|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: New Hampshire gay bishop
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
No, no, I think evangelicals are Christians, just misguided ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
But I've never been a sit-on-the-fence, well-maybe-sort-of-what-if-lets-not-really-believe-anything- liberal.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
Breaking news: there's to be a summit to discuss gay bishops!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3135237.stm
Good to see +Rowan asserting his authority. Well, sort of. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
[Spong's] brand of liberal Protestantism has been taught in seminaries since the 1950's. Spong is simply out of the closet so to speak. Dozens and dozens of priests and bishops would have to be declared heretics if they tried to nail him on the Virgin Birth, his concept of the divinity of Christ, his picture of a "spiritual" resurrection, or God as Tillich's "Ground of Being."
This is more or less what I was trying to say above, yes. I'd even go further back than that; Lewis talks about clergy with such beliefs, even bishops, as far back as the 1940s. See the Episcopal Ghost in The Great Divorce. When I became a Christian (in about 1983 or 84) I kind of knew what I was in for, as far as What Beliefs My Priest Might Hold, so while I find the abandonment of the Creeds sad, I don't find it new, shocking, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
For the sake of clarity, David is citing Wulfstan's words here, not mine.
![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) Sorry.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'd even go further back than that; Lewis talks about clergy with such beliefs, even bishops, as far back as the 1940s.
And even farther back, Swedenborg described these things as secretly common in the 1700s. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
I think perhaps you are a bit touchy about this!
I know I am. Because I've heard far too many people say this and mean it - people who are a lot like you in their opinions. So I'm hoping you'll be a bit more thoughtful in the future.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Thank you jugular for the link.
quote:
Dr Aspinall said the church needed to use reason and experience to interpret the Bible and tradition.
Is there a problem with this? I realize that implicit in this statement is the notion that as experience grows, interpretation must be adjusted. This leads inevitably to:
quote:
The church needs to use reason and growing experience to reinterpret the Bible and tradition.
Is there a problem with this?
Specifically with repect to ordination of a non-celibate gay bishop,
quote:
Dr Aspinall said although some sections of the Bible seemed to condemn gay sex, the church needed to recognise that "we do know now more than the biblical authors knew in their age about homosexuality".
"That must be taken into account as must the experience of homosexual people who are committed to Christ and the church and who do not believe they are called to celibacy," Dr Aspinall said.
Is there a problem with this? Why would anglicanrascal refer to Dr. Aspinall as "-Ariuspinall" for thinking along these lines? Who, except for strict literalists, do not think along these lines?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
And even farther back, Swedenborg described these things as secretly common in the 1700s.
I seem to recall a very good book called The Rise of Moralism which talked about it going back very far, perhaps as far as that or further, come to think of it, which talked about the way the Church (Anglican specifically) had been focusing less on theology and related things, and more on the notion that Christianity was good because it gave you a moral code, etc. rather than a relationship with God, forgiveness of/redemption from sin, etc.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
This sermon is being preached in a few hours by The Rev'd Dr Scott Cowdell, a member of the Anglican Church of Australia's Doctrine Commission.
I would suggest that it is well worth a read, not least because of the peculiarities of Australian idiom and obscure witticisms therein!
Also, though, it alludes to models of ecclesiology, theology and biblical scholarship which are neither wishy-washy-liberal-anything-goes nor conservative reactionary, but a boldly progressive orthodoxy.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
Thank you Jugular, for finding and sharing the link.
That sermon is excellent and powerful.
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
I'd like to add my thanks for posting that link. I have a few friends I need to send it to.
Sieg
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Fantastic stuff, Jugular. Very much where I am at.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Ditto from me. I was waiting for him to take on the Bible verses and see that he did devote a few sentences to dismissing the individual verses as not condemning homosexuality that paralleled heterosexuality. While that will skate past a liberal like me, and it might thaw a moderate a degree or two, I don't think it will get far with staunch conservatives. They need to hear verse by verse exactly what those verses condemn and exactly what they allow, from the mind of God who originated them. They also need to hear why it was that God allowed the Church to be deceived for millenia on this issue, only to be "corrected" today. That is a much tougher sell and this sermon is not going to get through to that audience.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But nothing will, Jim.
It can't do, because they believe that culture and history has far less influence on the Bible than we do, and that God 'wrote' the Bible, or at least did far more than inspire the writers of the words. They also won't ever accept that subsequent knowledge and experience may in fact make the Bible inadequate in answering all questions, or even just plain wrong in its arguments.
There have been many interpretations of the verses concerned, but I think its perfectly logical that staunch conservatives should take the view they do - which is why I think the problem is actually conservative theology.
Basically, their view of the Bible and its lnfallibility or reliability is far higher than I would or could ever countenance.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
It may well be, Nightlamp, but that is actually how it is ; the Archbishop of Canterbury may be first among equals, and no Pope, but he is still First.
Did you bother to read my links? answer would seem to be no.
The definition that is most recent ie 2000 and and adopted by all primates is
quote:
We believe that the unity of the Communion as a whole still rests on the Lambeth Quadrilateral: the Holy Scriptures as the rule and standard of faith; the creeds of the undivided Church; the two Sacraments ordained by Christ himself and the historic episcopate. Only a formal and public repudiation of this would place a diocese or Province outside the Anglican Communion
found here. No where in the statement is canterbury mentioned.
I am aware your concept is based on the 1930 resolution but it would appear to be much under debate or according to the link just one of 5 possible ways of viewing what the Anglican communion is about.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Whatever that statement may say , it remains a fact that one's Anglican statue is defined purely by relationship to Canterbury, and it would be Canterbury , NOT the other members of the Communion, who would have to make that decision.
I did read the links, but they talk about characterisitics pf the Communion,not its actual structure - its hardly an organisation at all.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Thats status, not statue - one too many GINS I fear....
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I am so glad you have a greater understanding of the anglican communion that its own doctrinal commission.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Thats the whole point ; membershipof the Communion isn't based on doctrine, but being in communion with Canterbury. If it were simply doctrine, and there was some democracy involved, it would be different - but the only thing it can do is pass advisory ststements, which individual provinces can ignore should they wish, and the only way they could then be dismissed from the Communion is for Canterbury to say so.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I was waiting for him to take on the Bible verses and see that he did devote a few sentences to dismissing the individual verses as not condemning homosexuality that paralleled heterosexuality. ... They need to hear verse by verse exactly what those verses condemn and exactly what they allow, from the mind of God who originated them.
See what you think of this document from Soulforce. Mel White started life as a fundamentalist and is now an advocate for gay rights in the church. He knows exactly how to do the verse by verse exegesis you seem to be talking about.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Nightlamp, the fairly obvious problem with that statement is that it could be taken as implying that Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians are members of the Anglican Communion - if assent to the Lambeth Quadrilateral is both necessary and sufficient for membership of that Communion. Merseymike is clearly correct, the relationship to Canterbury has to have something pretty fundamental to do with it.
My own tuppence ha'penny's worth is that the Anglican Communion is all a bit of a mess, as befits a communion which, in significant part, results from the religio-imperial endeavours of a nation whose own 'national church' became a discrete entity by historical accident. Attempts to formalise, codify or otherwise fit the Anglican Communion into an ecclesiological straightjacket are in danger of running into major problems.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
My own tuppence ha'penny's worth is that the Anglican Communion is all a bit of a mess, as befits a communion which, in significant part, results from the religio-imperial endeavours of a nation whose own 'national church' became a discrete entity by historical accident. Attempts to formalise, codify or otherwise fit the Anglican Communion into an ecclesiological straightjacket are in danger of running into major problems.
That sound's right to me!
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
All y'all are making a bit too much fuss about the Lambeth Quadrilateral (actually, it's the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, but who's quibbling?)
The CL-Quad is the base ground the Communion uses for ecumenical rapproachment. This is the basis upon which the Anglican Communion approaches ecumenical negotiation. It is not a definititive statement, but a declaration of the base-ground of dialogue: It is a starting point, no more.
And it has served the Communion well. ECUSA used it in its negtotiations with the Evangelican Lutheran Church in the USA and was able to introduce the "historic episcopacy" as a result without, incidently, the Lutherans forcing the Episcopalians to do something as peculiar as, say, subscribing to the Augsburg Confession.
So the Quadrilateral works. But it's not a definitive statement, and shouldn't be used as such.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The definition that is most recent ie 2000 and and adopted by all primates is
quote:
We believe that the unity of the Communion as a whole still rests on the Lambeth Quadrilateral: the Holy Scriptures as the rule and standard of faith; the creeds of the undivided Church; the two Sacraments ordained by Christ himself and the historic episcopate. Only a formal and public repudiation of this would place a diocese or Province outside the Anglican Communion
Someone trying to imterpret this strictly might consider that a change in the understanding of the historic episcopate - for example droppping the idea that a bishop be the "husband of one wife" might place themselves outside the Anglican Communion.
Or that a drastic reinterpretation of the creeds, such as would be implied by holding a "non-theistic" idea of God, yet continuing to use the creeds might do the same.
Even more so ceasing to use the creeds regularly in public worship.
I'm not saying that that is the case, but I would not be surprised if the vicar of Jesmond does.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cambrose
Apprentice
# 4840
|
Posted
Good info on this topic is available at ucfm.net, which is a forum for Christians.
--------------------
Come visit me at http://cambrose.port5.com if you leave your email in the guest book so I will get back to you.
Posts: 3 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cambrose
Apprentice
# 4840
|
Posted
Could admin please delete my previouos post? the forum address is http://www.ufm.net NOT as I wrote it. Sorry.
--------------------
Come visit me at http://cambrose.port5.com if you leave your email in the guest book so I will get back to you.
Posts: 3 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I see no "good info" on this topic at the website you mention. I assume, by the way, that you mean http://www.ucfm.net, by the way, and not http://www.ufm.net, cited in your "correction" post, which is a mortgage broker's website.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
See what you think of this document from Soulforce. Mel White started life as a fundamentalist and is now an advocate for gay rights in the church. He knows exactly how to do the verse by verse exegesis you seem to be talking about.
What an excellent document. It would be good if the ECUSA put out something like it to explain their action. By the way, what is their explanation? I think there should be one. The sermon to which jugular referred and this soulforce pamphlet would be excellent. Right now it seems like they are just saying, "We took a couple votes and the liberals had enough to carry the day, even though the conservatives threatened to walk out." The story comes across as raw political power not a decision based on principle.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
Being away and not reading any newspapers or watching T.V., I've only just found out about the bishop's appointment ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) via this link and just wanted to say thanks to Jugular for his excellent sermon link.
J
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Those people who enjoyed the sermon might like to send an encouraging email to the preacher, the address is here.
May I encourage y'all to pass it on to your friends also, as this is, I think, one of the few honest and unambiguous sermons being delivered at the moment.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
the relationship to Canterbury has to have something pretty fundamental to do with it.
I am not denying it is part of it but the anglican communions own documents over the last 20 years have decreased the importance of the relationship to Canterbury. I am certain this is in part preparing the ground for the possibility of other Archbishops to become the first amongst equals.
I would say it is no longer fundamental to the Anglican communion's identity. At one time one of the key marks of the anglican communion was the use of the Book of Common prayer and this is no longer true but it still contributes something to Anglicanism.
The ecclesiolgy of the anglican communion has been evolving over the years and indeed it has evolved quite a bit since I studied it.
I look forward to the time when the principle archbishop of Anglicanism is not white, middle class and British.
[ 10. August 2003, 11:41: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
See what you think of this document from Soulforce.
What an excellent document. It would be good if the ECUSA put out something like it to explain their action. By the way, what is their explanation? I think there should be one.
I think Mel White's reading of these passages is pretty much the received thinking among most Episcopalians who support the ordination of gay people in committed relationships (and who support same-sex blessings as well). But there isn't going to be a document emanating from the ECUSA spelling out why we're getting a gay bishop because that's really not how we do things.
I don't know if we'll even have a document explaining the action when/if we adopt rites for same-sex blessings. Probably the wording of the resolution would be the explanation. But when General Convention is consenting to the election of bishops, it doesn't generate documents about why they say yes (they nearly always say yes).
That said, there was a pastoral letter from the bishop of Los Angeles read in church this morning, and I imagine a lot of other bishops issued pastoral letters as well. And here in LA we will also have four forums to discuss the actions taken at General Convention. Similar forums were held after Lambeth 1998.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Deon
Shipmate
# 609
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The ecclesiolgy of the anglican communion has been evolving over the years and indeed it has evolved quite a bit since I studied it.
I look forward to the time when the principle archbishop of Anglicanism is not white, middle class and British.
Talking of which, the Cape Argus (Cape Town) last night reported Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu as having stated yesterday, in a speech delivered in Soweto, that he had "no problem" with gay bishops.
He is further reported as having urged all gay clergy to remain celibate.
[fixed UBB for quote]
[ 12. August 2003, 10:48: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 392 | From: Cape Town | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Minnesota
Apprentice
# 3074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by calpurnia:
I'm a little late to the party as a newbie on the boards, but I've got to say that I'm more than a little dismayed by the appointment of Robinson as Bishop.
Question - Is Robinson a suitable representative for this role when he:
a. Breaks his vow to his (now ex-)wife and to God (Oh, yeah God, I didn't really mean forever, Amen)
b. Unable to understand or identify with the complex and most powerful relationship between a man and a woman and how it relates to God's relationship with the church.
c. Is part of a culture which encourages promiscuity, lack of commitment and whose political agenda is to mock the values of others.
(a) He didn't break his vow: he and his wife went to church to release each other and promise to continue raising their children together. She and one of their daughters testified for him at GC. And ECUSA does accept divorce and remarriage, remember?
(b) Let's skip that one -- for some people that isn't the most powerful relationship.
(c) The whole point is not to encourage promiscuity and lack of commitment, but to be honest about those who are pursuing stable and faithful relationships and give them encouragement.
PS - does his ordination bring a new dimension to the term "Glory Hole"
[ 12. August 2003, 16:49: Message edited by: Minnesota ]
--------------------
Linda
Posts: 3 | From: Collegeville, Minnesota, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Minnesota
Apprentice
# 3074
|
Posted
Sorry: the following was inadvertently copied from the post to which I was replying. I wouldn't touch it.
PS - does his ordination bring a new dimension to the term "Glory Hole" [/qb][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
--------------------
Linda
Posts: 3 | From: Collegeville, Minnesota, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Hosting
Minnesota,
Welcome aboard, I think you may need our
Practice UBB code here thread in The Styx.
You can practice your posts there to get the hang of it.
cheers,
Louise
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crux
Apprentice
# 4854
|
Posted
Well, I am new to this, but I also feel a need to post.
1. I believe the Bible is the word of God, and that that is what defines a protestant church (basically) otherwise it's just like catholics or cults or whatever.
So: Does the anglican church in the USA believe in the bible or not? cos it's pretty clear in that about this. it's a real question by the way, I really don't know what it believes (i'm in Australia, the 53rd state)
2. Regardless of the gay thing:
if a priest is having an affair, or engaging in sex with a parishoner/church member etc, is that ok? If he is having an affair, or engaging in sex with a non church person, is that ok??
If he is having an affair, or engaging in sex with anyone he is not married to is it ok???
Since at this point is it not legal to be married same sex in the diocese in question ( I think, correct me if I'm wrong) how can it be ok???!
If someone is not actively sinning in their particular weakness ( whether that weakness is promiscuity/fornication, theft, greed, homosexuality, murder, whatever) then it doesn't matter. but if they are practicing, then they have fallen to their weakness, whatever it is and that is not something to raise as a virtue.
if they are to allow a practicing, non married homosexual to be a priest, then why not a priest having an relationship with say 2 nuns(whatever)? or an unmarried but living (with sex)with partner (female)? or a consentual 3some?
or his sister?
where is the limit?
some will laugh and say they are stupid and extreme examples, but 20 years ago, the same reactions that are made today to pedaphiles are the reactions that were for homosexuals.
and judging by the general mood of people and the press, the attitude to things like swingers parties, wife swapping, prostitution, affairs etc are half way to being considered acceptable.
next thing pedophilia between consentual children and adults will be a matter of "choice".
anyway, sorry, bit of a ramble, but can you see my point?
Posts: 1 | From: Perth Australia | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
Hmmm.
What Catholics have in common with cults....
Priests having threesomes with nuns....
Hmosexuality is one step away from pedophilia....
Yup, we appear to have a trifecta, folks.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crux:
I believe the Bible is the word of God, and that that is what defines a protestant church (basically) otherwise it's just like catholics or cults or whatever.
(1.) I think you might find that catholics do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. As do most Protestants. I think the point is how this is to be understood.
(2.) Most catholics would not appreciate being lumped together with 'cults or whatever.'
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Crux,
Quite a first post! As Presleytarian and Divine-Outlaw Dwarf have pointed out, it contains several points that could be understood as being offensive. If you didn't intend to say the things they have indicated I suggest you take this opportunity to clarify what you mean and apologise for the offense caused.
Alan
Purgatory host
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crux:
anyway, sorry, bit of a ramble, but can you see my point?
Nope. Looks like pretty badly-informed stuff to me. Perhaps you might like to read the lengthy thread on this subject on our Dead Horses board in order to educate yourself on the subject before offering your contribution.
Trifecta, indeed.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crux:
some will laugh and say they are stupid and extreme examples, but 20 years ago, the same reactions that are made today to pedaphiles are the reactions that were for homosexuals.
In 1983? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Welcome to the Ship, Crux.
That was a fascinating and eye-opening first post.
I had never thought about those things in quite that way before.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
But then as a homosexual man, living with another man without the benefit of marriage, who thinks he's sort of a Christain, it's not likely I would, now is it?
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Crux:
some will laugh and say they are stupid and extreme examples, but 20 years ago, the same reactions that are made today to pedaphiles are the reactions that were for homosexuals.
In 1983?
Assuming that I understand the statement crux has made (and it's pretty unclear), I think he or she is asserting that we used to react to homosexuality the way we now react to pedophilia.
I'll say this is not only a stupid and extreme statement, but it isn't an "example", even, in that it is untrue. I remember 1983 in middle America very well indeed, and wayyyyy back then we were pretty clear on the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. I'm not laughing, either. I'm guessing that the difference has been appreciated for quite some time longer than that.
But anyway, we don't allow comparisons of homosexuality and pedophilia on these boards, for argumentative purposes, because we've found that it makes such arguments go nuclear, and the Hosts have to clean up the mess. If anyone wants to argue the morality of homosexuality per se, they can do it on the relevant threads on the Dead Horses board.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
calpurnia
Apprentice
# 4816
|
Posted
Hi, everyone.
RL has prevented my fromreplying before now. But I have been given a reminder to keep my words more temperate.
I stand by my comments on the appointment of Gene Robinson. I believe it is wrong from a biblical perspective.
I have no arguments about homosexuality from a civil rights issue. What happens between consenting adults is between them and God.
However the Bible makes it clear that heterosexuality is God's preferred option and homosexuality is not. Jesus in the Gospels addressed the loaded question de jour of divorce by referring back to Genesis - a man and a woman becoming one flesh.
Rather than this becoming a hetero v homosexual debate, especially in this, a Christian forum, it might be best to address the question from a Biblical point of view rather than secular.
Posts: 4 | From: Australia | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
Looks like he won't be preaching at Manchester Cathedral after all.
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
This is Daily Telegraph-created spin. I gather that his invitation was to the Conference, and the Telegraph then decided to assume that he would be the main preacher at the cathedral and reported the story in that way.
Oh, and Calpurnia. No doubt by a 'Biblical'point of view, you mean a theologically conservative opinion. That is one way of looking at the Bible, but it isn't one everyone agrees with here. You assume that any other point of view is 'secular'. Not the case.
[ 13. August 2003, 09:40: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by calpurnia:
Rather than this becoming a hetero v homosexual debate, especially in this, a Christian forum, it might be best to address the question from a Biblical point of view rather than secular.
This forum ain't your father's Christianity.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stannefan
Apprentice
# 4860
|
Posted
I am appalled that the EUSA is going against the grain of traditional Anglicanism - progress isn't always good! The Traditionalists need to band together and reform the church!
Posts: 1 | From: Alabama | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
