|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
I have had a hard time following this train of thought...but I gather from what I could read, till my short attn span undid me, was penance to work off the involuntary bodily aspects (whatever you want to call them) and also the delibrate ones?
Boy, I am glad I am a Calvinist! We are all depraved and bankrupt no matter what your pleasure!
Covered by the blood of Jesus, seriously, We all come unto Him, be our good deeds are filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6 Thanketh. +
[ 20. May 2007, 20:44: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
This article just in from the New York Times.
Given that the resistance to the presence of gays/lesbians in the Forces has to be at least as entrenched as it is in the Church, how long will it take for the church to realise that sexual orientation is actually irrelevant?
Clearly, the Forces are aware of the problems of actual practise among its members, but these problems will also arrive between the sexes as much as they would same-sex.
The officer quoted did indicate that the Forces do have a job to do, so that "orientation" is ignored while the job is going on. Does this indicate that the church doesn't really have a "job" to do, so that it can waste its time and effort worrying about irrelevancies?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Whitelighter
Apprentice
# 11058
|
Posted
ah well, at the end of the day, its better to love and be happy, and im one happy homo ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
mist...cemetery...halloween. Should end well.
Posts: 22 | From: Belfast | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I presume you would be just as amused if I made some equally slighting reference on an issue that matters to you.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Whitelighter:
ah well, at the end of the day, its better to love and be happy, and im one happy homo
Spare a thought, why don't you, for those who share your orientation, but aren't able to be happy because of entrenched attitudes and policies in the church. And for those who find blithe, unconcerned attitudes unhelpful in promoting the dialogue necessary to harmony within the Body of Christ.
'I'm all right Jack' is not much help, either for Christians or for queer activists.
T.
[ 21. May 2007, 14:12: Message edited by: Teufelchen ]
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Whitelighter:
ah well, at the end of the day, its better to love and be happy, and im one happy homo
Spare a thought, why don't you, for those who share your orientation, but aren't able to be happy because of entrenched attitudes and policies in the church. And for those who find blithe, unconcerned attitudes unhelpful in promoting the dialogue necessary to harmony within the Body of Christ.
'I'm all right Jack' is not much help, either for Christians or for queer activists.
T.
To my mind, Whitelighter's "attitude" is exactly the right one. Who the hell cares about "harmony within the Body of Christ"? Fuck 'em, if you'll excuse the expression. It is better to love and be happy, and if that means putting the so-called "Body of Christ" squarely in the rear-view mirror, well, that's the way it goes. More and more people are doing this, and good on 'em I say.
There will be a gay Christian culture with or without the Church. We don't need it; it needs us.
It doesn't mean, either, that we stop fighting for gay rights - which, BTW, will happen in spite of the Church, not because of it.
Loving and being happy is precisely the goal.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(What I do find interesting about that photo in the Times is that all the soldiers pictured are female.
And that reflects the reality; the vast majority of discharges from the service for homosexuality (in the U.S., at least) have been of gay female soldiers - who are represented, it's estimated, at a much higher rate than gay males in armed forces.
That's something you rarely hear; all the hoopla is always about men. It's really annoying.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Whitelighter
Apprentice
# 11058
|
Posted
Spare a thought, why don't you, for those who share your orientation, but aren't able to be happy because of entrenched attitudes and policies in the church. And for those who find blithe, unconcerned attitudes unhelpful in promoting the dialogue necessary to harmony within the Body of Christ.
'I'm all right Jack' is not much help, either for Christians or for queer activists.
T.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To my mind, Whitelighter's "attitude" is exactly the right one. Who the hell cares about "harmony within the Body of Christ"? Fuck 'em, if you'll excuse the expression. It is better to love and be happy, and if that means putting the so-called "Body of Christ" squarely in the rear-view mirror, well, that's the way it goes. More and more people are doing this, and good on 'em I say.
There will be a gay Christian culture with or without the Church. We don't need it; it needs us.
It doesn't mean, either, that we stop fighting for gay rights - which, BTW, will happen in spite of the Church, not because of it.
Loving and being happy is precisely the goal...
Thanks TubaMiram, and T - i understand and do spare a thought, im out there at Belfast Gay Pride every year supporting my friends and gay-family. I know that come churches have this big problem with sexuality (God knows why, creeps me out the way they are so obsessed with what happens in our bedrooms...[shudders!]) I just ended up realising that God really doesn't give a flying frig who you love, well as long as its not a horse, thats Jerry Springer territory, and perhaps im lucky being able to admit to someone if they do ask me my orientation and really not care what they think, because its me, i go home, i live with who i am, not them. If they are so goddam interested in my or any one elses live, then there's obviously nothing of interest going on in theirs. SO i do think and sympathise and have friends going through the difficulties with Church politics. Jesus said to love and accept, and thats exactly what im doing, starting with accepting myself and working from there.
love and blessings
xx
--------------------
mist...cemetery...halloween. Should end well.
Posts: 22 | From: Belfast | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
There are those who disagree that homosexuality is not a sin not because we have nothing better to do, but because we interpet the Scriptures to say that. It is not because all of us don't have anything better to do with our own lives and need to hide out in a gay person's bedroom, rating things.
I also don't spend a long time dwelling on who is gay, who struggles with being gay and so on. I am more concerned with things like getting the Gospel out there to everyone since all human beings fall short of Jesus's Love and Perfection.
That said, I don't care if my doctor is gay, dentist is gay nor would I care if gays were in the military. I think the laws should be changed and allow gays to serve in the military. I have honestly a problem with women in combat but that is my own personal issue.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
What I do find interesting about that photo in the Times is that all the soldiers pictured are female.
Yer. Interesting. So many things one could deconstruct in that photo.
Safe media opportunities and why they are safe. Whose opinion matters and what that says about who holds power in society.
But also, lol, did anyone notice? Butch girls on the right, femme girls on the left, nice little 1950s division there!
Natch, the beauty of the new millenium is that queer identities have transcended naive defined 1950s roles, yet queer people are free to embrace those roles and can do so in a liberated fully informed way.
Today's butch is so obviously not a Sr George saddo*.
*Sad case, not the other thing ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
[ETA: add link, ref may be a bit obscure for those of tender years]
[ 24. May 2007, 03:18: Message edited by: Jimmy B ]
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
There are those who disagree that homosexuality is not a sin not because we have nothing better to do, but because we interpet the Scriptures to say that. It is not because all of us don't have anything better to do with our own lives and need to hide out in a gay person's bedroom, rating things.
Well, that's OK; nobody would complain about that. What we're saying is that this is only one interpretation.
In the past - and even at present, in some cases - many churches have interpreted the Scriptures to say that their members shouldn't dance or drink or play cards. Those were all denominational "purity codes," and that's fine.
People who disagree just won't join those particular denominations.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
I think after over 77 pages, I have got that there is another POV about this. And the fact the majority posting on this thread tends to share in the view for the most part that the Scriptures to them are not saying that it is necessarily a sin, got that too.
But from time to time, I might peak in and remind people that not all inerrantists are obsessed with this particular issue. We're not.
We're more obsessed actually with debating among ourselves the following: if remarriage is a sin after divorce, if so-and-so's theology isn't pristine and pure, and do babys go to heaven or straight to hell in a handbasket after death.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
Just to prove the point:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
We're more obsessed actually with debating among ourselves the following: if remarriage is a sin after divorce, if so-and-so's theology isn't pristine and pure, and do babys go to heaven or straight to hell in a handbasket after death.
1) Yes, though duchess would disagree.
2) It probably isn't, but as usual I can't be sure without more details.
3) Depends on God's sovreign decision to save or not to save. The ordinary expectation is that children of believers are saved (dushess would agree) which is why we baptise infants (duchess would disagree).
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Um, yeah, I think. I think, as MacArthur said on the Larry King show "instant heaven" (for babies).
But I did not mean to start a tangent. I just wanted to make the point that this issue is not as big in the small Sola Scriptura Camp when it comes to the amount of energy spent on it. That is all. thanketh.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Just for dead horse interest Tatchell getting beaten up in Russia. He's not Xtian friendly, but he puts his money where his mouth is.
I'd like to see his cons evo detractors going somewhere to evangelise where they run the risk of bodily harm like that instead of safe sheep stealing in Catholic and Orthodox countries.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
FYI, a new article in Commonweal: Homosexuality and the Church.
A sea change, I'd say. The topic is now being treated as an open question in a Catholic magazine. These "pro" arguments aren't new - and I don't even think they're very complete - but this is the first time I've seen such an article in a mainstream religious publication.
Wow. This argument might come to a virtual end in my own lifetime!
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Tatchell's website makes me laugh: this interview with a 14-year-old who's complaining about the age of consent because he can't get laid. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
I've found a New Testament equivalent of the infamous "shrimp" argument: the "Council of Jerusalem" in Acts 15:20 makes blood sausage equivalent to adultery:
quote:
abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood
Strangely enough, in my childhood in the Scottish Episcopal Church, no one every preached against black pudding on biblical grounds. Why do we set this aside? (I could even argue that the entirety of kosher rules for meat is embraced by this statement.) There's even a matching "health" argument - blood sausage is a bit of a nutritional disaster area and does have some slight health risks.
AFAIK, only Jehovah's Witnesses find Acts 15:20 to require a lifestyle change.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
You don't have to go as far as black pudding, either: mere rare steaks are also a violation.
But people like rare steaks, and that's the difference.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Do rare steaks contain blood? The juice that flows out of them is clear, whereas blood is opaque.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
And Duck rouennaise
(Crossposted with MouseThief, who asks an interesting question. Let's just say that the raw steak definitely contains blood.)
[ 21. June 2007, 17:52: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Do rare steaks contain blood? The juice that flows out of them is clear, whereas blood is opaque.
I don't know, actually, what part of the juices are blood - the red part, I'd guess - but I do know that since forever, strict Kosher cooking has meant well-done meat.
The meat is, I know, salted first to draw as much blood as possible out of it. And then cooked so there's no red left.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
It's about the slaughtering of the beast in question; the throat must be cut and the beast/bird hung up and drained immediately. The RSPCA would approve; it surely beats strangling/smothering the wretched creature (poultry usually) Tour d'Argent style. The Jews also do not eat the "unclean"portion of the beast i.e. the hind quarters; no leg of lamb and 3 veg at Pesach, I fear.
The Moslems work on the same principle with halal slaughtering; curiously the Islamic butcher apologises to the beast before dlivering the coup de grace.
One can see why both traditions eschew the consumption of the flesh of the swine-ever heard the expression "to squeal like a stuck pig",
cheers all
m ( happily full after pork cutlet, mash and pinot grigio)
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Here in Oz we do not have same sex superannuation equality, it is a real issue for the 79 and 75 yr old gents mentioned here. (Wow, 40 yrs! Well done guys!)
It would be nice if the Church could speak out about basic rights issues such as this. Even if it is to say: 'No, we won't bless you, but we support your civil rights'. You'd think the institution of marriage was a bit stronger than to be at risk of crumbling if the church supports a pair of happy old pooves in a long term relationship.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
You'd think the institution of marriage was a bit stronger than to be at risk of crumbling if the church supports a pair of happy old pooves in a long term relationship.
Now, see? You learn something every day. I never knew that was the plural form until just now.... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Um, yeah, I think. I think, as MacArthur said on the Larry King show "instant heaven" (for babies)
Interesting. Surely if all babies go straight to heaven we should kill all our children before they hit 12 months, or maybe just abort them, thus sparing them the fires of hell.
Seems logical to me. Insane, but logical.
[ 23. June 2007, 19:08: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
PS Does that mean the abortion industry has saved more souls in the last ten years than the church?
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Can I head off any abortion tangents at the pass, please? Do take them to the relevant thread "Cleft Lip and palate, a good reason?'
L.
Dead horses host
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm going to start a new thread in purg about the blood question, rather than derail this thread.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dennis the Menace
Shipmate
# 11833
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
Here in Oz we do not have same sex superannuation equality, it is a real issue for the 79 and 75 yr old gents mentioned here. (Wow, 40 yrs! Well done guys!)
40 years!! I thought we were doing well at 27 years. I hope we make it to 40 as well.
[ 25. June 2007, 01:27: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
"Till we cast our crowns before Him; Lost in wonder, love, and praise."
Posts: 853 | From: Newcastle NSW Australia | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Br Polycarp
Apprentice
# 12731
|
Posted
I am very new to the ship. Forgive me if I cannot go through all of the preceding 77 pages on this subject. Most of my friends left the Church as soon as they realized that the Church had in fact left them, and they have no desire to hear that yes, they are loved after all, but please don't tell us what you do in bed. I had thought that finally the Anglican Church had transcended poking their noses under the bedsheets and had come to the realization that there are far more sins of the spirit than of the body. After Synod, I am not so sure. They seem to be more concerned about losing membership than about a clear theology.
--------------------
A calf thinks God is a cow.
Posts: 15 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Br Polycarp:
I am very new to the ship. Forgive me if I cannot go through all of the preceding 77 pages on this subject. Most of my friends left the Church as soon as they realized that the Church had in fact left them, and they have no desire to hear that yes, they are loved after all, but please don't tell us what you do in bed. I had thought that finally the Anglican Church had transcended poking their noses under the bedsheets and had come to the realization that there are far more sins of the spirit than of the body. After Synod, I am not so sure. They seem to be more concerned about losing membership than about a clear theology.
Well, here's how I see it, Br. Polycarp. The ACC has just said, loud and clear, that the "blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of The Anglican Church of Canada." That's huge!
Nobody else has done this yet; ACC is a pioneer. And probably gay Canadians, since they already have civil marriage, will find this a ho-hum event - but I'm sure gay Nigerians and Kenyans (and, BTW, Americans) won't! The rest of this is merely about working out the details.
That's how it looks to me from South of the Border, anyway.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Br Polycarp
Apprentice
# 12731
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Originally posted by Br Polycarp:
Well, here's how I see it, Br. Polycarp. The ACC has just said, loud and clear, that the "blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of The Anglican Church of Canada." That's huge!
Nobody else has done this yet; ACC is a pioneer. And probably gay Canadians, since they already have civil marriage, will find this a ho-hum event - but I'm sure gay Nigerians and Kenyans (and, BTW, Americans) won't! The rest of this is merely about working out the details.
"not in conflict with the church's core doctrine, in the sense of being credal."
But they didn't approve same-sex blessings regardless. That's a bit like trying to have your wafer and eat it too, isn't it? I think that proves my point.
[ 29. June 2007, 12:32: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posts: 15 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Its a big step in a debate that has specialised in tiny, grudging steps forwards and backwards. A friend of mine was a delegate at the Canadian Synod, and he was very excited by the decision. Yes, he was sad that blessings weren't endorsed, but he was happy overall.
Only the Quakers are ahead on this (oh, and the MCC, but ....)
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Br Polycarp:
"not in conflict with the church's core doctrine, in the sense of being credal."
But they didn't approve same-sex blessings regardless. That's a bit like trying to have your wafer and eat it too, isn't it? I think that proves my point.
Look at it this way: Susan B. Anthony was a tireless crusader for women's suffrage for her entire life - and she lived to be over 80, I believe - yet she never cast a vote herself. She died before it happened.
These things take time. I think this is an excellent result, particularly for gay people in countries in which they have no rights at all. And that it will have a lasting effect.
But it's true I can't cheer you up if you wanted more.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, here's how I see it, Br. Polycarp. The ACC has just said, loud and clear, that the "blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of The Anglican Church of Canada." That's huge!
Wow! That's some piece of spin. The resolution actually states that "the blessing of same sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada". That does not mean that it's not in conflict with doctrine, just that it's the view of the ACC (in accord with the St Michael's report) that it's not a credal matter. As usual the process stinks, because it makes no theological sense whatsoever.
quote:
Nobody else has done this yet; ACC is a pioneer.
That's an incredible indictment on the US dioceses and New Westminster which have gone ahead with same sex blessings without any such guidance on the doctrine and theology of the matter.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
The Resolution was amended before its final passage and old versions of it are still floating around one websites. I believe the amendments watered it down a bit. At the same time, as someone who watched the debate on the webcast, it seemed pretty obvious that in the minds of the delegates, on both sides of the aisle, that they were debating whether blessing same sex unions was in conflict with Christian doctrine. So I still consider it a step forward.
Same sex unions were allowed to proceed in New West so a local option is in existence. The next Synod will probably make it church wide and then the Americans will use the St Michael Report and resolutions in its 2009 General Convention.
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Br Polycarp:
I am very new to the ship. Forgive me if I cannot go through all of the preceding 77 pages on this subject.
Why can't you?
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Wow! That's some piece of spin. The resolution actually states that "the blessing of same sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada".
Sorry for the misquote; I was perhaps using an earlier version of the resolution.
I don't see much difference, though, to be honest.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
That's an incredible indictment on the US dioceses and New Westminster which have gone ahead with same sex blessings without any such guidance on the doctrine and theology of the matter.
OK, if you wish. Since this has now been determined officially, though, what's shameful about it?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Wow! That's some piece of spin. The resolution actually states that "the blessing of same sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada".
Sorry for the misquote; I was perhaps using an earlier version of the resolution.
I don't see much difference, though, to be honest.
Well that's the problem. If we're going to radically change the teaching of the Church on human sexuality and marriage let's at least have a debate on theological principle rather than on the interpretation of ambiguous resolutions.
The fact is that TEC has gone ahead with this change of teaching without a permissive resolution in Gen Con changing the teaching of the Church. This change has been accomplished purely on the basis of the Righter judgement in 1997 which ruled that practising homosexuality was not a matter of core doctrine.
The Church of England is in the process of making this same change, not on the basis of a Synod motion, but on the recognition of civil partnerships through secular legislation.
And now it looks as though Canada is going the same way through an ambiguous process rather than an overt change as a result of theological debate.
Liberals are ducking the theological debate because they might not win, and they know it will provoke schism. But by accomplishing change on the basis of process rather than principle they're still not winning the argument, and they're just postponing schism to a later date.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Well that's the problem. If we're going to radically change the teaching of the Church on human sexuality and marriage let's at least have a debate on theological principle rather than on the interpretation of ambiguous resolutions.
The fact is that TEC has gone ahead with this change of teaching without a permissive resolution in Gen Con changing the teaching of the Church. This change has been accomplished purely on the basis of the Righter judgement in 1997 which ruled that practising homosexuality was not a matter of core doctrine.
The Church of England is in the process of making this same change, not on the basis of a Synod motion, but on the recognition of civil partnerships through secular legislation.
And now it looks as though Canada is going the same way through an ambiguous process rather than an overt change as a result of theological debate.
Liberals are ducking the theological debate because they might not win, and they know it will provoke schism. But by accomplishing change on the basis of process rather than principle they're still not winning the argument, and they're just postponing schism to a later date.
What's "the problem"? That I don't see much difference between "consistent with" and "not in conflict with"? Please explain what vast difference you see here.
BTW, "Liberals" are not "ducking the theological debate because they might not win." "Liberals" will win this debate, and everybody knows it - even you, I'd bet. They're doing it this way because of 40 years of stalling by the so-called "orthodox." Know what the response from the so-called "orthodox" has been to Lambeth's (and Windsor's) request for a "listening process"? It's been this: "We've already listened. You're wrong." But very few people have actually listened at all; Peter Akinola claims there aren't any homosexuals in his country. So it's a bit ironic, I think, to ask for a full-fledged "theological debate" on this topic when nobody's paid any attention to it till now, even when Lambeth and other church councils have specifically asked for attention to be paid.
The rest of U.S. (and British and Canadian, etc.) society has already come to understand the truth of this issue, and gay people are tired of the fingers-in-the-ears approach of the "orthodox." In the U.S., this took the form of a diocese electing Gene Robinson as Bishop, a man who's worked in the diocese for 30 years and whom they know well. It also takes the form of a local option for "exploring rites for same-sex blessings" - but nothing more than that. Canada has now said that blessing same-sex couples is "not in conflict" with core doctrine.
It's the best we're gonna get for now. No one will be happier than I when the debate finally does happen. (Well, probably some people will in fact be happier. I'm certain of the outcome, so I don't care that much, to be honest.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(I'll agree, though, that TEC should change the relevant canons - not sure exactly what they are, since this issue is likely not dealt with explicitly anywhere - about gays in the priesthood.
There's a fine argument to be made, though, that requiring a gay priest to be married in order to have sexual relations is a bit of a non-starter, since the priest literally cannot comply however much s/he might wish to.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
But from time to time, I might peak in and remind people that not all inerrantists are obsessed with this particular issue.
Funny reading this. I'm a member of a website for gay Christians that has its share of inerrentists and the contention there isn't homosexuality (obviously) but how the non-inerrentists (errentists?) could possibly know "truth"?
Odd world we live in.
[ 14. September 2007, 22:36: Message edited by: cqg ]
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
[qb] Well that's the problem. If we're going to radically change the teaching of the Church on human sexuality and marriage let's at least have a debate on theological principle rather than on the interpretation of ambiguous resolutions.
The fact is that TEC has gone ahead with this change of teaching without a permissive resolution in Gen Con changing the teaching of the Church. This change has been accomplished purely on the basis of the Righter judgement in 1997 which ruled that practising homosexuality was not a matter of core doctrine.
The Church of England is in the process of making this same change, not on the basis of a Synod motion, but on the recognition of civil partnerships through secular legislation.
Spawn himself has changed 'the teaching of the church on sexuality and marriage ' in his own practice--especially marriage we might add-- --so why not be consistent ? :---
'...If we're going to radically change the teaching of the Church on human sexuality and marriage let's at least have ...'
The civil partnerships so-called 'secular legislation' has been passed into /Church Law by the Archbishops and their Council; and so is no longer simply secualr law. They chose to adopt it.
[ 09. October 2007, 22:22: Message edited by: crynwrcymraeg ]
--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.
Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
A bizarre (and most likely baseless) suit has been brought to a US court based upon the translation of 1 Cor. 6:9. The suit contends that the translation of key terms in the verse as "homosexual" violates the rights of the gay man bringing the suit. The suit and the translations issues are being discussed at Langauge Log. Interestingly, the linguist posting the entry states:
quote:
The other dispute is whether these terms refer to all men who engage in gay sex or to narrower categories such as temple prostitutes. There is a literature on this which I won't go into. My own view is that the proponents of the broader view have won the debate.
There is not much new in the discussion of this passage at Language Log, but it is interesting to read what the linguists have to say in the comments.
I'm posting this to this thread since it appears the fullest existing discussion of 1 Cor. 6:9 on the Ship occurs on this thread starting at page 12.
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crynwrcymraeg:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
[qb] Well that's the problem. If we're going to radically change the teaching of the Church on human sexuality and marriage let's at least have a debate on theological principle rather than on the interpretation of ambiguous resolutions.
The fact is that TEC has gone ahead with this change of teaching without a permissive resolution in Gen Con changing the teaching of the Church. This change has been accomplished purely on the basis of the Righter judgement in 1997 which ruled that practising homosexuality was not a matter of core doctrine.
The Church of England is in the process of making this same change, not on the basis of a Synod motion, but on the recognition of civil partnerships through secular legislation.
Spawn himself has changed 'the teaching of the church on sexuality and marriage ' in his own practice--especially marriage we might add-- --so why not be consistent ? :---
'...If we're going to radically change the teaching of the Church on human sexuality and marriage let's at least have ...'
The civil partnerships so-called 'secular legislation' has been passed into /Church Law by the Archbishops and their Council; and so is no longer simply secualr law. They chose to adopt it.
I've read this twice and still don't understand how Spawn has changed the teaching of the Church.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why does the pure, spotless, sanctified, body and bride of Christ, Zion, the Elect, those destined for the better resurrection, the Church of the living God need wilful, rebellious, utterly uncoverted, unrepentant, self-righteous sinners?
The churches of this world and its god can do what they like of course. And answer for it when the fat lady sings.
[ 11. July 2008, 09:24: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Why does the pure, spotless, sanctified, body and bride of Christ, Zion, the Elect, those destined for the better resurrection, the Church of the living God need wilful, rebellious, utterly uncoverted, unrepentant, self-righteous sinners?
And which Church was that, again? I'm trying to think of one that matches that description, but haven't come up with anything yet....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Surely the Church needs sinners like that because they are all that are on offer? Just as well that God loves us, isn't it?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
