|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The day the church stops recruiting sinners will be the day the church stops.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The day the church accepted sinners on sinners' terms is the day the church stopped being the spotless bride of Christ.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
TubaMirum, Comper's Child - it's the one that gets to heaven when heaven comes down. The only one. There is no other.
--------------------
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:
The day the church accepted sinners on sinners' terms is the day the church stopped being the spotless bride of Christ.
That day came a long, long time ago, pretty obviously....
[ 11. July 2008, 21:05: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I am convinced He is able to make spotless what is spotted. And that I am not to be relied upon to spot the sins of others when I have enough problems spotting my own. And those are, leopard-like, hard enough to change.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The day the church accepted sinners on sinners' terms is the day the church stopped being the spotless bride of Christ.
When in this world has it ever been spotless???
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Surely that's yet to come, when everyone is well/whole/holy, and the creation is made new?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
The words mote and beam come to mind.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The day the church accepted sinners on sinners' terms is the day the church stopped being the spotless bride of Christ.
Cool.
Great Schism, Spanish Inquisition, Borgia Popes = Church still spotless.
Letting gays in = sullied forever.
Incidentally, this one made me laugh. Can't get married, can't be priests... bad drivers as well, it seems!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
None of that rhetoric refutes the requirement.
The fact that the churches have dismally failed to be that for two thousand years, with the exception of still small voices, does not diminish the requirement.
Swinging the thurible the other side of the narrow way to permissiveness is just as dismal.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
None of that rhetoric refutes the requirement.
The fact that the churches have dismally failed to be that for two thousand years, with the exception of still small voices, does not diminish the requirement.
Swinging the thurible the other side of the narrow way to permissiveness is just as dismal.
Well indeed. Which is why it is gratifying to see the more Godly parts of the Church turning away from the loathsome sin of homophobia as they have turned away from anti-Semetism, racism, mysogyny and the support of slavery. Don't worry - I'm sure that God will do right even by those who remain untouched by this and deaf to His call. Or of course, He might send the whole lot of us to Hell. Not really our decision when all's said and done.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's absolutely our decision, ultimately.
Well said on all of the appalling sins of the churches.
Was Paul a sinner on condemning all extra-marital sex in inspired continuity with the Law as amplified by Jesus?
Blessed are the pure in heart.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's absolutely our decision, ultimately.
Well said on all of the appalling sins of the churches.
Was Paul a sinner on condemning all extra-marital sex in inspired continuity with the Law as amplified by Jesus?
Blessed are the pure in heart.
That Paul was a sinner is not, according to his own testimony, in dispute. Most people here think that Paul also condemned all sexual sin, whether in marriage or out of it. It's the conclusions which you draw from that fact (those being that sexual sin is exactly equivalent to all sexual activity outside of marriage) which is challenged here. It just seems so "un-Paul" with its emphasis on outward forms rather than imward spirit. The man who set aside circumcision, dietary laws and other outward requirements on these very grounds, that it is the "heart" of obedience to the way of the Spirit that counts, seems rather a rather unlikely candidate to be setting forth a multi-point list of dos and donts for sexual conduct. The "blest are the pure in heart" seems a much better summary of his position to me. I think purity of heart is a condition which may or may not, be attained (in part, 'tis true) by straight or gay, partnered or not. I happen to think that Paul would have agreed, had he ever considered the question of committed, monogamous, homosexual, sexually active relationships at all.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
JJ - most considered of you.
The sacrificial works of the Law - ergon nomou - don't apply to Christians. Jesus fulfilled them once and for all.
The intent and requirements of the timeless law of God remain.
Sexual purity remains.
It remained for Jesus and therefore for Paul and therefore for Christians.
If you'd asked Him or him about homosexual monogamy what answer would you have got?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If you'd asked Him or him about homosexual monogamy what answer would you have got?
As far as I can gather via the old chestnuts of Scripture, Tradition and Reason - precisely the same answer as if you'd asked about heterosexual monogamy.
What answer do you think they'd give?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The intent and requirements of the timeless law of God remain.
Sexual purity remains.
It remained for Jesus and therefore for Paul and therefore for Christians.
If you'd asked Him or him about homosexual monogamy what answer would you have got?
Perhaps the same answer you'd have got if you'd asked them about slavery or polygamy? (Well, we know what Paul said about slavery, in fact: "Slaves, obey your masters.")
What is "sexual purity," anyway? What does this actually mean? Polygamy is apparently not condemned; what makes it "pure"? Is "penis + vagina" the magic formula, no matter how many of each there may be?
And if polygamy is "pure," why does the Church think not today?
[ 14. July 2008, 15:25: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The magic formula is two heterosexual Christians who are free to marry. And only after they have.
Polygamy is obviously permissible, polyandry or polygyny, if that is how potential converts are encountered.
In polygynous OT times it is perhaps significant that lesbianism ISN'T proscribed. As it would have been perhaps inevitable in polygynous marriage. Although Jacob's menage seems to be a relatively ... tasteful one.
Doesn't do to think about it.
But it disqualifies from leadership: elders = prebyters = bishops IN GENERAL. So single men and women are GENERALLY excluded too. If there aren't enough successful family men, leadership must go on.
Slavery. The Church proscribed it. Probably a good move. Whether it had the right to do that, I don't know. I very much doubt it. To bind it in heaven. There will have been many appalling unintended consequences - there always are.
But not to not stealing, not to not murdering, not to not fornicating, not to not lying, not to ... IN CHRIST.
Blessed are the pure. Anciently that meant sexually pure whatever else it meant. Amplified sexual purity means not lusting after someone one isn't licensed to. Married to. Not coveting. Not stealing. Not idolizing.
Not seeking out or failing to avoid sexual fantasy, auto-eroticism, masturbation, pornography. Even in marriage some of it.
Not being gob-smacked by the woman standing next to me at the road crossing knowing that she will walk away across the park in that amazing way.
Not being mesmerized and eroticized by a VERY broad spectrum of activity that I should pass on.
Even after having been delivered from some particular pattern of uncleanness.
The spirit of several of the latter commandments if not all of them.
It's hard and it's heartbreaking.
PARTICULARLY for obligate homosexuals.
It's AWFUL.
It's UNFAIR.
And there it is.
It is ALSO hard and heartbreaking for all singles. All those in problem marriages.
It ALL needs putting at the foot of the cross many times a day.
It cannot be magicked away by liberal and undialectical fiat.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Martin--
You said:
quote:
Slavery. The Church proscribed it. Probably a good move. Whether it had the right to do that, I don't know. I very much doubt it. To bind it in heaven. There will have been many appalling unintended consequences - there always are.
"Probably"???
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Slavery. The Church proscribed it. Probably a good move. Whether it had the right to do that, I don't know. I very much doubt it. To bind it in heaven. There will have been many appalling unintended consequences - there always are.
But not to not stealing, not to not murdering, not to not fornicating, not to not lying, not to ... IN CHRIST.
Blessed are the pure. Anciently that meant sexually pure whatever else it meant. Amplified sexual purity means not lusting after someone one isn't licensed to. Married to. Not coveting. Not stealing. Not idolizing.
Not seeking out or failing to avoid sexual fantasy, auto-eroticism, masturbation, pornography. Even in marriage some of it.
Not being gob-smacked by the woman standing next to me at the road crossing knowing that she will walk away across the park in that amazing way.
Not being mesmerized and eroticized by a VERY broad spectrum of activity that I should pass on.
Even after having been delivered from some particular pattern of uncleanness.
The spirit of several of the latter commandments if not all of them.
So I guess it really IS all about heterosexuality, then; numbers of penises and vaginas are not the important thing, but the fact of them. Thanks for confirming it. (Men weren't forbidden to visit prostitutes, BTW, and "adultery" referred only to "having sex with another man's wife.")
The church didn't proscribe slavery, I should add; there was a big war fought over it on this side of the Atlantic, and of course there was a big fight about it over on your side, too. Even Quakers held slaves before a few worked to abolish it. Nobody has ever been excommunicated for holding slaves, as far as I know. Rowan Williams just apologized for the whole catastrophe recently, in fact.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
TubaMirum
There's no way Jesus and therefore Paul sanctioned prostitution and the spirit of the law against adultery is amplified to START with looking at a woman - or man - that way.
You are being legalistic.
What is the SPIRIT of the law? WHAT would Jesus have said to you? To me?
As for the history of English slavery, yes an obscene nightmare full of the breaking of the law in letter and spirit.
--------------------
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:
You are being legalistic.
What is the SPIRIT of the law? WHAT would Jesus have said to you? To me?
That's exactly what I was going to say to you! So you've seen the light at last, then.
It did give me pause, I have to say, though, to realize the implications of the simple fact I just stated: that although the church has lots and lots of time to go about destroying the loving partnership of gay couples - it apparently had no time at all, ever, to excommunicate Christians who were slaveholders.
Which pretty much sums up the whole thing, from my point of view. No wonder people are abandoning religion in droves....
[ 15. July 2008, 13:18: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Incipit
Shipmate
# 10554
|
Posted
I just wanted to thank Tuba Mirum for speaking what seems to me the self-evident truth about gay people. And when she says 'no wonder people are abandoning religion in droves', she speaks for me. The C of E was important for me as a child and later; I tried to believe Christianity's claims, both alone and with the help of spiritual direction. But the cruelty and hypocrisy of the church's attitude both to women and to gay people have sent me away. The effect is wider than a disagreement on these issues (where the secular world has self-evidently more compassion and acceptance). The only defence offered for bigotry and hatred towards women and gay people is that 'it's in the bible'. But once I started questioning these ideas, I thought, why should any of the claims of Christianity be believed? As Marilyn McCord Adams, the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, says (quoted in today's Guardian): 'With its current attitudes to gays and women, what intelligent English person is going to think it is good to be part of the Church of England?'.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Incipit:
I just wanted to thank Tuba Mirum for speaking what seems to me the self-evident truth about gay people. And when she says 'no wonder people are abandoning religion in droves', she speaks for me. The C of E was important for me as a child and later; I tried to believe Christianity's claims, both alone and with the help of spiritual direction. But the cruelty and hypocrisy of the church's attitude both to women and to gay people have sent me away. The effect is wider than a disagreement on these issues (where the secular world has self-evidently more compassion and acceptance). The only defence offered for bigotry and hatred towards women and gay people is that 'it's in the bible'. But once I started questioning these ideas, I thought, why should any of the claims of Christianity be believed? As Marilyn McCord Adams, the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, says (quoted in today's Guardian): 'With its current attitudes to gays and women, what intelligent English person is going to think it is good to be part of the Church of England?'.
Well, as someone once said: Christianity is a wonderful religion; somebody really ought to give it a try sometime. So I think that even though the church is utterly demented, the faith itself is really a pretty good thing.
In any case, gay people (and women) are going to be Christian, whether anybody likes it or not. If that means segregation, then that's what will happen. I'm actually quite hopeful for the future.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Incipit:
The effect is wider than a disagreement on these issues (where the secular world has self-evidently more compassion and acceptance).
Is it compassion or indifference? When the standard of sanctity is lacking, it's very easy to say "of course you can do this or that; I don't mind" to things one is indifferent about.
I'm straight. It's not difficult for me to say "same-sex marriages are OK" because I don't have a horse in that race. Being indifferent means that I am not going to get concerned over whether same-sex relationships are spiritually beneficial or damaging. Who cares can be seen as acceptance and compassion.
The same with women priests. It's unbelievable that now, when women no longer live in societies that impose many rules to how women are to behave, it is in this era that no women priests/bishops is seen as the great injustice against women.
The secular world can easily say "come on, women can be priests too", because the secular world doesn't give a crap about what a priest actually does on the altar. In fact, the secular world banishes all these questions from the foreground.
It's very easy indeed to confuse indifference with compassion.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The day the church stops recruiting sinners will be the day the church stops.
Oh I agree. But that's not the problem here; the problem is when the Church has within its midst those who deny they are sinning.
--------------------
"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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The day the church stops recruiting sinners will be the day the church stops.
Oh I agree. But that's not the problem here; the problem is when the Church has within its midst those who deny they are sinning.
Uh, no. We disagree that physical love between gay partners constitutes "sin." Let's at least get the terms of the discussion correct here; you can't make an assertion about the very thing that's in question and have that be the basis of your argument.
[ 15. July 2008, 16:23: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The church is dying for multiple reasons, lack of courage in orthodoxy is one.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
you can't make an assertion about the very thing that's in question and have that be the basis of your argument.
Why not? It works so well for you.
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
you can't make an assertion about the very thing that's in question and have that be the basis of your argument.
Why not? It works so well for you.
Oh, hi Raptor. After I took a long time to answer lots of your questions last time, you dropped out of the conversation and never came back.
Believe it or not, I really have better things to do.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
I'm straight. It's not difficult for me to say "same-sex marriages are OK" because I don't have a horse in that race. Being indifferent means that I am not going to get concerned over whether same-sex relationships are spiritually beneficial or damaging. Who cares can be seen as acceptance and compassion.
The same with women priests. It's unbelievable that now, when women no longer live in societies that impose many rules to how women are to behave, it is in this era that no women priests/bishops is seen as the great injustice against women.
The secular world can easily say "come on, women can be priests too", because the secular world doesn't give a crap about what a priest actually does on the altar. In fact, the secular world banishes all these questions from the foreground.
It's very easy indeed to confuse indifference with compassion.
It's really not about "compassion" or about "inclusion."
It's about "truth."
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Is it compassion or indifference? When the standard of sanctity is lacking, it's very easy to say "of course you can do this or that; I don't mind" to things one is indifferent about.
I'm straight. It's not difficult for me to say "same-sex marriages are OK" because I don't have a horse in that race. Being indifferent means that I am not going to get concerned over whether same-sex relationships are spiritually beneficial or damaging. Who cares can be seen as acceptance and compassion.
The same with women priests. It's unbelievable that now, when women no longer live in societies that impose many rules to how women are to behave, it is in this era that no women priests/bishops is seen as the great injustice against women.
The secular world can easily say "come on, women can be priests too", because the secular world doesn't give a crap about what a priest actually does on the altar. In fact, the secular world banishes all these questions from the foreground.
It's very easy indeed to confuse indifference with compassion.
Forgetting completely, of course, that most of the women and lesbian and gay people who are looking for such things are in the church. The media picks up on the anti-gay comments because they make better news fodder, and can be guaranteed to get the reaction.
You appear to be including gay people and women under the banner of "secular". Don't mistake the media for the nasty reality of actually having to listen to anti-gay or anti-women conversations when you are either a woman or gay (or both, if you're really lucky). One's ontological status is questioned over and over, and not surprisingly, many of us crumble.
I speak, of course, as a lesbian who left the church four years ago after 40 years of service to God and the church. I am still a Christian. I am still a Christian because I have never mistaken the Church for God. God's standards of love and compassion are so much more than the church ever displays. I have that trust.
--------------------
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
Speaking of excommunication....
(See what I mean? Get out of line sexually - or even pseudo-sexually - and you're gone.
But by all means: be as otherwise corrupt and/or spiritually bankrupt as you like!)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Arabella: I was responding to the feeling that the secular world might be more compassionate and acceptive of women and gay people than the Church.
Tuba: So, a calendar with shirtless missionaries. Do you think Paul or Andrew or Peter or John would get photographed like that? Why not? If not them, then why modern missionaries?
Of course, you have a point about what's tolerated already in many churches... But two wrongs don't make one right.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Andrew, I've been wondering: what does that little symbol in front of your name mean?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Nothing. Since Andrew was taken, I just picked that, out of the permitted symbols, in order for my handle to look more beautiful. I wanted something like ~Andrew or ~Andrew~, but since ~ was not among the permitted symbols I chose §
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
It's nice. I wonder what its function or meaning actually is; it must have some significance....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I think it's used to denote paragraphs. It's very easy to type it on my Mac; it's just before key for number 1, under ESC key.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
I think it's used to denote paragraphs. It's very easy to type it on my Mac; it's just before key for number 1, under ESC key.
Aha!
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Oh, hi Raptor. After I took a long time to answer lots of your questions last time, you dropped out of the conversation and never came back.
What conversation? It was you ranting about how your argument was much superior to my argument, and anyhow yours would win because the secular world had already decided the issue.
Plus the hypocrisy of you saying stuff like: quote:
"you can't make an assertion about the very thing that's in question and have that be the basis of your argument."
after saying:
quote:
"although the church has lots and lots of time to go about destroying the loving partnership of gay couples - it apparently had no time at all, ever, to excommunicate Christians who were slaveholders.
Which pretty much sums up the whole thing, from my point of view. No wonder people are abandoning religion in droves...."
Pretty much puts me off having extended conversations with you.
--------------------
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
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Speaking of excommunication....
(See what I mean? Get out of line sexually - or even pseudo-sexually - and you're gone.
But by all means: be as otherwise corrupt and/or spiritually bankrupt as you like!)
Do you know anything about Mormons, or are you that ignorant that you lump their ethics in with general Christian ethics? Mormons are massive on physical sanctity, no coffee, no cola, no alcohol, no tobacco etc. You have to follow their purity codes or you won't be "saved" (become a god). So if you are a Mormon promoting violating their sanctity codes you are highly likely to get the boot.
And to keep to your standard of not using assertions as argument, please show how it is standard for current corrupt/spiritually bankrupt Mormons to get away scot free.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The day the church stops recruiting sinners will be the day the church stops.
Oh I agree. But that's not the problem here; the problem is when the Church has within its midst those who deny they are sinning.
Uh, no. We disagree that physical love between gay partners constitutes "sin."
Exactly. And that is the problem.
Tell me, would you be content to accept that sort of statement from a white supremacist Christian ie: "we disagree that being racist constitutes sin"*? Would you just 'agree to differ'? Or would you say that he is 'denying that he is sinning'?
*(Since the racist accusation is so often flung at our side ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) .)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
"But the cruelty and hypocrisy of the church's attitude both to women and to gay people have sent me away."
In orthodoxy: What cruelty? What hypocrisy?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
No hypocrisy in ignoring love your neighbour as yourself as you judge, observing the splinter in your brother's eye and not noticing the logs in your own? (Matthew 7) Those homosexuals who have been turned away from communion for being unrepentant sinners or notorious evil-living don't feel judged?
Or as the preference seems to be for the message in the Epistles, from Romans 2:1
quote:
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgement upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge are doing the very same things
reiterated in Romans 14:10
quote:
Why do you pass judgement on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgement seat of God
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
So where do you draw the line, then? Do you, say, admit an unrepentant adulterer to communion?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Depends if you regard the communion as a converting sacrament or not. Personally, but it's not my responsibility and I have no say in this, I would prefer to leave all channels opens and pray that people reach God.
Adultery is not the same as homosexuality. Someone is likely to be hurt in an adulterous situation and it could be described as people are not loving their neighbours as themselves, whether this is talking in the short term or about a longer term situation, but it is not my right to judge.
I can't see how a loving homosexual relationship is always against the commandment to love others as yourself. Loving others I would want them not to be living in frustration and misery, but to be fully fulfilled, and if that is in a faithful committed homosexual relationship, then who am I to judge?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
1 Corinthians 5: 9-13
" 9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked man from among you.'"
Proof texting is fun when you ignore anything that runs counter to your position.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I can't see how a loving homosexual relationship is always against the commandment to love others as yourself.
Maybe because that isn't the only commandment. People with your attitude always love to skip the first bit (about loving and obeying God).
[ 16. July 2008, 11:37: Message edited by: the_raptor ]
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Adultery is not the same as homosexuality. Someone is likely to be hurt in an adulterous situation and it could be described as people are not loving their neighbours as themselves, whether this is talking in the short term or about a longer term situation, but it is not my right to judge.
You're moving the goalposts of the argument: in your mast post you were talking in terms of homosexuals being turned away from communion for being unrepentant sinners and referring to that in complaining terms; I was merely asking the question whether your answer would be the same in respect of an unrepentant adulterer and whether it is 'cruel' and 'hypocritical' to bar (in some way) unrepentant sinners from full participation in church life. Now you are saying that 'adultery is not the same as homosexuality'. Unfortunately that shifting of the terms of the debate doesn't answer my original question.
Please therefore clarify whether the issue we're debating is "should unrepentant sinners be barred from communion?" or "are practising homosexuals unrepentant sinners?", so that I know which issue I am to address.
[ 16. July 2008, 11:50: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I would not turn either adulterers or practising homosexuals away from communion, not that I have any say in that and nor am I ever likely to have.
As I thought the whole point of Christianity was the teaching of Jesus, and I can find nothing in what he says to criticise homosexuality in loving faithful relationships, I would not choose to castigate practising homosexuals as unrepentant sinners.
But Matt and the raptor, if I was part of a church that was turning away people, I would not want to be part of that church, and that would probably mean any church. And for what it is worth, I am heterosexual and celibate, so not currently committing any sexual sin that I know of. No doubt you'll now inform me of some.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I would not turn either adulterers or practising homosexuals away from communion, not that I have any say in that and nor am I ever likely to have.
Bit of a red herring here. The question really is would you think it good for a serial adulterer (as opposed to a person who has made a mistake and regrets it) or a heterosexual cohabitee to be ordained if the church and the selectors knew about it?
[ 16. July 2008, 12:16: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
As I thought the whole point of Christianity was the teaching of Jesus
And why isn't the revelation the Apostles got at pentacost part of the teachings of Jesus? Why did those taught by Jesus in life, and after His resurrection, not count as passing on the teachings of Jesus?
Do you just read the red words in a Red Letter edition or something?
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
and I can find nothing in what he says to criticise homosexuality in loving faithful relationships
He was a Jew, they thought homosexuals deserved to be killed. The only sexual relationships he "promoted" was monogamous life long marriage between men and women. You may as well say He didn't criticise incest so that is a-ok.
Matthew 19: 4-5
quote:
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'
That doesn't exactly support the argument that Jesus had radically different ideas on what was permissible.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I would not choose to castigate practising homosexuals as unrepentant sinners.
That isn't the question. Is it sin or not? If you believe they are unrepentant sinners, then you are being unloving by not challenging them about it. "Oh hey I think what you are doing will lead to your death, but I don't care enough to challenge you about it".
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But Matt and the raptor, if I was part of a church that was turning away people, I would not want to be part of that church, and that would probably mean any church.
I wouldn't want to be part of a church that didn't challenge people about their sins so that they may repent. That sounds like a social club that doesn't actually believe what it is preaching.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And for what it is worth, I am heterosexual and celibate, so not currently committing any sexual sin that I know of. No doubt you'll now inform me of some.
Jesus set pretty harsh standards for what counts as sexual sin, so unless you are asexual (just don't think about sex naturally) I am sure you are committing some.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I wouldn't want to be part of a church that didn't challenge people about their sins so that they may repent. That sounds like a social club that doesn't actually believe what it is preaching.
So you are saying preaching should be telling people what they shouldn't be doing, rather than asking questions to help people change their minds or think of things in a different way, or offering better ways forward in the light of the scriptures?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
