|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: New Hampshire gay bishop
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jair von Beck:
It is entirely possible that I am a liberal Christian who opposes homosexuality or a fundamental Christian who supports it.
Sure, it's possible. But I don't actually know anyone like this.
quote:
Do we really want to make this the defining issue of our Christianity?
I don't. This is not a core doctrine of the church, it does not define Christianity, so there should be no reason to split the church over it.
quote:
One more brief note: those who care not about a schism are showing a great lack of concern for their fellow Christian by pretending that their position does not matter or that there has not been a great deal of thought, prayer and debate on the issue.
I don't know anyone who opposes schism who pretends such a thing about those who say schism might be necessary. I know very well that those who threaten or propose, depending upon your point of view, schism as a way of dealing with this disagreement have thought, prayed and debated at length. I think they are wrong and terribly misguided, but I don't think they're doing this lightly. And of course their position matters - if it didn't this wouldn't be such a painful discussion for the ECUSA to have.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Jair von Beck:
It is entirely possible that I am a liberal Christian who opposes homosexuality or a fundamental Christian who supports it.
Sure, it's possible. But I don't actually know anyone like this.
I know several evangelicals (though, admittedly probably not many who would think of themselves as conservative) who would say that the Bible is by no means conclusive on the subject and so hold a position somewhere within three positions ... none of which are anti-homosexual (though we could debate on the relevant Dead Horse whether they're supportive of homosexuality)
- Homosexuality is a sin, but no worse than any other - indeed, given that it does no harm to others there are worse sins.
- Homosexuality may be a sin, but we can't be certain one way or another so we ought to just love people as they are and let God worry about judging the sinfulness or otherwise of homosexuals
- Homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice that is not specifically excluded by Scripture, and homosexual Christians should be allowed to live their lives under the same guidelines as others (eg: faithfulness to partner) ... and that would probably mean that as sex ideally should be within the context of marriage that therefore homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
For the record personally over the past five years I've moved from the first of those positions (which was the position, on the rare occasions it was raised, of the evangelicals who introduced me to Christ) to somewhere between the last two.
I don't know any liberals who oppose homosexuality, but if someone stands up and says "I'm a liberal Christian and think homosexual acts are wrong" I wouldn't be surprised. I've long since given up being surprised by the things some Christians believe.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Admittedly, the range of Christians I meet here on the Ship is much larger than the ones I know IRL. But Jair von Beck specified "fundamental Christians" - and based on my reading of the Liberals in the CofE thread, it looks like Wood is going to hunt down and hurt the next person who uses the terms "fundamentalists" and "evangelicals" interchangeably - I like my front teeth just the way they are, thanks! To the best of my knowledge, fundamentalists are not going to go with either or your last two options.
But you're both right about the assumptions we make based on categorization. A local Christian Reformed Church has invited a group of people from the United Church of Christ congregation I work for to address their congregation on the subject of homosexuality and Christianity at a mid-week forum. It comes about as a result of one of their young adult members having read an interview given by the senior minister I work for - he apparently went to the powers that be at his church and said let's invite some of these folks to come speak. And the powers said go for it. The questions to be addressed have been worked out ahead of time, no one has to answer any follow-up question that makes them uncomfortable, and it looks like it will be an earnest search for understanding on both sides.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Degs
Friend of dorothy
# 2824
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It's not even as big a deal - from a split point of view - as the ordination of women, because the people objecting to this don't, on the whole, have a doctrine of taint. A F-i-F style Anglican might think that a woman bishop was no real bishop & therefore a priest ordained by them could be no real priest, and the eucharist celebrated by such a priest no real eucharist, so there would be a risk of a tainted, invalid, pseudo-church. But someone who objects to a bishop who is living with another man would just think that that was a sinful bishop, not an unreal bishops. And the church has had plenty of sinful ministers in the past. So all they have to do if they want to be safe is to stick to ministers they don't think are sinful. Not quite the same thing.
And, of course, Article XXVI speaks about "the unworthiness of ministers which hinders not the effect of the Scarament".
--------------------
The preest when he hath sayd and red all: he gyueth the benedyccion upon all those that be there present and then he doth tourne hym from the people retournynge thyther from whens he came.
Posts: 2388 | From: a land that I heard of once in a lullaby | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
ex opere operato as opposed to ex opere operantis...
(if i've got the latin right)
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ken quote:
But someone who objects to a bishop who is living with another man would just think that that was a sinful bishop, not an unreal bishops. And the church has had plenty of sinful ministers in the past. So all they have to do if they want to be safe is to stick to ministers they don't think are sinful.
Actually, for them to avoid the ministrations of 'sinful' bishops, from the perspective of the Reformed tradition, is heresy. Rather oddly to other Christians, the Reformed tradition tends to view 'Donatism' - rejection of validity of ministry on alleged moral grounds - as a heresy. The classic text here is the Second Helvetic Confession, which so condemns those who scruple about their clergy when the Church doesn't. It also asserts explicitly that the word of God is to be heard vel ex malorum ministrorum ore - even out of the mouths of bad Ministers. Assuming that a Bishop is validly ordained within his communion (and I'm only required to believe that Presbyterian government is 'Agreeable with the Word of God', so that's an assumption I can make, from outside, I think I would have to view the assumption that Bishop Robinson's ministry is invalid as sinful, heretical and wrong. But then I'm not an Anglican, so what do I know?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I suppose it comes down to bottom-lines. If its a choice between a 'united' , anti-gay Church, or a split where one of the options will be an affirming Church, then I go with the latter. I can't see any option of 'continue as we are and respect each others integrities permanently' being clearly expressed. There may be ways of doing this, but wouldn't they be somewhat false?
So after reading this notion of yours for the umpteenth time, MM, I want to ask: Who gets custody of the kids?
In other words, do you feel so strongly about the necessity of this split that you would leave building, vestments, altar objects, whatever, and start from scratch, financially speaking?
Or do you feel that those of the opposing viewpoint should leave all that and start from scratch, while your group gets to keep the building?
Or do you think that a grand reshuffling should take place where various parishes are designed as Viewpoint A or Viewpoint B, and people who align with their parish's designated viewpoint stay, while those who don't, shift to the next parish over which has the Other Viewpoint?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Butn then you are talking about a breakaway. not an agreed and civilised split. I don't think that will happen, or would be advisable.
What is needed is :
for the two parties to accept that they have different views and that it is unlikely that either side will alter their view
for them to see if they can continue to coexist whilst allowing both beliefs to be practiced within the same body
for both sides to accept that the sort of wrangling currently taking place actually isn't helping anyone
I think we can probably agree on 3, although 'blame' will more than likely be handed out. But I don't think that 1 or 2 are likely.
So, I would envisage, if there can't be some sort of agreed solution, something like the third suggestion you make.
What I am sure about is that we can't carry on like this indefinitely.
And although I recognise that those who want to retain unity feel strongly, I think it is almost always 'unity as long as our side wins'
[ 21. August 2003, 15:14: 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
|
|
Scuttlebug Funny Nose
Apprentice
# 4883
|
Posted
Hi everyone.
I find this thread very amusing.
In my church we don't have pews, we have seats, so pew-blocking is never a problem.
--------------------
beep beep. vroom vroom. Watch out, here I come!
Posts: 13 | From: NA | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scuttlebug Funny Nose
Apprentice
# 4883
|
Posted
Oops. Wrong place. Sorry that was meant for a different thread.
--------------------
beep beep. vroom vroom. Watch out, here I come!
Posts: 13 | From: NA | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Hello Scuttlebug Funny Nose
We cut apprentices some slack so do not feel to badly about it and even the more experienced make that sort of mistake. I have done it myself on occassion.
Welcome to the ship. Please go along to All Saints and introduce your self (there is a thread specially for it but it might well be on a later page).
Also please read the commandments and the FAQs, as being aware of them saves a lot of unnecessary trauma.
Hope you have a good time aboard.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A F-i-F style Anglican might think that a woman bishop was no real bishop & therefore a priest ordained by them could be no real priest, and the eucharist celebrated by such a priest no real eucharist, so there would be a risk of a tainted, invalid, pseudo-church. But someone who objects to a bishops who is living with another man would just think that that was a sinful bishop, not an unreal bishops.
Thank you. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) That's more or less what I've been trying to say (adding again, of course, that I became convinced of the validity of female priests/bishops back in December, see thread in DH), only much more succinctly. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soldier4Jesus
Apprentice
# 4893
|
Posted
This is my first time posting anything here and as I read some of the other posts, I don't understand what the whole debate is about. The bishop, based on 1 Cor.6:9 is not a christian and is on his way to a hole in the ground called hell. Should we be happy about this? Of course not! But should we look the other way and say that what he is doing is okay? No way! You don't help a person out by watering down his sin and bringing up all of the "good and loving" things that this person has done. The bishop is a public leader who is openly embracing his sin. All of the prophets, apostles, and even Jesus himself would openly rebuke this man in public. Is anyone willing to call sin what it is and follow in the footsteps of our Lord Jesus Christ?
...do not be conformed to the world...
Posts: 8 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soldier4Jesus:
This is my first time posting anything here and as I read some of the other posts, I don't understand what the whole debate is about. The bishop, based on 1 Cor.6:9 is not a christian and is on his way to a hole in the ground called hell.
Welcome to ship of fools, Soldier4Jesus. (May I call you "Jesus" for short? or just S4J?) I'm sure a host will be along shortly to give you an official welcome.
Since you have read some of the other posts you will understand that not everyone interprets 1 Cor.6:9 in the same way you do.
If you're interested, you might check out the thread in "dead horses" about homosexuality and Christianity.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soldier4Jesus:
All of the prophets, apostles, and even Jesus himself would openly rebuke this man in public.
Dearest Soldier,
May I offer you an (albeit unofficial) welcome to the ship.
It seems that you have been granted a most special and unique gift of the Holy Spirit. Never before have I come across someone with the ability to know infalibly the mind not only of Christ but also the apostles and prophets.
It's utterly amazing.
As HH Pope JP II will be leaving this world in the not-so-distant future may I ask whether you have ever considered applying for the post of Bishop of Rome? It seems that you have at least one of gifts necessary- that of infalibility (and to a degree far exceeding that defined by the First Vatican Council).
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soldier4Jesus
Apprentice
# 4893
|
Posted
Thanks for the greeting. You can call me S4J or whatever is easiest or fastest to type. I just returned from the dead horses page and read some of the "interpretations" of the bible dealing with homosexuality. It really seems to me that most people believe whatever they want to believe. The greek text is very clear that practicing homosexuality is a sin and this type of lifestyle leads to perdition. But truth doesn't seem to matter anymore (even amongst professing believers) and we, as Christians, are supposed to be loving and kind to everybody no matter what. The church is so focused on God's love that they have forgotten all of His other attributes such as righteousness, justice, and holiness which all work together in one accord. It is our duty as Christians to call sin what it is and to pray for people such as the bishop. If we try to cover up sin and deny the need for repentance then we have failed our jobs as Christians and we are hindering the gospel of Christ.
Posts: 8 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
S4J, I respect your obvious sincerity, but let me ask you, do you think homosexuality is worse than any of the other things that Paul listed in that passage? How do you feel about drunkards? Are they equally as bad? Paul seems to think so.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soldier4Jesus
Apprentice
# 4893
|
Posted
To The Cardinal:
Have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever read what Jesus did in Matthew 23? Was He not openly rebuking the Pharisees, even mocking them for their hypocritical lifestyles?
As for becoming pope, the only valid pope is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He is the head of the church and we should submit to his authority, not an elderly man in Rome. Please read your bible.
Posts: 8 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soldier4Jesus
Apprentice
# 4893
|
Posted
To Sine Nomine:
The other sins are just as bad. And Paul is talking about sinning openly and not repenting of these sins. When a true christian lies, or steals, or fornicates, he will be convicted by the Holy Spirit and will eventually repent from his/her sin.
Posts: 8 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
S4J, I suggest you click on Cardinal Pole Vault's name and read his profile. I suspect he has indeed read the bible, although he may not have drawn the same conclusions that you have. Exegesis is a tricky thing. To me at least.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soldier4Jesus:
. The greek text is very clear that practicing homosexuality is a sin and this type of lifestyle leads to perdition.
ok.
I actually have a copy of the Greek NT with me. I've searched it from cover to cover. I cannot find the word homosexual.
The reason is simple.
The NT Greek does not have a word for "homosexual". When we see "homosexual" in our English bibles what we are in fact seeing is not merely a translation but an interpretation of two vague Greek terms (which proabably refer to the passive and active roles in male-on-male sex).
It is not clear from the Greek that homosexuality, as we now understand it, is condemned by God. No serious scholar with even the simplest grasp of Greek would pretend that it is.
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soldier4Jesus:
The other sins are just as bad.
Then why do people get so worked up about homosexuality? I don't see them picketing churches about drunkards or slanderers.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Hold on just a minute; are we to understand that what we get from becoming a Christian is a conscience? I have known many people with a very powerful one who would make no claim to being a Christian, or even of believing in God per se. Care to elucidate, S4J?
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soldier4Jesus
Apprentice
# 4893
|
Posted
To The Cardinal:
The first word used is "malakos" which means a person engaging in homosexual activity, usually the more feminine one. The second word is "arsenkoites" which means one engaging in homosexual acts. How else can you interpret this? I regret to inform you that I have to log off now, but feel free to drop me an email anytime. God Bless...
Posts: 8 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Don't email him, explain that to us, okay?
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soldier4Jesus
Apprentice
# 4893
|
Posted
To Sine:
Christians shouldn't get worked up over one sin verses another. Sin is disobedience to God. It wasn't murder or fornication that got Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden, it was disobedience. We should not be afraid to openly rebuke dishonesty just as much as we rebuke immorality. They are both a slap in the face to Jesus Christ. Iv'e got to run now, but feel free to email me anytime. God Bless...
Posts: 8 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
HOSTING
Welcome aboard, Soldier4Jesus.
Please make sure that you have carefully read the Ship's 10 Commandments and the Purgatory guidelines.
As a general rule, we don't make a practice around here of passing judgement regarding who is, or is not, a Christian. It is a short step from a condemning statement about Robinson to a condemning statement about the people in this forum. Such a statement would severely violate both the rules and the ethos of these boards.
Feel free to continue discussing the matter within the bounds of our house rules. In general, try to keep discussion of Gene Robinson on this thread and discussion of homosexuality and Christianity in general on the Dead Horses thread.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
scot
Purgatory Host
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soldier4Jesus
Apprentice
# 4893
|
Posted
To Zeke:
A conscience is a very different thing than conviction from the Holy Spirit. There are lots of unbelievers who have a good conscience. They have grown up with Christian values whether they know it or not and all of society has benefitted from this. If only chrisians had a conscience then it would be a war zone everywhere and we would have to use machine guns to protect ourselves just to go to church. It would be utterly chaotic. Email me and we'll talk more. Thanks for your time. God Bless...
Posts: 8 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soldier4Jesus:
To The Cardinal:
Have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever read what Jesus did in Matthew 23? Was He not openly rebuking the Pharisees, even mocking them for their hypocritical lifestyles?
As for becoming pope, the only valid pope is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He is the head of the church and we should submit to his authority, not an elderly man in Rome. Please read your bible.
Yes I have actually. Thanks for asking ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Now, I'm not a Roman Catholic. But I take it you've read Matt 16 v17? This is not the place to debate papal primacy but my point is that you can't just invoke the Scriptures to win an argument. I find it offensive that you assume that anyone who holds a differing opinion to you automatically has a lesser regard for Scripture.
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soldier4Jesus
Apprentice
# 4893
|
Posted
To The Cardinal:
I apologize if I have offended you. I am just saying that we need to understand that Jesus wasn't a woose. As for Matthew 16, Peter's confession is the rock that the church is built on, not Peter. If Peter is our first "pope" then it's kind of a bummer that a few verses later he was already rebuking Jesus(vs.22) and Jesus referred to him as Satan. The church isn't standing on Peter. It is standing on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and He is our Messiah in whom we fully put our trust. Thanks for your time.
Posts: 8 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Soldier4Jesus, I hope this wasn't just a hit & run attack. Please check out the other boards and threads. You might find other things that interest you.
There are many points of view here. You might find it challenging to engage with other people who have read the bible as carefully as you have, yet have come to different conclusions.
In my experience the bible is not an easy book. I find "Microsoft for Dummies" much easier to read.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soldier4Jesus:
To The Cardinal:
The first word used is "malakos" which means a person engaging in homosexual activity, usually the more feminine one. The second word is "arsenkoites" which means one engaging in homosexual acts. How else can you interpret this? I regret to inform you that I have to log off now, but feel free to drop me an email anytime. God Bless...
Ok. Let us assume that Paul is talking about the "buggerer" and the "buggered" (and this is by no means crystal clear- there is still a debate as to what Paul is referring to)
If this assumption is correct the text is talking about the physical act of anal sex. It has nothing to do with orientation- and so shouldn't be translated "homosexual". That's an utterly dishonest translation.
If it is about anal sex then it is also quite wrong to see this as simply referring to "homosexual activity". It doesn't condemn two men kissing, holding hands, mutually masturbating etc...
It is not as clear as you make out Soldier. People really do grapple with these texts and come to many conclusions. That scholars can reach so many conclusions should indicate that this is not an easy issue.
Please be careful that you don't belittle mine and others intelligence, integrity and commitment to Christ.
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soldier4Jesus:
To The Cardinal:
I apologize if I have offended you. I am just saying that we need to understand that Jesus wasn't a woose.
You don't want to offend me? and you use language like that?
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
What is a "woose" and who said Jesus was one? Confess! Confess!
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
Where I'm from to be called a "woose" is to be considered "effeminate", "wishy-washy", "lovey-dovey", It's a slur against one's masculinity I suppose.
But it's not a nice thing to be called.
No one on this thread called Jesus a woose. I was offended by Soldier's use of the word because of what he may have been implying.
Perhaps I was a bit over-sensitive
But he was begining to really REALLY REALLY annoy me. If only this was hell...
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
What is a "woose" and who said Jesus was one? Confess! Confess!
I don't know, but he did have his feet perfumed and wear good enough clothes to be diced over.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nels
Apprentice
# 4901
|
Posted
When I wrong someone, my Bible tells me that I must repent of my sin (remembering also that it is against God as well as the wronged human being). Turning away from my sin and asking to be forgiven for it - by the other person, yes, but also by God - that seems pretty basic to me.
All this talk about conservatives creating schism..... the schism has as good as happened already in my view because to deny that sin is sin is fundamentally undermining of the gospel and everything the Cross stands for. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 1 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Simon!! Take this thread off the front page now!!
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Welcome to the ship, nels.
Don't pay Erin no mind. She's a little high strung, Lord love her. But she means well, bless her heart.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Welcome aboard Nels,
Take a while to check out the various boards which all have different guidelines and have a good read of the Ship's Ten Commandments
These ones.
As you're new, it's worth bearing in mind that homosexuality is one of a special set of subjects which we categorise as Dead Horses.
Any discussion of the rights or wrongs of homosexuality belongs not here, but on the appropriate thread in Dead Horses. It's important to read over that thread before contributing to it, and indeed a good idea to read over it before contributing to debates on these issues in Purgatory.
When we deal with issues related to homosexuality in Purgatory we try not to go over the ground covered by the Dead Horses thread, as that would be 'flogging a dead horse' (hence the name of that board)
Finally, may I draw your attention to the Purgatory guidelines - you must expect to have your views challenged and debated here. You will find that many people on this board and the others have different opinions to you.
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
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Simon!! Take this thread off the front page now!!
[musing tone of voice ON]
Y'know, there's a dead vole in my front yard (the cats like to leave us presents) and today it reached that certain ideal state where suddenly its little carcass is totally obscured by masses of flies. Which means in a few days there will be masses of maggots. And following that, there will be sudden swarms of flies in that area.
[musing tone of voice OFF]
Oh! I'm sorry. Whatever could have reminded me of that.
[edited to make the musing a bit more grammatical]
[ 26. August 2003, 01:49: Message edited by: jlg ]
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Norm
Apprentice
# 4907
|
Posted
The Bible's teaching is clear on this matter. Homosexality is not a creation of God. The Bible calls it an abomination. Homosexuals are also banned from Christian leadership. You may use watered down versions of the Word, such as the Good News Bible or the Message, but God doesn't change. God is not a liberal. There His way (right) or there is evil. If people spent more time in study, these situations would happen less. We should show the love of God to homosexuals in order to lead them to God and to repentance. A changed life. Showing love does not mean encouraging people to continue in their own way.
[ 26. August 2003, 14:07: Message edited by: Norm ]
--------------------
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding.
Posts: 1 | From: Leicester, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I second Erin's request that the link be taken off the front page.
Norm, I fear that you and I will only ever agree in our dislike of the Good News Bible (albeit, I suspect, that my reasons for disliking it are somewhat different from yours). Oh, and divine immutability. I'm with you on that. Although, of course, an implication of that belief is that God cannot be a conservative, since conservatism implies temporal location. So God is neither a conservative, nor a liberal. Must be an Anglican.
[ 26. August 2003, 14:12: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw-Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
quote:
Showing love does not mean encouraging people to continue in their own way.
Well said, Norm. And so, to quote Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you are mistaken...
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
Welcome to the Ship Norm
I'm sure that you have some remarkable insights regarding homosexuality and what God does and does not like.
But before you dazzle us with such gems, why not take a look through the rest of this thread, where you will find the opinions of others. These opinions may reflect your own, they may not. But it's worth having a look, as there's no use going over old ground, is there?
Oh, if you want to discuss homosexuality in general, go to Dead Horses where you can flog this particular four-legged beast even more.
Have fun!
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Norm:
God is not a liberal.
Geez Norm, you say "liberal" like it's a bad thing! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Is God a liberal. Now that's a whole other thread.
May I respectfully suggest that you go to the thread on homosexuality in "dead horses" if you'd like to discuss homosexuality? Cos this thread here is specifically about the gay bishop.
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Bongo: quote:
Is God a liberal. Now that's a whole other thread
Dead horse, I'm afraid, Bongo! Ernst Kasemann wrote a book a long time ago called Jesus Means Freedom which mre or less demonstrated that Jesus was a liberal...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Just for the record, I have sent an e-mail to Simon promising money, liquor, sexual favors, or anything else I need to do to get this thread off the home page.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
