homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Meet the FOCAs... (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Meet the FOCAs...
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not really an accurate analogy, is it? This is not about persecution of one group by another. A better analogy is thinking of the Anglican Church as a type of club, which like all clubs has rules detailing what sort of behaviour is tolerated and what isn't. If you don't like the rules, then you're free to go and join another club that doesn't have the rules you dislike, or you can start a club of your own. What you're not free to do is loudly flout the rules of the club you're in. That's not persecution, that's just enforcing the club rules.

If a national body which is claiming to set the highest and best standards for our morality allows itself to become a mouthpiece for denouncing a harmless group in our society as inferior and to be denied full rights and then makes links with people in other countries who go much further - supporting imprisonment, winking at rapes and murders, advocating 'cures', denouncing people from that harmless group as dangerous and evil, then they may call themselves a 'private club' but to put it mildly, they're bringing themselves and the game into national disrepute.

The Churches used to witch-hunt using scripture as their warrant but they 'got better'. I think they also need to 'get better' from a doctrine which is now turning out to be as superstitious and badly-based as believing that the old lady down the road has been having sex with Satan and therefore can afflict you with a plague of boils.

L.

--------------------
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
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is a DH in one sense; on the other hand it was simply a personal observation on why folks are more inclined to "shrug their shoulders" these days (Zwingli and Saul discussion). It was a social observation, rather than a theological one. Its the way a fair number of folks think. "Why criticise people for the way they are born" has a certain straightforward appeal.

It has a straightforward appeal if you want to ignore all sin. I was born with the desire to sleep with lots of women, and with a very bad temper.

"I was born that way" isn't an excuse because people can moderate their behaviour. And it hasn't even been proven that homosexuality is entirely genetic.

Sorry, the logic is asymmetric. You have demonstrated here that you are a sinner (as I am) and that, for you, the way of obedience to Christ is not to indulge your passion to sleep with lots of women, but (assuming you are married - I don't know) to express what is a healthy and God given "drive" within the context of your marriage. The truely analogous position would be that, if you were gay, presumably you would have a passion to sleep with as many men as possible, and the path to holiness would be to keep that within the context of a relationship analagous to marriage.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not really an accurate analogy, is it? This is not about persecution of one group by another. A better analogy is thinking of the Anglican Church as a type of club, which like all clubs has rules detailing what sort of behaviour is tolerated and what isn't. If you don't like the rules, then you're free to go and join another club that doesn't have the rules you dislike, or you can start a club of your own. What you're not free to do is loudly flout the rules of the club you're in. That's not persecution, that's just enforcing the club rules.

If a national body which is claiming to set the highest and best standards for our morality allows itself to become a mouthpiece for denouncing a harmless group in our society as inferior and to be denied full rights and then makes links with people in other countries who go much further - supporting imprisonment, winking at rapes and murders, advocating 'cures', denouncing people from that harmless group as dangerous and evil, then they may call themselves a 'private club' but to put it mildly, they're bringing themselves and the game into national disrepute.


So is the Establishment of the Church of England the context in which you object to the stance?

PS: on the persecution point, see my reply to dj_ordinaire, previous page.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gosh. An inadvertent lighting of the blue touchpaper. I'm off to DH.

(BTW I agree with Louise).

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or, one could stay in the club and try to get the rules changed. Rules excluding blacks from playing at certain golf courses come to mind.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Another poor analogy, putting those who have concerns about certain types of behaviour in the same category as racists [Disappointed] * But, to indulge you, yes, those who disagree with the rules can stay in the club and try and change them, but if the club says 'no', you're not then free to flout the rules and stay in the club.

*I'm not sure whether being a racist is better or worse than being a witch-hunter in the moral evolutionary scale, but hey!

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PS Ron, I'm using harmless in the sense of no more likely to be dangerous to society than you or me (unless there's something terrible I don't know about you [Eek!] or something ghastly about me I'm not telling [Big Grin] )

--------------------
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
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, OK Louise. No, no other interest in your or my peccadillos!

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You have demonstrated here that you are a sinner (as I am) and that, for you, the way of obedience to Christ is not to indulge your passion to sleep with lots of women, but (assuming you are married - I don't know) to express what is a healthy and God given "drive" within the context of your marriage.

Or, if not married, to remain celibate.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
So, GAFCONites and other evangelicals see the homosexual orientation as akin to a 'disease'. Because of the Fall, some human beings suffer from a warping of their sexual orientation. It's not their fault- they didn't choose it- but they're still 'sick'.

No, as Zwingli said, they will see ALL human beings as suffering to a greater or lesser extent from a tendency to sin, which takes different forms in different people.

quote:

I actually find this explanation bordering on the offensive (and just one reason why I had to jettison much of my former evangelicalism)

Its not (just) an evengelical explanation. Its the mainstream Christian one for at least the last 1500 years. Anselm, Aquinas and whoever wrote the new Catholic Catechism would have agreed with it - as would at least some of the Orthodox before they partly jettisoned it as a defensive measure against Rome.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The very 'Papist' and 'Puritan' extremes the 39 articles were written to define the C of E against are now signing up to them as their shibboleth and declaring themselves to be 'Traditional Anglicans'.

Well, if this business of 1300 CofE clergy writing to the Archbishops is in fact true, the current liberal Establishment is being bracketed from both sides.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
If a national body which is claiming to set the highest and best standards for our morality allows itself to become a mouthpiece for denouncing a harmless group in our society as inferior and to be denied full rights and then makes links with people in other countries who go much further - supporting imprisonment, winking at rapes and murders, advocating 'cures', denouncing people from that harmless group as dangerous and evil, then they may call themselves a 'private club' but to put it mildly, they're bringing themselves and the game into national disrepute.

The Churches used to witch-hunt using scripture as their warrant but they 'got better'. I think they also need to 'get better' from a doctrine which is now turning out to be as superstitious and badly-based as believing that the old lady down the road has been having sex with Satan and therefore can afflict you with a plague of boils.

L.

This is overblown rhetoric with no other purpose than to tar as blackly as possible those you simply disagree with. How is the Church of England doing what you claim it is doing?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You have demonstrated here that you are a sinner (as I am) and that, for you, the way of obedience to Christ is not to indulge your passion to sleep with lots of women, but (assuming you are married - I don't know) to express what is a healthy and God given "drive" within the context of your marriage.

Or, if not married, to remain celibate.
Even so, but this presumes a state for same sax couples analagous to marriage within which sexual expression is licit.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As is the racist comparison.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.

I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The joys of cross-posting; my last reply was picking up on Spawn's first sentence.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Even so, but this presumes a state for same sax couples analagous to marriage within which sexual expression is licit.

A presumption with which I would disagree.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You have demonstrated here that you are a sinner (as I am) and that, for you, the way of obedience to Christ is not to indulge your passion to sleep with lots of women, but (assuming you are married - I don't know) to express what is a healthy and God given "drive" within the context of your marriage.

How is the desire to sleep with many women satisfied by marriage? You may as well claim it is satisfied by masturbation. It is not a lack of orgasms that is making me desire those women.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The truely analogous position would be that, if you were gay, presumably you would have a passion to sleep with as many men as possible, and the path to holiness would be to keep that within the context of a relationship analagous to marriage.

Which is why I added "and a bad temper". There are aspects of me which I don't believe have any acceptable expression. I was "born" with them, that doesn't mean I get a free pass because I didn't choose to be that way.

If I actually gave in to my natural desires, it wouldn't be for heterosexual monogamy.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The joys of cross-posting; my last reply was picking up on Spawn's first sentence.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Even so, but this presumes a state for same sax couples analagous to marriage within which sexual expression is licit.

A presumption with which I would disagree.
I recognise that. Think you're wrong, though.

The point that I was making was that, without such provision, Raptor's argument is asymmetric.

[ 01. July 2008, 15:32: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438

 - Posted      Profile for Zwingli   Email Zwingli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I agree with Barnabas here. The logical corollary to the fact that we are born sinners would be that both homosexual sinners and heterosexual sinners are born with a predisposition to sin, some of whom may sin in the matter of sexual activity. Thus some homosexuals may be promiscuoius, sexually abusive, and so on, and thus engage in porneia , sexual immorality. As may some heterosexuals. It doesn't follow from this , mediaeval distortions notwithstanding, that all homosexual activity is inherently sinful, any more than it follows from it that all heterosexual activity is inherently sinful. Because Paul condemns homosexual (and heterosexual) porneia does not mean he condemns homosexual sex per se, only the misuse of homosexual sex, by exact analogy with the way in which he condemns straight porneia.

You are missing the (fairly straight forward) point. We are all born with a propensity to sin. But we are all born with different propensities, and different strengths of propensities, towards different sins. All of these are a result of our fallen nature, which manifests itself even before birth. Yes, homosexuals and heterosexuals are both born with a propensity towards sexual sin. That does not mean that there is exact symmetry in what is sinful and what is not; as in any other area of life, some may have a greater propensity to sin, others a lesser propensity. Honestly, it was all explained on the DH thread.

Oh, and I'm well aware that it's a dead horse, so I know we will never have a meaningful discussion on the topic, but the whole "the Bible doesn't really condemn homosexual practice, it's just that everyone in every denomination misinterpreted the Bible for two millennia, until sometime in about 1970 we worked out what Saint Paul really meant" crap is total, unmitigated bullshit, and everyone on both sides of the debate knows it. You're only lying to yourselves, and I doubt you even manage to honestly convince yourselves, which is why intelligent discussion of the topic is impossible.

Oh, and that sexual promiscuity is sinful is no more or less obvious from Scripture than that homosexual sex is sinful.

Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The point that I was making was that, without such provision, Raptor's argument is asymmetric.

The argument that I was making was that being born with a desire, is not sufficient reason to classify that desire as good.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Homosexual practice is still generally not accepted in most of British society, despite a film/mediachattering classes push to get it so.

Which British society are you living in?

Certainly not the one I am in.

You may not like the changes in society, but it is undeniable that an enormous sea-change has occurred in a very short space of time and it is foolish to dismiss it as restricted to the media.

Just a couple of symptoms of this sea-change:

a) Almost everyone between the ages of 15 and 25 that I've talked to in the past few years has not only regarded homosexuality as absolutely acceptable, they have also regarded anti-homosexual attitudes with as much horror and disgust as racist attitudes. Make no mistake about it - the younger generations in the UK are overwhelmingly of the opinion that there is nothing wrong in being gay. Any church or organisation that maintains an anti-gay position is going to find itself increasingly alienated from the younger half of the population.

b) Even many people of an older generation have surprised me at their swift acceptance of homosexuality. Here I am thinking of devout and faithful Christians in their 60's and 70's who have turned round to me and talked openly and admiringly about gay couples they know. These are people who have been brought to regard homosexuality as disgusting and who just a few years ago would have been appalled at the idea of worshipping with gays or living next door to them. Not any more.

Now, of course, none of this in anyway proves that homosexuality is OK. It may well be that UK society is simply proving itself hopelessly degenerate. But it is foolish in the extreme to think that the pro-gay portion of the society is just a small minority.

Here is where I suspect FOCA will come unstuck (in the UK at least). FOCA is likely to quickly become known as the church of the homophobes. People won't hear anything else - they'll just hear the anti-gay tirades. And if they regard anti-gay to be equivalent to racism, they'll treat FOCA in the same way that they treat the BNP.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.

I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.
At any rate it wasn't a racist "comparison" - it was using a(n admittedly emotionally-laden) example to show why someone might disagree with club rules, yet still stay in and seek to change them. That wasn't an option that Matt gave earlier -- his view as explicated in his post was of the "my way or the highway" variety. I was saying there is a third option, and using an example to show how it is sometimes the morally right thing to do. Suggesting that I am comparing homophobes with racists is going far beyond the point of my argument. But it is something that nearly always comes up when somebody tries to argue by analogy on the ship. It's maddening.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You have demonstrated here that you are a sinner (as I am) and that, for you, the way of obedience to Christ is not to indulge your passion to sleep with lots of women, but (assuming you are married - I don't know) to express what is a healthy and God given "drive" within the context of your marriage.

How is the desire to sleep with many women satisfied by marriage? You may as well claim it is satisfied by masturbation. It is not a lack of orgasms that is making me desire those women.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The truely analogous position would be that, if you were gay, presumably you would have a passion to sleep with as many men as possible, and the path to holiness would be to keep that within the context of a relationship analagous to marriage.

Which is why I added "and a bad temper". There are aspects of me which I don't believe have any acceptable expression. I was "born" with them, that doesn't mean I get a free pass because I didn't choose to be that way.

If I actually gave in to my natural desires, it wouldn't be for heterosexual monogamy.

No, it's desire for intimacy that makes people desire lots of different women. That desire is a good thing.

I can presume that, for many homosexual people, their desire would not be for homosexual monogamy. I'm not sure why you think that I'm offering a "free pass" for anyone. And, of course, anger is a characteristic of some people whatever their sexuality. Since that isn't under debate, it seemed superfluous to respond to it.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Zwingli, [Overused]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
dj_ordinaire, if there is persecution, then I would deplore it - if there are clergy who are abiding by The Rules™ and yet being denied positions on the sole ground of sexual orientation, then I think that that is monstrous.

Isn't that what happened to Jeffrey John?

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cardinal Pole Vault

Papal Bull
# 4193

 - Posted      Profile for Cardinal Pole Vault   Author's homepage   Email Cardinal Pole Vault   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Prayer Book spoke of marriage as being a 'remedy for sin'. It provides a context in which heterosexual sex can be 'managed': you might want to shag around, but marriage provides the remedy to that sinful desire: sex is to be had in a loving, stable relationship.

Now, the evangelicals are saying that the only remedy for the sinful state of homosexuality is celibacy. There is no appropriate context in which a homosexual may express themselves sexually.

I wonder whether evangelicals *really* allow themselves to reflect on the gravity and utter bleakness of this analysis.

It's all very well sighing and issuing platitudes such as 'we love you, but not your sinful inclinations' or 'it's the same for us- we're all sinners- you want to shag men, and I want to shag multiple partners' or whatever. Because it's not the same. A heterosexual is not being told by the church that the root of the sexual orientation is perverse- their orientation is not the problem- it's just the misuse of it.

The evo attitude to homosexuality (and yes, the teaching of the RC Church)is simply the condemnation of an entire group of people for simply being who they are. Being gay is not like wanting to commit adultry or whatever. It's not the orientation to do 'naughty things'. It's an orientation to love and to want to be loved in a particular way.

Perhaps it's a consequence of 'The Fall' that we have homosexuality- but let's not foget: no one's going to be married in heaven, either. So I don't think heterosexuals have much to be smug about

--------------------
"Make tea, not war"

Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.

I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.
Says who? I don't remember anyone making that comparison back in the 1970s and early 1980s, when there seemed to be more discussion on these issues in church than there is now.

I thought it was the result of gay men and women coming out and wanting to be treated equally - not any reflection on anyone else's part at all.

Yes, I meant "more discussion" then than now. There is a weird disconnection between real chruches and their media representation. Nowadays almost no-one ever mentions this whole business in church or in church meetings. What we see is a lot of journalists telling us that we are obsessed with homosexuality, or with sex in general, when in fact it is almost never talked about at all.

Certainly not in the pulpit. From the last few years I think I've heard two mentions of it as an issue in an actual chruch service - one rather egregious and unneccessary comment on the side from Sandy Millar in an otherwise rather good sermon that had nothign to do with the topic at all, and one comment from one of our clergy saying that he was proud to be a member of "inclusive church".

In our church business meetings one member of our congregation wanted to start some sort of discussion about homosexual partnerships but no-one else was keen at all so it never really happened.

There was a deanery synod when the issue was raised - I was there but I can't even remember what was said. All very bland and inoffensive I think.

But that's about it. In the 1970s and 1980s we used to have long, earnest, and sometimes painful debates on these things. And even Bible Studies. Now, if anyone is thinking about it at all, its not being done in church.

In the same period I have heard dozens of sermons about green issues, about politics, about poverty. We have talked about refugees and about local schools and about Brazilian favelas and about drug dealers and about Zimbabwe and about transport and about international debt. And about the Gifts of the Spirit and salvation and conversion and the nature of God.

But not about this at all.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
No, it's desire for intimacy that makes people desire lots of different women. That desire is a good thing.

Thank you for telling me the basis of my desires, but you are wrong. Desire for intimacy causes some people to seek it through promiscuous sexual encounters, that isn't what I am talking about.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I can presume that, for many homosexual people, their desire would not be for homosexual monogamy. I'm not sure why you think that I'm offering a "free pass" for anyone.

I was responding to the argument "they are born that way, so it is okay".

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
And, of course, anger is a characteristic of some people whatever their sexuality. Since that isn't under debate, it seemed superfluous to respond to it.

This argument isn't specifically about sexuality, or the acceptableness of certain sexualities. That is a dead horse.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
dj_ordinaire, if there is persecution, then I would deplore it - if there are clergy who are abiding by The Rules™ and yet being denied positions on the sole ground of sexual orientation, then I think that that is monstrous.

Isn't that what happened to Jeffrey John?
Yes and no. IIRC correctly (and do correct me if I'm wrong), whilst he was celibate at the time of the purported appointment, he wasn't prepared to say that same-sex relationships were wrong, which I think was the sticking point.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Now, the evangelicals are saying

[Disappointed] and the Catholics and the Orthodox [Disappointed]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Being gay is not like wanting to commit adultry or whatever. It's not the orientation to do 'naughty things'. It's an orientation to love and to want to be loved in a particular way.

And the difference between being gay and being a polyamourist is?

Why do you get to define what is an acceptable expression of love between consenting adults?

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
dj_ordinaire, if there is persecution, then I would deplore it - if there are clergy who are abiding by The Rules™ and yet being denied positions on the sole ground of sexual orientation, then I think that that is monstrous.

Isn't that what happened to Jeffrey John?
Yes and no. IIRC correctly (and do correct me if I'm wrong), whilst he was celibate at the time of the purported appointment, he wasn't prepared to say that same-sex relationships were wrong, which I think was the sticking point.
But nor, IIRC, was the man who was appointed Bishop of Reading instead of him. At least, he was on record as holding the same views on this issue as Jeffrey John, and I very much doubt he would have recanted them. Probably he wasn't even asked. Because, of course, he is a married heterosexual.

Which illustrates the irrational hypocrisy of some conservatives.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But nor, IIRC, was the man who was appointed Bishop of Reading instead of him. At least, he was on record as holding the same views on this issue as Jeffrey John, and I very much doubt he would have recanted them. Probably he wasn't even asked. Because, of course, he is a married heterosexual.

Which illustrates the irrational hypocrisy of some conservatives.

What is illustrated here is the irrational inability of liberals to listen to any viewpoint but their own, and indeed the intolerance they have for other views. Throwing out canards like this, and ad hominem attacks rather than actually engaging in discussion.

This is a link to a letter written by some Oxford clergy setting out the reasons for their opposition to +John's appointment. I've explained time and again this point of view over the years on SOF - it seems that no-one is listening.

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cardinal Pole Vault

Papal Bull
# 4193

 - Posted      Profile for Cardinal Pole Vault   Author's homepage   Email Cardinal Pole Vault   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Being gay is not like wanting to commit adultry or whatever. It's not the orientation to do 'naughty things'. It's an orientation to love and to want to be loved in a particular way.

And the difference between being gay and being a polyamourist is?


The fact that you even pose that question speaks volumes. Why not go the whole hog and ask how homosexuality differs from paedophilia?

--------------------
"Make tea, not war"

Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mystery of Faith
Shipmate
# 12176

 - Posted      Profile for Mystery of Faith   Email Mystery of Faith   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've explained time and again this point of view over the years on SOF - it seems that no-one is listening.

Perhaps its simply that everyone knows what Anglican Mainstream and the likes of Chris Sugden stand for.
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've explained time and again this point of view over the years on SOF - it seems that no-one is listening.

Perhaps its simply that everyone knows what Anglican Mainstream and the likes of Chris Sugden stand for.
Well, with prats like the One New Now/American Family News Network queering the pitch its no wonder that everybody thinks evangelicals are brain-dead bigots [Frown]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've explained time and again this point of view over the years on SOF - it seems that no-one is listening.

Perhaps its simply that everyone knows what Anglican Mainstream and the likes of Chris Sugden stand for.
Any excuse not to tackle the issues themselves. Is this perhaps because you don't have a strong argument?

Or do you want every liberal to be judged by the likes of Spong and Cupitt?

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apologies for the multi-posting. My browser was doing strange things.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK Spawn, I zapped them

Barnabas 62 Purg Host

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mystery of Faith
Shipmate
# 12176

 - Posted      Profile for Mystery of Faith   Email Mystery of Faith   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've explained time and again this point of view over the years on SOF - it seems that no-one is listening.

Perhaps its simply that everyone knows what Anglican Mainstream and the likes of Chris Sugden stand for.
Any excuse not to tackle the issues themselves. Is this perhaps because you don't have a strong argument?

Or do you want every liberal to be judged by the likes of Spong and Cupitt?

Not wishing to enter DH territory, even if I could present the most scholarly theological argument from a more liberal perspective it wouldn't make any difference. Your mind is as made up and your ears as closed to listening as you claim liberal ears are. The difference is that the likes of Anglican Mainstream who you refer to aren't prepared to share the big tent with anyone else.
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808

 - Posted      Profile for Saul the Apostle   Email Saul the Apostle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.

I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.
At any rate it wasn't a racist "comparison" - it was using a(n admittedly emotionally-laden) example to show why someone might disagree with club rules, yet still stay in and seek to change them. That wasn't an option that Matt gave earlier -- his view as explicated in his post was of the "my way or the highway" variety. I was saying there is a third option, and using an example to show how it is sometimes the morally right thing to do. Suggesting that I am comparing homophobes with racists is going far beyond the point of my argument. But it is something that nearly always comes up when somebody tries to argue by analogy on the ship. It's maddening.
I think what I was saying was that there are a set of guidelines and if we don't choose to follow them, well we live with the consequences. Generally, in the circles I mix in, and I don't live in a monastic retreat, homosexuality is tolerated with a shrug of the shoulders; but it is not as widespread as the media would like us to believe - in my humble view.

I may choose to eat as much as I want, but I will one day have the consequences visited upon me ie I'll probably be unhealthy sooner rather than later. Its the same with sexual sin but Paul tends to feel that sexual sin corrupts us 'faster' (not a good phrase I know) than other types of sin; that is, we become 'one' with the person we sin with.

I think the 'right on' rleative societal values that some Christian hold is clear goalpost moving and is disingenuous. Yes we do live in a more relativist society; but does that make sinning right? I think not. Its not just a question of where I stick my willy, thats not biologically the point, it is the profound spiritual and psychological knock on effects - be it heterosexual OR homosexual sin.

Sin is sin is sin and I think this is where some folk who are trying to run with foxes and hunt with the hounds get stuck in the proverbial. You may not like the fact that the Bible does not sanction homosexual relations or adultery, but hey, thats the Judaeo-Christian heritage and it comes as part of the package and maybe thats what GAFCON is trying to flag up?

Saul the A.

--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808

 - Posted      Profile for Saul the Apostle   Email Saul the Apostle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.

I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.
At any rate it wasn't a racist "comparison" - it was using a(n admittedly emotionally-laden) example to show why someone might disagree with club rules, yet still stay in and seek to change them. That wasn't an option that Matt gave earlier -- his view as explicated in his post was of the "my way or the highway" variety. I was saying there is a third option, and using an example to show how it is sometimes the morally right thing to do. Suggesting that I am comparing homophobes with racists is going far beyond the point of my argument. But it is something that nearly always comes up when somebody tries to argue by analogy on the ship. It's maddening.
I think what I was saying was that there are a set of guidelines and if we don't choose to follow them, well we live with the consequences. Generally, in the circles I mix in, and I don't live in a monastic retreat, homosexuality is tolerated with a shrug of the shoulders; but it is not as widespread as the media would like us to believe - in my humble view.

I may choose to eat as much as I want, but I will one day have the consequences visited upon me ie I'll probably be unhealthy sooner rather than later. Its the same with sexual sin but Paul tends to feel that sexual sin corrupts us 'faster' (not a good phrase I know) than other types of sin; that is, we become 'one' with the person we sin with.

I think the 'right on man' relative societal values that some Christians hold is clear goalpost moving and is disingenuous. Yes we do live in a more relativist secular society; but does that make sinning right? I think not.

Its not just a question of where I stick my willy, thats not biologically the point, it is the profound spiritual and psychological knock on effects - be it heterosexual OR homosexual sin.

Sin is sin is sin and I think this is where some folk who are trying to run with foxes and hunt with the hounds get stuck in the proverbial.

You may not like the fact that the Bible does not sanction homosexual relations or adultery, but hey, thats the Judaeo-Christian heritage and it comes as part of the package and maybe thats what GAFCON is trying to flag up?

Saul the Apostle

[ 01. July 2008, 18:49: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mystery of Faith

1. Multiple posting appears to be infectious on this thread - anyway I've deleted your doublet.

2. Lets stick to issues, please.

Barnabas62
Purg Host


--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
Not wishing to enter DH territory, even if I could present the most scholarly theological argument from a more liberal perspective it wouldn't make any difference. Your mind is as made up and your ears as closed to listening as you claim liberal ears are. The difference is that the likes of Anglican Mainstream who you refer to aren't prepared to share the big tent with anyone else.

I don't think there's any essential difference. Those who propose an inclusive church would sooner or later exclude the exclusive and intolerant. Some of your colleagues in Inclusive Church would do it sooner rather than later.

My ears aren't closed to the debate. There's a sense in which the Church could change its teaching on this issue, but I would prefer that to be on theological grounds rather than through politicking. I think the liberal arguments are weak, and tend to be strongest when they're based on revisionist grounds. That will not do, the argument has to come from a rigorous engagement with the bible and tradition.

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267

 - Posted      Profile for Spiffy   Author's homepage   Email Spiffy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think there's any essential difference. Those who propose an inclusive church would sooner or later exclude the exclusive and intolerant. Some of your colleagues in Inclusive Church would do it sooner rather than later.

I've seen this play out in a small, family parish. The inclusive folks said, "Let's worship together! Let's not ignore our differences, but let us try to keep them from seperating us!"

The exclusive folks said, "No, we can't abide Those Persons worshipping alongside us."

There was a meeting, long into the night.

"Please let us worship with you."

"No."

"Please?"

"No!"

And the exclusive folks left, insisting that they were chased out.

There's no end to this story, no moralistic tale. Just a lot of broken hearts (mine included).

--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account

Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380

 - Posted      Profile for Alwyn     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
... the whole "the Bible doesn't really condemn homosexual practice, it's just that everyone in every denomination misinterpreted the Bible for two millennia, until sometime in about 1970 we worked out what Saint Paul really meant" crap is total, unmitigated bullshit, and everyone on both sides of the debate knows it. You're only lying to yourselves, and I doubt you even manage to honestly convince yourselves, which is why intelligent discussion of the topic is impossible.

Did you just want to express anger and frustration or do you really believe that?

I've heard plenty of intelligent debate on this issue. I've heard your side's arguments expressed by an educated, intelligent and articulate speaker. Hearing him didn't convince me, but it increased my respect for Christians on your side of this issue.

If you, and people in FOCA, disregard people who think differently because you've decided that we're lying to ourselves, then intelligent debate is going to be harder to have. How would you react a claim that your views were "total, unnmitigated bullshit" and that you were lying to yourself?

--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Zwingly:
quote:
Oh, and I'm well aware that it's a dead horse, so I know we will never have a meaningful discussion on the topic, but the whole "the Bible doesn't really condemn homosexual practice, it's just that everyone in every denomination misinterpreted the Bible for two millennia, until sometime in about 1970 we worked out what Saint Paul really meant" crap is total, unmitigated bullshit, and everyone on both sides of the debate knows it. You're only lying to yourselves, and I doubt you even manage to honestly convince yourselves, which is why intelligent discussion of the topic is impossible.

This is exactly why this subject is a Dead Horse. I mean, we've had dozens of threads, rather heated ones, on the subject of Mary, but I've yet to see a category of believers called liars because they assert Mary was Ever Virgin.

ETA: The "lying" charge is no better an argument than the liberal side saying that in actuality traditionalists are just hateful, raving homophobes justifying the Ick Factor. I know that kind of crap has been hurled, but it doesn't make it right. I think both sides are quite sincere in their beliefs.

I think I'd better go back up the thread to figure out why this part of the discussion is still in Purg. Obviously, I'm missing something.

[ 01. July 2008, 22:12: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Hot and Hormonal] Sorry for misspelling your name, Zwingli.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.

I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.
Says who? I don't remember anyone making that comparison back in the 1970s and early 1980s, when there seemed to be more discussion on these issues in church than there is now.

I thought it was the result of gay men and women coming out and wanting to be treated equally - not any reflection on anyone else's part at all.

Yes, I meant "more discussion" then than now. There is a weird disconnection between real chruches and their media representation. Nowadays almost no-one ever mentions this whole business in church or in church meetings. What we see is a lot of journalists telling us that we are obsessed with homosexuality, or with sex in general, when in fact it is almost never talked about at all.

Not where you live, I guess. But certainly where I live it's a regular topic of discussion -- more so at church than outside church, in fact, since outside church homosexuality is generally accepted.

quote:
Certainly not in the pulpit. From the last few years I think I've heard two mentions of it as an issue in an actual chruch service - one rather egregious and unneccessary comment on the side from Sandy Millar in an otherwise rather good sermon that had nothign to do with the topic at all, and one comment from one of our clergy saying that he was proud to be a member of "inclusive church".
Whereas it is mentioned regularly in the pulpit of both the church I work for and the church I attend.

quote:
In our church business meetings one member of our congregation wanted to start some sort of discussion about homosexual partnerships but no-one else was keen at all so it never really happened.

There was a deanery synod when the issue was raised - I was there but I can't even remember what was said. All very bland and inoffensive I think.

At its last meeting, after much discussion, the vestry at my church voted to re-affirm our parish's commitment to treating equally all couples presenting themselves for marriage. The topic has come up again and again at annual diocesan meetings, and we have had a number of diocese-sponsored discussions outside of regular business meetings.

quote:
But that's about it. In the 1970s and 1980s we used to have long, earnest, and sometimes painful debates on these things. And even Bible Studies. Now, if anyone is thinking about it at all, its not being done in church.
We discuss what the Bible says about homosexuality on a regular basis. I lead a newcomer's class four times a year at my church, and someone asks about the church's interpretation of those six or seven verses dealing with same-gender sexual relations every single time.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trudy Scrumptious

BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647

 - Posted      Profile for Trudy Scrumptious   Author's homepage   Email Trudy Scrumptious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Many have heard the hoofbeats of the approaching Dead Horse. It seems this discussion can't continue without being a discussion of homosexuality, so off it goes to continue in the appropriate place. I shall be sad to lose it from Purgatory as it wins my personal award for best thread title of the year. You still have several other GAFCON threads to discuss relevant issues other than the rights and wrongs of homosexuality.

Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host

[ 01. July 2008, 23:41: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]

--------------------
Books and things.

I lied. There are no things. Just books.

Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
...It's a mad world indeed, my masters, where the believers in lay presidency and the users of the English missal can say with a straight face that they're 'Traditional Anglicans' adhering to all the Early Modern documents of that church, but people who in the light of reason and charity have come to different conclusion on one small piece of teaching about sexuality, which was never part of the historical core of Anglicanism must be unchurched. ...

Louise: [Overused] [Overused] [Overused]

The only thing that holds the FOCAs (love it) together is their fear of the queer -- or, to be fair, in some cases, their traditionally-based and sincere objections to homosexuality.

As for why they don't simply go and start their own club, the answer seems fairly clear: They want to keep the property and the endowments.

Anyway, good for ++Rowan! [Overused] [Overused] [Overused]

Ross

[ 02. July 2008, 03:23: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools