Posted                          

quote:

---

Maybe what western society needs is a wholesale deconstruction of organised religion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Young fogey:
As I like to say, there's no such thing as the gay community. Maybe they're just people. I have friends who are homosexual (believe it or not), both practising and chaste, and none primarily define themselves by that aspect. They're better rounded as people.

Perhaps that could have been the answer for the poor boy who killed himself. You're more than an orientation.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The historical inability of much of science to move off its dry, reductionist automatism is just as much a problem as any closed minded religious bigotry.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Young fogey:
As I like to say, there's no such thing as the gay community.

---

Young fogey, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the scepticism of a sceptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Young fogey, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Young fogey, there is a gay community. We exist as certainly as show tunes and "Queer Eye" and leather exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Well, okay, maybe not yours, but some of us anyway. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no gay community! It would be as dreary as if there were no Young fogeys. There would be no Broadway then, no interior design, no dance remixes, no leather bars to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in that which is not fabulous. The external light with which gayness fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in the gay community! You might as well not believe in fairies. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that we were not there. Just last night, in fact. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

No gay community! Thank God! we live and live forever. A thousand years from now, Young fogey, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, we will continue to make fabulous the heart of culture.

David
very happy and proud member of this mythical gay community/"Yes, Virginia" is public domain, of course

[ 30. July 2004, 16:42: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
...
Yes, Young fogey, there is a gay community. ...

---

But they don't have an agenda.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
But they don't have an agenda.

---

Sure we do. And here it is!

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posted                          

quote:

---

Young fogey, your little friends are wrong...

Yes, Young fogey, there is a gay community.

---

--------------------
A conservative blog for peace

Posted                          

quote:

---

Bad analogy, as women are just over half the population.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

63 percent of those voting at Assembly ruled that the church would not accept for training, license, ordination or induction, anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside the faithful marriage between a man and woman; they voted to make the ruling effective immediately.

Assembly, however, declined to make the ruling retrospective, ensuring that ministers who are practicing homosexuals may continue in ministry in their current positions.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Well, it is official - one may no longer be a Christian homosexual in the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand. From the Assembly press release this morning:

quote:

---

63 percent of those voting at Assembly ruled that the church would not accept for training, license, ordination or induction, anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside the faithful marriage between a man and woman; they voted to make the ruling effective immediately.

Assembly, however, declined to make the ruling retrospective, ensuring that ministers who are practicing homosexuals may continue in ministry in their current positions.

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
This seems pretty unremarkable to me but I'm sorry it was relayed to you with hurtful rhetoric. Does this represent a change in the policy of the Presbyterian Church or merely a restatement of its traditional view and that of just about every single church in the world?

---

I suppose the idea of your church saying somone's gifts and ministry aren't valued by it is only remarkable when it applies to you (generic you rather than you personally).

The fact that it isn't being applied retrospectively, meaning current ministers in homosexual relationships can continue in their roles, suggests to me it is a either a change in policy or re-emphasis of one which had been allowed to lapse. In either case it's Not A Good Thing for those affected, either those now being excluded from ministry and those they would have ministered to, nor for the wider church.

--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell

Posted                       

quote:

---

...is changing one's behavior going to save a person or is it a matter of trust and a personal relationship with God?

---

(stands up and cheers)

"Homosexuals can't bear fruits of the Spirit" Man, people are blind, blind, blind.

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
In my view the church would cease to be a church if it allowed the ordination of those in non-marital sexual relationships against the clear teaching of the Bible.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It might have a little more credibility on that one if it would let people like Arabella marry their life partners.

---

Bravo, Karl.

--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
In my view the church would cease to be a church if it allowed the ordination of those in non-marital sexual relationships against the clear teaching of the Bible.

---

Donatist heresy.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
In my view the church would cease to be a church if it allowed the ordination of those in non-marital sexual relationships against the clear teaching of the Bible.

---

Donatist heresy.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan.:
The C of E is certainly stuffed. If the matter is as heinous as Spawn suggests then I cannot see how it is improved by the fact that clergy and bishops routinely fib about it.

I confess myself intrigued by this particular line of argument. The Church has certainly ordained and consecrated pluralists, simoniacs, nepotists, racists, anti-semites and persecutors to its orders. I would have thought that there was fairly clear Biblical warrant for deploring all of these particular sins. I am unable to see, for example, why the ordination of a pathological Jew-hater leaves the Church in the clear whilst the ordination of someone as patently decent, thoughtful and Christian as Arabella is an abomination not to be borne among Christian people.

---

quote:

---

Roman Catholic moral theology defines some acts as being "intrinsically morally evil". Now, whatever one makes of RC moral theology, this seems to me to be a fairly useful category. Some things are, by definition, entirely wrong. It has never been made clear to me why homosexuality falls emphatically into this category, (outside RC theology, of course, which condemns all non-procreative sexual acts) except through reference to scripture or tradition. Now I hope I have a reasonably high view of scripture and tradition but this is, quite simply, not enough. It was reported in the Times last week that the dissident parishes in ECUSA have started calling themselves the Confessing Church. I confess to finding this incomprehensible. National Socialism clearly was an intrinsic moral evil. One could establish this by looking at it. I cannot, for the life of me, see that this is applicable to homosexuality.

---

quote:

---

I think that the schism in our ranks hinges on two differing views of ethics. Those of us who hold 'liberal' views think that the licitness or otherwise of an act inheres, as it were, within the act. To condemn an action it is necessary to point to the act and delineate those features within it which are inconsistent with the moral law. This is clearly an empiricist view of ethics, but not necessarily consequentialist. Bashing an old lady over the head and pinching her handbag, for example, cannot be justified by the intention of giving the loot to charity. The other, conservative, view sees morality as being extrinsic to the act. The love and commitment manifested in a same-sex relationship are, to the conservative, at worst, special pleading, at best, mitigation. Authority (i.e. scripture and tradition) has condemned the act and, therefore, it is wrong. It's wrongness is established not through reference to the act but to the authority.

This I think, accounts for the vehemence of our differences. Like Sidney Smith's fishwives, we are arguing from different premises. The frustration is engendered because we are talking about different things. This is, the old empiricist-rationalist divide in philosophy writ large. The conservatives are seeking to defend an authority, in abstracto, the liberals are seeking to reinterpret authority in the light of experience. Hence, I think, Spawn's comments. (He will doubtless correct me!) Hence, too, I think the conservative belief that liberals are unprincipled and the liberal belief that conservatives are heartless.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan.:

I confess myself intrigued by this particular line of argument. The Church has certainly ordained and consecrated pluralists, simoniacs, nepotists, racists, anti-semites and persecutors to its orders. I would have thought that there was fairly clear Biblical warrant for deploring all of these particular sins. I am unable to see, for example, why the ordination of a pathological Jew-hater leaves the Church in the clear whilst the ordination of someone as patently decent, thoughtful and Christian as Arabella is an abomination not to be borne among Christian people.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

At least the Church can say it hasn't announced simony is okay. More to the point would be that the church has decided divorce is okay,* and in so doing, has officially turned its back on the very clear teaching of Jesus, the apostles and tradition in officially allowing divorced persons to become and/or remain priests and bishops. The church didn't end when this happened. I fail to see how "turning its back" on the clear teachings of ... well, not Jesus. Um, the clear teachings of ... the OT plus Paul (assuming the translations are correct) plus church tradition on homosexuality is going to topple the church.

(I know Spawn isn't advocating that divorce ought to have been allowed, but he hasn't pushed for schism on the issue either)

*I don't want to hear that the church doesn't think divorce is okay. If divorce were really being treated as the sin that Jesus is clear that it is, then no divorced person could ever be ordained -- it would set a very bad example to ordain a flagrant mortal sinner to such an elevated position.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Finally, I'm not as you say, pushing for schism, but it is clear that a break in relationship occurs when one church pushes through a change (despite repeated warnings that the change would tear the fabric of the communion) against the will of other parts.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Spawn

quote:

---

Finally, I'm not as you say, pushing for schism, but it is clear that a break in relationship occurs when one church pushes through a change (despite repeated warnings that the change would tear the fabric of the communion) against the will of other parts.

---

You mean like with the ordination of women? That, presumably, was OK. On what grounds can we have consistency here in the Anglican Communion today?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
The fact is that we didn't follow the counsel of the vast majority of Christians on this issue, which is why to some extent the guilt for the state of impaired communion that currently arises out of women's ordination must also lie with those who supported change.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
The fact is that we didn't follow the counsel of the vast majority of Christians on this issue, which is why to some extent the guilt for the state of impaired communion that currently arises out of women's ordination must also lie with those who supported change.

---

Were we seriously moving toward greater communion with the RC and Orthodox churches before that?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
The ordination of all manner of sinners does not of itself change the church's teaching. The ordination of practising homosexuals on 'don't ask, don't tell' policy doesn't either (although I don't approve of such policies). But the matter of the ordination of a male bishop who lives with a partner outside marriage does force the issue of the church's teaching, as does a Synodical decision on same sex blessings. I think the divorce and remarriage of bishops and clergy falls in the same category - although I would add to this that the church's pastoral response to remarried divorcees, as to homosexuals should err on the side of loving-kindness.

quote:

---

At least the Church can say it hasn't announced simony is okay. More to the point would be that the church has decided divorce is okay,* and in so doing, has officially turned its back on the very clear teaching of Jesus, the apostles and tradition in officially allowing divorced persons to become and/or remain priests and bishops. The church didn't end when this happened. I fail to see how "turning its back" on the clear teachings of ... well, not Jesus. Um, the clear teachings of ... the OT plus Paul (assuming the translations are correct) plus church tradition on homosexuality is going to topple the church.

(I know Spawn isn't advocating that divorce ought to have been allowed, but he hasn't pushed for schism on the issue either)

*I don't want to hear that the church doesn't think divorce is okay. If divorce were really being treated as the sin that Jesus is clear that it is, then no divorced person could ever be ordained -- it would set a very bad example to ordain a flagrant mortal sinner to such an elevated position.

---

I think you are right that the Episcopal Church of the USA has come very close, if not gone the whole way to suggesting that divorce is okay. This letter from Bishop Frank Gray spells out clearly some of the concerns.

On the other hand, I don't know anyone in the Church who actually says that divorce is a good thing. It is justified sometimes on the level of the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, divorce doesn't normally tend to reoccur: for there to be a proper analogy divorce would have to be serial.

Many are divorced against their will and it is on these kinds of grounds that the blessing of remarriages in Church can be considered. On the issue of divorce, although Jesus is entirely clear, there is a strand within the Bible which allows a little more exploration. For example, Matthew and Paul both allow for exceptions. I simply can't see how any leeway or permission is given within the Bible for a re-exploration of the issue of homosexuality.

Finally, I'm not as you say, pushing for schism, but it is clear that a break in relationship occurs when one church pushes through a change (despite repeated warnings that the change would tear the fabric of the communion) against the will of other parts.

---