the homosexual life style as being unnatural and immoral. The Scriptures are quite specific. To say that homosexuality is permitted is to teach something other than that which is Scriptural, which is also forbidden. I won’t presume to tell people how to live, but in the context of the Christian faith I would suggest that one can be a homosexual and a Christian who prays for guidance from the Holy Spirit as to how to live their life, but one can’t be a practicing homosexual with no intention of stopping and still say they are a follower of Christ. If one wants to live an alternative life style and still be part of "mainstream" society, why not join the Elks club or the Moose club or some group like that. Their rules can be changed by voting. The Body of Christ has rules to live by that have been handed down from generation to generation for 2,000 years. These rules are not subject to discussion. I don’t recall our Lord or any of the Apostles saying, "if you don’t like the rules, take a vote and change them". Bill
Being gay is not like joining the Elks club. It is more like being black or blue eyed. It is NOT a choice! How many times must we tell you guys this? It is a state of being, like heterosexuality, which one discovers about oneself, often after much painful and self-destructive denial (and it is arguments like yours which make this process so destructive). There is no such thing as a "homosexual lifestyle." Would you like it if I called the "heterosexual lifestyle" one which promotes promiscuity, cruelty, the wholesale begetting of bastards, sexually transmitted diseases, violence, etc.? Virtually all straights I know or have known have been promiscuous to some degree, or have committed adultery. Gays can be just as responsible and committed as straights, believe it or not. Just because something has been done for centuries doesn’t mean it is right or good. Women were kept in second place status using the Bible as support for centuries until enlightened minds reversed this. Slavery and racism used the Bible for centuries, too. The Bible can be misused and misinterpreted to support any number of social superstitions. Why don’t you people leave gays alone and worry about some of the ~real~ problems in the world? Like, say, starvation, poverty, ecological destruction, war, etc. (all affected by over-population, btw – thank you breeders!). Mycroft
Response:
I’m quite content to let Gays alone to do as they wish. I have no desire to change them either. My only concern is that the Church has existed for 2000 years by following the rules and precepts stipulated by the Lord himself. If you change, replace or eliminate these rules, then the Church is no longer the Church of Christ; it’s somebody else’s church. Since the rules are quite specific and categorical, to deny them and say they are wrong is to say that Christ is wrong and you are right. If you deny Christ’s leadership, how do you then call your self Christian. By the way, I do apologize for the wrong choice of words in my descriptions. I didn’t intend to offend anyone. I’m only trying to get to the heart of a matter that seems to be tearing the Church apart. As for homosexuality being genetic like hair or skin color, that is a point of view and not a statement of fact, but even if it were a statement of fact, it is still contrary to the rules. Until Christ changes those rules, those are the ones we must live with if we intend to follow His way. This is the one thing that many people seem to be unable or unwilling to accept. I don’t recall Christ or any of the Apostles stating that one could negotiate their way into the Kingdom. Bill
Response:
I’m quite content to let Gays alone to do as they wish. I have no desire to change them either. My only concern is that the Church has existed for 2000 years by following the rules and precepts stipulated by the Lord himself. If you change, replace or eliminate these rules, then the Church is no longer the Church of Christ; it’s somebody else’s church.
A brief study of Church History would indicate that very little has remained the same in 2000 years. There have been differences of opinion, often regarding huge issues of theology, from the beginning of the Church. The ‘gay issue’ is not one of disobeying ‘rules,’ but rather one of scriptural interpretation. Furthermore, most any Anglican scholar will tell you that the Anglican Church, in examining theological integrity, relies not only on scripture but also on tradition and reason. Since the rules are quite specific and categorical, to deny them and say they are wrong is to say that Christ is wrong and you are right. If you deny Christ’s leadership, how do you then call your self Christian. By the way, I do apologize for the wrong choice of words in my descriptions. I didn’t intend to offend anyone. I’m only trying to get to the heart of a matter that seems to be tearing the Church apart.
There is absolutely no scripture in which Christ says anything about homosexuality. Not one. I think it’s highly unfair to say that gay Christians are denying Christ’s leadership. We may be saying that we doubt the integrity of certain Canon Laws, but we are hardly trying to form our own religion. We simply feel that we are just as worthy to serve Christ as anyone else, and we feel it unjust (and hardly Christ-like) for others to try so adamantly to keep us away. I call myself a Christian because Jesus Christ is my King and Salvation. With all due respect, how can you possibly think that you are not offending anyone? Do you realize how judgemental and condescending you sound? As for homosexuality being genetic like hair or skin color, that is a point of view and not a statement of fact, but even if it were a statement of fact, it is still contrary to the rules. Until Christ changes those rules, those are the ones we must live with if we intend to follow His way. This is the one thing that many people seem to be unable or unwilling to accept. I don’t recall Christ or any of the Apostles stating that one could negotiate their way into the Kingdom.
Rules, rules, rules. These are not the basis of our faith, Bill. Ever hear of grace? Judge not, lest ye be judged. It’s the whole point of Christ’s incarnation. The Word made flesh. Love and forgiveness personified. No one is negotiating to get into heaven. Similarly, no one should have to negotiate to serve (or worship) in Christ’s Church, and yet bigotry and fear continue to force gay persons to do just that. Genevieve (who happens to be a postulant)
Response:
Nope, you’re right. Jesus didn’t say that we could throw out the rules we don’t like. However, I don’t recall him saying that one cannot "be gay." Actually, we got a nice little summary of Christ’s teachings just yesterday: 1. Love God 2. Love your neighbour as yourself Period. Lew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Body of Christ has rules to live by that have been handed down from generation to generation for 2,000 years. These rules are not subject to discussion. I don’t recall our Lord or any of the Apostles saying, "if you don’t like the rules, take a vote and change them". Bill
Response:
I’m not talking about cannon law, I’m talking about the Word of God. Orthodox Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. We believe that Christ appointed Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles. If Paul spoke other than what was divinely inspired. If he spoke against what Christ stood for, would Christ have allowed him to continue in his ministry. Paul’s attitude toward homosexuality was quite specific. If we believe that Paul spoke for the Lord Jesus, we have no choice but to reject homosexuality. I really don’t see how you can get around that, unless you reject parts of the Holy Bible. If you do that, you have changed the Word of God. Christ told the apostles that whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven and whatever they retained on earth would be retained in Heaven. All the rationalization, self justification and denial will not change that. I’m not denying a homosexual’s desire to love the Lord, but when one picks up their cross, they must leave behind some things that they treasure or feel they can’t live without. I don’t know all the reasons people become homosexual. I do know that in many cases it’s simply a case of sexual addiction, and just like any other addiction, when you’re in denial, you’ll twist the truth every way you can to keep from losing that addiction. I pray every day to keep from going back to the person I was. I want to live in the Light of God, and so I struggle every day, but every day it gets easier. If Satan can convince most of the world that he doesn’t exist, I suppose he can convince the world of most anything. Down is up and up is down. I read some of the comments and it sounds like Alice in Wonderland. I’m not a expert, but I keep reading the Holy Scriptures and I find the truth. There’s nothing complex about this issue. We have a group of people who are involved in a life style that is forbidden by the Holy Scriptures, but they want acceptance, and what better way to gain acceptance than to be members in good standing of the Church of Christ. In order to get around the Holy Scriptures they say they only do what Jesus Himself said. In doing that they show how little they really know about the Scriptures or the Holy Trinity, but since many Christians spend so little time actually studying God’s word they just assume since the people speak with such ease and fluidity, they must know what they’re talking about. Logically, the only thing that will happen is that the Church will split with the GBLT supporters in one camp and the people who disagree in the other. In the end the GBLT group will still have failed to get what the really want. Again, I’m not a expert, so after offering my "2 cents" all I can do is pray for God’s will to be done in any case. Bill
Response:
Paul’s attitude toward homosexuality was quite specific. If we believe that Paul spoke for the Lord Jesus, we have no choice but to reject homosexuality. I really don’t see how you can get around that, unless you reject parts of the Holy Bible. If you do that, you have changed the Word of God. Christ told the apostles that whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven and whatever they retained on earth would be retained in Heaven Bill
Yep. Paul’s attitude was quite specific. And he was quite specific about the role of women in church: they should keep silent, and ask their husbands for interpretation when they got home. He was quite specific about the role of slaves: they should submit to their masters. Christ himself did not speak about homosexuality, but he did speak about divorce, and he was quite opposed to it. The church has somehow managed to "deal" with all three of these situations. Women not only speak in church, they’re Bishops! Slavery is repugnant to all true Christians (or it should be.) One half of all marriages end in divorce, and not a few of these divorces are among members of the clergy. What we have bound on earth, has been bound in heaven. And the church is still alive. I think it is time for the church to begin to deal with the issue of homosexuality and stop acting as if it were the worst sin imaginable. ….and that’s just *MY* $.02 worth! Lew
Response:
I don’t believe that divorced persons should be in the pulpit. Because a church allows it does not (in itself) mean that it’s in accord with God’s will. Slavery in ancient Rome operated quit differantly than the brutal form that it took in American. It was more in the lines of low wage employment and was more carefully proscribed by law and practice. Not the best place to be.. but neither was it totally dehumanizing. In fact, Marcus Aurilius was born into slavery and arose to Ceasar. Slaves had the opportunity to save, invest, and eventually purchase their own freedom. Many persons voluntarily sold themself into slavery in order to meet their debts. My point is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Frankly, I don’t know first hand of any competant woman Bishops, but I suppose that such a thing might be conceptually possible. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Paul’s attitude toward homosexuality was quite specific. If we believe that Paul spoke for the Lord Jesus, we have no choice but to reject homosexuality. I really don’t see how you can get around that, unless you reject parts of the Holy Bible. If you do that, you have changed the Word of God. Christ told the apostles that whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven and whatever they retained on earth would be retained in Heaven Bill Yep. Paul’s attitude was quite specific. And he was quite specific about the role of women in church: they should keep silent, and ask their husbands for interpretation when they got home. He was quite specific about the role of slaves: they should submit to their masters. Christ himself did not speak about homosexuality, but he did speak about divorce, and he was quite opposed to it. The church has somehow managed to "deal" with all three of these situations. Women not only speak in church, they’re Bishops! Slavery is repugnant to all true Christians (or it should be.) One half of all marriages end in divorce, and not a few of these divorces are among members of the clergy. What we have bound on earth, has been bound in heaven. And the church is still alive. I think it is time for the church to begin to deal with the issue of homosexuality and stop acting as if it were the worst sin imaginable. ….and that’s just *MY* $.02 worth! Lew
Response:
I am an orthodox Anglican without credentials. I go to church on Sundays and Holy Days when ever I can. I do this because I am a Christian, and this is what Christians are supposed to do in order to become strong in their faith as well as enjoy the pleasure of communing with other brothers and sisters in Christ. I have been observing the struggle between the orthodox and liberal members of our communion from the sidelines, thanks to the Internet. I am usually an observer and not a participant, but I feel I must make a comment regarding regarding homosexuality and the Church of Christ. Our Church’s doctrines and practices are based on the teachings of the Holy Scriptures which specifically forbid homosexuality. We are; however, required to love all, therefore, homosexuals are welcomed into our congregations with the hope that they will find the light of our Lord Jesus. All this said, the thing that really puzzles me is this; I’ve been divorced for 23 years, and I’m not allowed to get married again unless I have the Bishop’s permission. This is, of course, because our Lord denies us divorce except for adultery. Now, during this 23 years I am required by the Lord to be celibate since fornicators will not see the Kingdom of Heaven. I admit, I have failed more than once, but I have asked for forgiveness and for the strength to overcome my physical and psychological wants and needs. I believe the Holy Father has forgiven me, and I believe that He will someday allow me to be married again. Now, you might ask, "what does this have to do with gay priests?" I’ll tell you. Our gay friends are not asking to be allowed to be priests of our Father. They are demanding that they be allowed to be not only gay, but promiscuous. I’m not a psychologist, but this seems like a really good way to "sidestep" and issue, i.e. "the issue is not whether a homosexual can be a priest. the issue is whether or not homosexual priests can be promiscuous. Well, assuming there is such a thing a a gay priest, why should they be allowed to be promiscuous and heterosexuals are not? I mean, what’s wrong with this picture. When is someone in authority going to say, "Enough". Bill Cutlip
Response:
– Remove XXX to contact
<sfb Well, assuming there is such a thing a a gay priest, why should they be allowed to be promiscuous and heterosexuals are not? I mean, what’s wrong with this picture. When is someone in authority going to say, "Enough". Bill Cutlip
Your use of the word "promiscuous" is loaded and unfair. Since society and the church forbids gays to marry, any relationship they might have which includes sexual expression might be considered extramarital. However, promiscuity as a term is reserved for those, het or homo, who have sex indiscriminately with a variety of people. Your use of it here is biased. However, your point is well-taken. Why, indeed, should gay priests have to consumate their loving and committed relationships under the shadow of the accusation of "extramarital" or "fornication"? An excellent argument for allowing gay marriages if I’ve ever seen one. You ask, "what is wrong with this picture"? Simple fairness and Christian love is missing when comes to gay people. Discrimination disguised as righteousness or orthodoxy. We should say "enough" to this. Mycroft
Response:
The hypocrisy of the liberals in ECUSA knows no bounds. They practice tolerance only to those who agree with them. They reject Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and Reason yet do not have the integrity to leave and create their own pseudo church. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Our Church’s doctrines and practices are based on the teachings of the Holy Scriptures which specifically forbid homosexuality. We are; however, required to love all, therefore, homosexuals are welcomed into our congregations with the hope that they will find the light of our Lord Jesus. Now, you might ask, "what does this have to do with gay priests?" I’ll tell you. Our gay friends are not asking to be allowed to be priests of our Father. They are demanding that they be allowed to be not only gay, but promiscuous. I’m not a psychologist, but this seems like a really good way to "sidestep" and issue, i.e. "the issue is not whether a homosexual can be a priest. the issue is whether or not homosexual priests can be promiscuous. Well, assuming there is such a thing a a gay priest, why should they be allowed to be promiscuous and heterosexuals are not? I mean, what’s wrong with this picture. When is someone in authority going to say, "Enough". Bill Cutlip
Response:
I’m not a Roman catholic (notice the small "c"). The only Holy Father I know and obey is Almighty God. Bill
Response:
My comments were not meant to be hateful in any manner. I’m sorry if it seemed that way. One can have the divine or agape love for those who are committing what are described by the Scriptures as immoral and destructive acts, but we are still required to reject these practices. One can’t be in the middle. One is either a follower of Christ or they are not. If they are, then there are certain requirements. I don’t recall the Scriptures teaching that there certain exceptions to the rules. One can’t live in two worlds. Most people who tried ended up self destructing. I have a love in my heart for drug addicts, people in prisons, unethical business people and corrupt politicians too, but that doesn’t mean I condone what they do or want to be like them. The voice of evil is very seductive and can easily convince people that what they do isn’t wrong; it’s just another form of expression. If it feels good, it must be o.k. God didn’t say that following him was going to be easy. He said to pick up your cross and follow Him. Bill
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.