• Back to Rome?

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:18 am**

Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:02 am That constant translating of ancient texts is a good point and it indicates some impressive scholarship at the seminaries.

However, I strongly suspect that the original texts were drafted with political intent.

Kortpeel

YOU THINK?

River

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:31 am**

speedvogel (imported) wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:14 pm Unfortunately, the leadership of the U.S. Episcopal church, for whatever reason, has NOT followed the will of the people. The majority of members are opposed to ordination of gays. By only a slim majority do they support female clergy. I know this as my mother is a member of an Episcopal congregation. Be it a high church or a low church, the Episcopal church hierarchy s fighting its own membership and its own local churches.

I am a member of a church which has gay members, does not allow women to serve as church officers and is quite far out of touch with today's realities.

The number of churches that are conflicted over the issue of gay clergy is unreal. The Methodists have been dealing with this issue for over 60 years and have not reached a conclusion, the United Church of Christ is even more conflicted as is the Disciples of Christ.

The fact is that the majority of those who have an opinion in the U. S. are opposed to gay marriage, gay clergy, anything gay. What most people see is the gay whackos in San Francisco and they think these are typical of all. They are not, but they go out of their way to offend straights.

I personally think that those who are gay and do not pretend to be something they are not create no issues for me. I object most strenuously, though, to gays marrying straights as a masquerade. The harm this has caused to many people I know is beyond description.

Anyway, I suspect that the invitation to the Episcopal priesthood (and that is what it is) will be accepted by a fair number of disaffected priests. We will see. I am following this closely as it interests me.

Those of us who are professing Christians need to reign in the church people who, unfortunately, run most churches.

Speed

The only thing I have ever seen of the gay population of San Francisco as apposed to other areas, is that they the gays of San Francisco don't like gays coming into there turf. As far as how they act or interact with others it is no different than anyplace else in the country or world for that matter.

As I have stated before, I believe the Bible, God, Devil etc. thing is a way for MAN to control MAN, god is a illusion. But it proves my point that straight Christian's have such a problem with allowing anybody that is different from then to be part of this great and wonderful church group that worships God and Jesus and they would be the first to deny this to other heretics, when I fact if they truly believed in the teaching of the lord as they profess it would not matter one damn bit who or what walked through the door, or who was standing behind the podium.

Created by MAN to control MAN.

When a church says, our doors are open to anybody, no matter what you have done, who you are, what color your skin, gay or straight, married or not, you are welcome. The offering plate is at the door, if you have some money to spare put some in if not take what you need, there are no locks on our doors, we are always open because this is gods house.

Then you will have the start of what the Bible is talking about. NO church today comes close.

River

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:33 pm**

Except for leaving the offering plate at the door for those that want to take what they need, and the expectation of others leaving money enough to supply the takers and run the church building, the church I attend comes very close on all of the aforementioned qualifications. I think we are doing a good job at welcoming all comers, no matter where they've been.

Thanks.

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:30 pm**

I have been invited to churches as a gay man. Of course once welcomed the church is willing to help me change. When they want me to change I know they think I am wrong. That is when I know they are wrong. I hope your church is not like the ones I have experienced.

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:30 pm**

tugon (imported) wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:30 pm 1st Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1st Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

A little different from what you posted. It is again when the bible is used for a personal agenda that upsets me.

What the St. Paul actually said is

ἢ οὖκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι Θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πορνοί οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται.

οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὔ λοίδοροι, οὔχ ἅρπαγεϛ βασιλείαν Θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.

Though why anyone would be interested in the words of a gym coach who never actually met Jesus and whose ass, if we are to believe Scripture, was more sensitive to His presence than Paul was, escapes me.

Jesus, himself, apparently didn't think sex was worth talking about because unlike Joseph Smith, whose god even specified the style of underwear for the faithful, Jesus never mentioned the subject but was interested in inner spiritually, you know, little things like judge not lest ye be judged; he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone. Of course, if you took that kind of thinking seriously, all the fun in life that comes from dispising others goes down the tube. You can see why so many Christians find it totally expedient to ignore everything Jesus says on morality and prefer to accept gym coachs and snake oil salesmen as their personal saviors.

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:35 pm**

gareth19 (imported) wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:30 pm What the St. Paul actually said is

ἢ οὖκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι Θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πορνοί οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται.

οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὔ λοίδοροι, οὔχ ἅρπαγεϛ βασιλείαν Θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.

Though why anyone would be interested in the words of a gym coach who never actually met Jesus and whose ass, if we are to believe Scripture, was more sensitive to His presence than Paul was, escapes me.

Jesus, himself, apparently didn't think sex was worth talking about because unlike Joseph Smith, whose god even specified the style of underwear for the faithful, Jesus never mentioned the subject but was interested in inner spiritually, you know, little things like judge not lest ye be judged; he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone. Of course, if you took that kind of thinking seriously, all the fun in life that comes from dispising others goes down the tube. You can see why so many Christians find it totally expedient to ignore everything Jesus says on morality and prefer to accept gym coachs and snake oil salesmen as their personal saviors.

The message of love and peace is so easily lost. That saddens me. I enjoy people who emulate Jesus.

Posted: **Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:48 am**

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:10 am God is a creation of Man not the other way around.

River

Maybe. Maybe not.

Personally I dont know whether or not there is a God. Sometimes I follow a chain of thought along the lines of: the universe and all thats in it does exist and its all built up from tiny sub atomic particles, mesons quarks and such and they are themselves constructed of quanta of energy.

The more I know about it, or perhaps the less ignorant I become would be more accurate, the more I am filled with awe and wonder at the genius of creation in its totality.

It is possible that when science has come to the end of its quest for knowledge, when everything is known and understood, we will be face to face with a creator, the supreme genius who designed and brought everything about. I would be happy to honour and praise such a being

Then again, we may find out that that is just the way things are because there can be no other way. In that case what we call God would be the sum total of the laws of science.

However, one thing is for sure, we will learn more about the nature of God from studying his works that we will from ancient texts, no matter how perfect their translation.

Gentlemen, if you want a lesson in theology I suggest you study the discoveries of the Hubbell telescope and the results of the Large Hadron Collider experiments. Keep up to date with the discoveries being made in the biology labs around the world.

And if you think that the supreme being gives a damn whether or not you jerked off last night, you are missing the whole point.

Kortpeel

Posted: **Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:53 pm**

I'm with y'a, Smithie.

Me too. I think it is a brilliant move, if you allow me to be cynical in my analysis.

In my opinion, it is a divide-and-conquer strategy. They damage the English church, created by Henry VIII's skism, and create the way to make the Anglicans-that-are-left into something that is far more leftist and further from the Roman church. No more, can you call the Anglican Church, "Catholic Lite."

It is a short-term strategy - for this current-crop of priests they'll get with this move, it's a one-time admission back into the church. Yes, wives will be part of the situation, but new priests will still have the celibacy rules in place.

Again, it is brilliant. It is also opportunistic, cynical, and very ugly.

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:16 am**

Eunuchorn,be assured that you are not the only Christian democrat, That along with the word "nudist" is how I have described myself. I stopped attending the local fundamentalist church a few years ago when the political atmosphere became so intensely in favor of the demon Bush I no longer could stand hearing what was said from the pulpit. I ended up believeing that the church should be taxed as it turned into a political organization that I did not believe in. Millions of dollars have been spent trying to overturn laws that men have written that could have been spent on solving problems such as poverty.

Misha, you asked "what did Jesus say?" Many quote the apostle Paul on the subject of homosexuality and say that Jesus did not specifically speak on the subject. But in my mind he did speak on this and howwe should live our lives, "judge not, and ye shall not be judged", When asked what the greatest commandment was Jesus replied: "Love the Lord with all your heart...and the second is like it: love your neighbor as you love yourself". Here is another, "he who is without sin cast the first stone" These are verses of my faith, I am a human, with failings that the Lord knows.

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:50 am**

P, I too am a human.

As for the verses you cite here I cannot see where Jesus is speaking on the subject of homosexuality. One of the hallmarks of some religions is the notion that we, as sinners, should loathe ourselves as unworthy of God's love. And yet Jesus specifically tells that we should love ourselves--as He loves us--all of us in our divinely crafted personhood.

Only humans make judgments. And in each case where this occurs in the NT Jesus rebukes those who take it upon themselves to look into the hearts of others.

M

"When you start to enjoy loving your neighbor it ceases to be a virtue" ~ K. Gibran

Phole (imported) wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:16 am Misha, you asked "what did Jesus say?" Many quote the apostle Paul on the subject of homosexuality and say that Jesus did not specifically speak on the subject. But in my mind he did speak on this and howwe should live our lives, "judge not, and ye shall not be judged", When asked what the greatest commandment was Jesus replied: "Love the Lord with all your heart...and the second is like it: love your neighbor as you love yourself". Here is another, "he who is without sin cast the first stone" These are verses of my faith, I am a human, with failings that the Lord knows.

Back to Rome?

Re: Back to Rome?

Re: Back to Rome?

Re: Back to Rome?

Re: Back to Rome?

Re: Back to Rome?

Re: Back to Rome?

Re: Back to Rome?

Re: Back to Rome?

Re: Back to Rome?

Re: Back to Rome?