Lesbian Pastor's Case Gets Mixed Reaction. [Archive]

ChiRho

23rd March 2004, 08:18 AM

artybloke,

I will check your site out, but seriously, you didn't want the routine of an argument again? Come on...certainly you must have. Why else would you assert something that you knew would be controversial? If it is something you believe, then convince me that Jesus deems lesbianism good and holy. I am afraid that this is another case of a person reading Scripture, properly understanding obvious text, disliking that result, spinning their own ideas of "fairness" and "tolerance" into it, and walking away with relative truth. Are homosexuals any more sinful than I am....no! I am a sinner. I must repent for the evil in my life. But Scripture is specific when dealing with the office of pastor or minister of the Word. They stand in the stead of Christ. As God is our Father, we cannot look to Him through mom. Especially mom that is married to mom. There is forgiveness for all who believe in Christ, crucified and risen, for the Atonement of the world, and for each of us.

In Christ,

ChiRho

artybloke

23rd March 2004, 02:14 PM

I am afraid that this is another case of a person reading Scripture, properly understanding obvious text, disliking that result, spinning their own ideas of "bigotry" and "intolerance" into it, and walking away with relative truth.

Back at you. Neither you, nor your fundamentalist brethren own the truth.

You see, I used to agree with you, but the Lord has opened my eyes to the truth. I pray that he will one day open yours to the freedom and love of God as shown in Jesus.

There is forgiveness for all who believe in Christ, crucified and risen, for the Atonement of the world, and for each of us.

Even bigots get into heaven if they seek the Lord. :)

Lotar

23rd March 2004, 02:35 PM

Back at you. Neither you, nor your fundamentalist brethren own the truth.

You see, I used to agree with you, but the Lord has opened my eyes to the truth. I pray that he will one day open yours to the freedom and love of God as shown in Jesus.

Even bigots get into heaven if they seek the Lord. :)
You will have a hard time making the case that a Lutheran is a fundamentalist.

It is ironic that a sect that claims to be catholic because of it's adherance to tradition, finds it perfectly acceptable to toss out tradition whenever it inconveniences them.

countrymousenc

23rd March 2004, 02:51 PM

Back at you. Neither you, nor your fundamentalist brethren own the truth.

...

Even bigots get into heaven if they seek the Lord. :)

We got some name-calling going on here?

Edit: pot, kettle, black.

eldermike

23rd March 2004, 02:55 PM

I get very tired of reading fundamentalism = bigot.

I am a fundamentalists. Am I a bigot?

artybloke

23rd March 2004, 02:57 PM

It is ironic that a sect that claims to be catholic because of it's adherance to tradition, finds it perfectly acceptable to toss out tradition whenever it inconveniences them.

Oh, quite agree. Let's all go back to owning slaves and the sun never setting on the British empire. That's traditional.

Some Tradition is good. Some Tradition ain't.

Lotar

23rd March 2004, 03:02 PM

Oh, quite agree. Let's all go back to owning slaves and the sun never setting on the British empire. That's traditional.

Some Tradition is good. Some Tradition ain't.
:D

Okay then. Believe what you want, you obviously have no idea what I was talking about.

countrymousenc

23rd March 2004, 03:05 PM

Oh, quite agree. Let's all go back to owning slaves and the sun never setting on the British empire. That's traditional.

Some Tradition is good. Some Tradition ain't.

And where in the Church's Holy Tradition do you find a commandment to own slaves or expand the British empire?

Origen

23rd March 2004, 04:13 PM

Hi, I wonder if the church is going to lose alot of their members over this case?

Some perhaps. We'll likely gain some, too, as a result of the news.

There was an article in the NYTimes a couple of weeks ago reporting on the new members joining the Episcopal church when they witnessed that God was alive and well and doing something new there. The net gain/loss was negligible, and the long-term results hopeful.

*****

I imagine the Methodist church will schism, since I doubt very many conservative Methodists approve of this ruling.

I agree that conservatives will disapprove, but we won't schism. We've been there, done that (over slavery between 1840 to 1939), and the conservatives don't want to be on the wrong side of God's judgment again.

countrymousenc

23rd March 2004, 04:17 PM

I agree that conservatives will disapprove, but we won't schism. We've been there, done that (over slavery between 1840 to 1939), and the conservatives don't want to be on the wrong side of God's judgment again.

Let me get this straight: opposing ordination of practicing homosexuals is the same as supporting the practice of slavery. Uh huh. Anybody see a logical fallacy here?

Reader Nilus

23rd March 2004, 05:17 PM

I find it sad that the UMC could not even uphold its own canons. I mean political correctness is dictating to the Church how it should behave and not her own confessional doctuments. The question not only to the UMC but the Episcopal Church as well, why even be members when the standards get lower and lower each year.
Jeff the Finn

jesusson1

24th March 2004, 02:02 AM

Man this is a sad story. What is the "church" becoming? Attention board members--- satan has entered the Christian church and his trying to destroy Gods truth.

May God open their blind eyes.

La Bonita Zorilla

24th March 2004, 04:25 AM

I really wish someone would explain to me why openly and unregretfully sinful behavior has become acceptable in Christian leaders.
Those in favor of the ruling in this case do not believe that is what is happening in this instance at all.

La Bonita Zorilla

24th March 2004, 04:29 AM

I am afraid that this is another case of a person reading Scripture, properly understanding obvious text, disliking that result, spinning their own ideas of "fairness" and "tolerance" into it, and walking away with relative truth.
With all due respect, I believe you are entirely off base here and that it is wrong to make such a bold categorical assumption. You cannot know what is in another's heart.

LynneClomina

24th March 2004, 04:32 AM

Those in favor of the ruling in this case do not believe that is what is happening in this instance at all.

no, obviousely they dont believe that is what is happening. unfortunately, their belief is wrong, and totally not biblical.

ppl cannot just decide what they want to believe and not believe in the bible. there is only ONE way, God's way, and He says "MY way, or the Highway....", and it's a downhill road.

ppl truly after God's own heart NEVER try to get out of something biblical for long. they always come around.

Plan 9

24th March 2004, 06:25 AM

Origen made this statement and this statement only:

I agree that conservatives will disapprove, but we won't schism. We've been there, done that (over slavery between 1840 to 1939), and the conservatives don't want to be on the wrong side of God's judgement again.

This was your reply:

Let me get this straight: opposing ordination of practicing homosexuals is the same as supporting the practice of slavery. Uh huh. Anybody see a logical fallacy here?
You're the one who drew this conclusion, complete with "logical fallacy", supposing it is one; Origen did not.

However, as a conservative, I don't disapprove, although I agree with him that some conservatives will, should we make that change. I don't think we'll schism, either. We have indeed "been there, done that", as Origen said, and we paid a high price for it.

seebs

24th March 2004, 06:31 AM

ppl truly after God's own heart NEVER try to get out of something biblical for long. they always come around.

Unless their upbringing blinds them to it, in which case they may go to the grave never having had the insight that would have let them question a deeply-held assumption. Happens a lot.

ChiRho

24th March 2004, 08:35 AM

With all due respect, I believe you are entirely off base here and that it is wrong to make such a bold categorical assumption. You cannot know what is in another's heart.

I do not assume to know whether artybloke is a Christian. But I will combat heretical garbage anytime I am able. I am not sure how I am so off base, considering artybloke's statement and recommended website.

Grace and Peace to you from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Wrigley

24th March 2004, 08:49 AM

Let me get this straight: opposing ordination of practicing homosexuals is the same as supporting the practice of slavery. Uh huh. Anybody see a logical fallacy here?
I read that statement the same way you did.

Wrigley

24th March 2004, 08:52 AM

Man this is a sad story. What is the "church" becoming? Attention board members--- satan has entered the Christian church and his trying to destroy Gods truth.

May God open their blind eyes.
The good news is that satan's already been defeated.

And I echo your prayer that God opens the eyes of those who see this ruling a good thing. So they may see their error.

Bulldog

24th March 2004, 08:59 AM

I get very tired of reading fundamentalism = bigot.

So do I. The word Fundementalist should just maean those who believe in the fundamentals of Chrisianity, but now days it means somone who is a hyper-conservative legalistic person with a message of condemnation and not love. (reminds me of the Pharisees)

I guess I might be considered a bigot by some. Because the Bible says so, ao I believe it. If that makes me a bigot, I'll gladly take iit.

WildGoose

24th March 2004, 10:59 AM

I read that statement the same way you did.

I don't understand the confusion here. There is every reason to see the connection between slavery, the Empire and ordaining homosexuals.

What at one time the church considered perfectly acceptable and normal is now inconceivable for it to think so. At one time the Empire and slavery were not only considered normal nut natural by the church. This is as recently as the 80's in SA and the 60's in USA.

At one time it would also have been (and by some still is) considered inconceivable for the church to ordain practicing gays and now by somem churches it isn't.

Seems perfectly clear to me. I have not studies the arguments for or against but tat does not prevent me seeing the logic.

Personally speaking..... well I shall wait for others to comment :wave:

Gabriel

24th March 2004, 11:05 AM

What's in the heart proceeds out of the mouth.

Polycarp1

24th March 2004, 11:12 AM

Dominus Fidelis

24th March 2004, 11:17 AM

Well, here's a question for you: Did Jesus approve of adultery, or of serial marriage? Did He condemn the woman taken in adultery or the woman at the well? And who did He condemn for their actions?

If you can answer those from the Gospel, not wrapping them with your particular moral theology, you might have a handle on how He would have treated this case.

And I am pledged to follow Him, not (thank God!) the Discipline of the United Methodist Church.

Jesus didn't condemn anyone the first time He came to earth. That wasn't His mission. The judgement will come the Second time He comes to earth.

Does the fact that He didn't condemn someone mean that He somehow nullified the law of God? Is that what you are saying?

Lotar

24th March 2004, 11:49 AM

Christ did often condemn religous leaders for their sin,

Whatever you believe Christ would have done, scripture states that ones in such a position are not to be living in open sin.

eldermike

24th March 2004, 12:11 PM

JN 8:23 But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

Man is born judged.

EdmundBlackadderTheThird

24th March 2004, 01:43 PM

Patristic

24th March 2004, 01:51 PM

seebs

24th March 2004, 03:24 PM

This is quite sad news indeed. The ones arguing that Holy Tradition somehow encompasses slavery and the expansion of the British empire are way off base; The teaching of the Church over it's 2,000 year history has been consistent in it's view of homosexuality as sinful. You won't find quotes from any ECF saying such behavior is good and holy and instituted by God.

I seem to recall that, in fact, the topic was a matter of some small debate early on. I found a reference once to an ECF who wrote that, by specifically stating that the men in Romans 1 "turned from" the use of women to the use of men, he denied them any excuse... I have not been able to track the reference down.

I don't consider "our teaching has always been consistent on X" as necessarily proof that our teaching is correct. Some errors (early thoughts on slavery) were not really considered carefully until the 1600s and later. There may yet be other issues we haven't even thought of yet, where a hundred years from now people will be defending them as "what we've always taught", and two hundred years from now people will be saying "well, you have to understand the cultural context they taught that it". Maybe they'll be right; maybe they'll be wrong. I sure don't know.

seebs

24th March 2004, 03:27 PM

And I echo your prayer that God opens the eyes of those who see this ruling a good thing. So they may see their error.

Something I've found to be very helpful sometimes is to, instead of deciding what the right outcome is and praying to God for it, praying for God to bring about the right outcome, whether or not it's what I think it should be. "Thy will, not mine, be done."

This has frequently resulted in fundamental shifts in my view of the world.

LynneClomina

24th March 2004, 05:10 PM

Unless their upbringing blinds them to it, in which case they may go to the grave never having had the insight that would have let them question a deeply-held assumption. Happens a lot.
an upbringing can be overcome, the blind can be made to see.
if they are truly seekers of God, then will eventually conform to His likeness - His morals - His will. IMHO. :clap:

Patristic

24th March 2004, 05:27 PM

I seem to recall that, in fact, the topic was a matter of some small debate early on. I found a reference once to an ECF who wrote that, by specifically stating that the men in Romans 1 "turned from" the use of women to the use of men, he denied them any excuse... I have not been able to track the reference down.

I don't consider "our teaching has always been consistent on X" as necessarily proof that our teaching is correct. Some errors (early thoughts on slavery) were not really considered carefully until the 1600s and later. There may yet be other issues we haven't even thought of yet, where a hundred years from now people will be defending them as "what we've always taught", and two hundred years from now people will be saying "well, you have to understand the cultural context they taught that it". Maybe they'll be right; maybe they'll be wrong. I sure don't know.
Well Vincent of Lerins stated that for something to be authentic it must have been believed everywhere, always, and by all. When it comes to the Church's teaching on this issue from the first century onward the Fathers are in unanimous agreement, and you can't find one ECF who says homosexuality is acceptable and not sinful.

Don't compare slavery as critiqued by the Early Church to the slavery of colonial Europe and the early United States. They were two completely different systems with different customs and practices, and what the Fathers said about Roman slavery does not necessarily equate to American slavery.

Sergius_Lucius

24th March 2004, 07:01 PM

This is a very sad case. To see another church fall prey to relativism and turn their back on the truths so plainly presented in God's word. If my church was not very dead set against ever conding open sin like this I would so be joining an Orthodox church, they know how to handle this sort of thing:

Now that is the reaction we should be seeing from churches all over, a complete and total condemnation of any acceptance of this lifestyle. I applaud the Orthodox in thier reaction and can only pray that we see less and less of this acceptance that is further seperating the body of Christ.

I just thought it would be useful to give official information on this:

Session of the Holy Synod on 6th October 2003

Record 61

Heard: report from Bishop Georgiy of Nizhni Novgorod and Arzamas on the scandalous case in which a same-sex couple was married at a church in Nizhni Novgorod on September 1.

Note: As was reported by Bishop Georgiy of Nizhni Novgorod and Arzamas in a report to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II, a young man and a young woman approached Father Mikhail Kabanov on September 1, 2000, asking him to give them the key to the church (in which no worship service was held on that day) so that the Sacrament of Marriage might be administered to them by a priest from another church because the girl's parents were allegedly against that marriage. Their marriage had not been registered in the Registry Office.

Having obtained the key, they brought Father Vladimir Enert to the church and, as was arranged preliminarily, he performed the sacrilegious action of 'marriage' over two young males. The girl who had told Father Mikhail Kabanov that she wanted to get married proved to be a correspondent of Komsomolskaya pravda newspaper. She made pictures and published them together with a report about what had happened in her newspaper.

Resolved:

1) to recognize the accomplished fact as blasphemy over the Sacrament, a trample upon morality and the Holy Scriptures teaching and the canonical norms of Christian Orthodox life and therefore as graceless and invalid;

2) to defrock Rev. Vladimir Enert who had performed that blasphemous action voluntarily and without coercion;

3) to recognize Rev. Mikhail Kabanov as accomplice to a sacrilege and to agree with Bishop Georgiy who sustained him;

4) to remind the God-loving flock of our Holy Church of the need to observe the sacredness and indissolubility of marriage and of the inadmissibility of same-sex 'love', fornication and adultery.

5) to instruct the diocesan bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify their catechetical and missionary work among lay people and to supervise the strict observance of canonical order in the pastoral service of our Church.

http://www.mospat.ru/text/e_decisions/id/6072.html

Destruction of the chapel was the decision of the local diocese. It was build on the place of future temple, so it would be unbuild sooner or later in any case.

cadworm

24th March 2004, 09:27 PM

[QUOTE=Bulldog]So do I. The word Fundementalist should just maean those who believe in the fundamentals of Chrisianity, but now days it means somone who is a hyper-conservative legalistic person with a message of condemnation and not love. (reminds me of the Pharisees)

Bulldog. I believe you are correct in your view of how most ppl misunderstand our fundamental view point. We hold to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and we believe that scripture is the word of God "God Breathed". If we are intolerant it is due to our intolerance for sin, ours and that of others, just as God is. Jesus told us to love the sinner, we do. He also said to hate the sin. When we show our intolerance for sin it is viewed as an intolerance for the individual sinner. The Lord knows all we are trying to do is pry open some blind eyes so a sinner can walk in the light.

Amen.

Mike

countrymousenc

25th March 2004, 01:11 AM

Thank you, cadworm. I don't think it could have been said much better. :)

Just as parents have authority and responsibility to set limits for their children, the Church has authority and responsibility to do the same for us, so that we all may reach the goal for which we've been saved.

All of us, in one way or another, are rebellious children at times. We don't need to be pandered; we need correction. Our lives depend on it.

La Bonita Zorilla

25th March 2004, 02:52 AM

no, obviousely they dont believe that is what is happening. unfortunately, their belief is wrong, and totally not biblical.

This is a statement of opinion unsupported by any evidence.

La Bonita Zorilla

25th March 2004, 04:00 AM

I do not assume to know whether artybloke is a Christian. But I will combat heretical garbage anytime I am able. I am not sure how I am so off base, considering artybloke's statement and recommended website.
I looked at the website. It's a testament of regret by a reformed bigot. It is most assuredly not "heretical" and certainly not anti-Christian.

LynneClomina

25th March 2004, 04:03 AM

I looked at the website. It's a testament of regret by a reformed bigot. It is most assuredly not "heretical" and certainly not anti-Christian.
la bonita, do you ever put down your gun? is everyone here with a different opinion than yours automatically your enemy???? :sigh:

La Bonita Zorilla

25th March 2004, 04:11 AM

To see another church fall prey to relativism and turn their back on the truths so plainly presented in God's word.
Christians with other opinions do not see "relativism" in affirming the dignity and worth of people. No "truth" is ever "plainly presented" anywhere to justify oppression of people diferent from you.

[Referring to orthodox defrocking a pro-gay priest and burning his church in Russia]Now that is the reaction we should be seeing from churches all over, a complete and total condemnation of any acceptance of this lifestyle. I applaud the Orthodox in thier reaction
The action unfortunately appeared to indicate some form of superstitious nonsense and a serious disconnect from reality. This is not typical of Eastern Orthodox Christians in any form.

...pray that we see less and less of this acceptance that is further seperating the body of Christ.
What is "separating the body of Christ" is bigotry and nothing more.

La Bonita Zorilla

25th March 2004, 04:18 AM

Don't compare slavery as critiqued by the Early Church to the slavery of colonial Europe and the early United States. They were two completely different systems with different customs and practices, and what the Fathers said about Roman slavery does not necessarily equate to American slavery.
Both were evil systems. Not exactly alike, granted, but why split hairs over evil practices?

La Bonita Zorilla

25th March 2004, 04:24 AM

la bonita, do you ever put down your gun? is everyone here with a different opinion than yours automatically your enemy???? :sigh:
You don't like hunters?

I have no problem with differences of opinion. If I did, I'd have to never leave the house and throw out the family and the cat too. I do however, have no respect for employment of rhetoric to dehumanize people, and assignment of negative motives toward those who see Christ's promise as inclusive of all.

I have no "enemies" among Christian brothers and sisters, even the smug and meanspirited ones, though they may feel otherwise toward myself and others of similar views.

LynneClomina

25th March 2004, 04:35 AM

its interesting that you see others as smug and meanspirited, when the harshest comments seem to be not from them....

seebs

25th March 2004, 04:35 AM

la bonita, do you ever put down your gun? is everyone here with a different opinion than yours automatically your enemy???? :sigh:

To be fair, it's not as if there's been any shortage of harsh words directed at her church, not to mention her personally.

I have to say, these "discussions" are depressing; no one seems to be willing to grant even the slightest possibility that the people on the other "side" are speaking honestly.

LynneClomina

25th March 2004, 04:39 AM

Christians with other opinions do not see "relativism" in affirming the dignity and worth of people. No "truth" is ever "plainly presented" anywhere to justify oppression of people diferent from you.

The action unfortunately appeared to indicate some form of superstitious nonsense and a serious disconnect from reality. This is not typical of Eastern Orthodox Christians in any form.

What is "separating the body of Christ" is bigotry and nothing more.
1 Corinthians 5:1-6
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named* among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. F11 6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

is it bigotry? or is it following orders?

to be a christian is to be a disciple.

to be a disiple is by definition one who follows.

a christian is a disciple/follower of Jesus.

sinning is not following in the footsteps of Jesus.

if one isnt at least trying to follow in His steps, then how can they call themselves a christian????

LynneClomina

25th March 2004, 04:44 AM

To be fair, it's not as if there's been any shortage of harsh words directed at her church, not to mention her personally.

I have to say, these "discussions" are depressing; no one seems to be willing to grant even the slightest possibility that the people on the other "side" are speaking honestly.

i dont know her church, and i try not to have a knee jerk reaction to rudeness.

despite the treatment one has recieved it is not an excuse to be bitter and judgemental.

honestly? i'm sure most everyone is being honest! i know i am honestly trying to stay balanced when i get a pit thrown in my face. :help:

seebs

25th March 2004, 04:52 AM

i dont know her church, and i try not to have a knee jerk reaction to rudeness.

If you look through this thread, you'll see a number of attacks on her church and its members.

despite the treatment one has recieved it is not an excuse to be bitter and judgemental.

True. On the other hand, nothing she's done is an excuse for the way she gets treated. We're all supposed to be trying to be perfect, remember; that's the point of the religion.

honestly? i'm sure most everyone is being honest!

Then I would urge you to greater efforts to try to make sure you actually understand their positions, before dismissing them. LBZ's position may be wrong, or may not; I certainly don't know, and I don't think any other living human can claim honest certainty on such a thing. However, I think it's pretty clear that she, like everyone else, is doing her best to stand up for Christian ideals as best she can understand them.

Any discussion which starts in terms of "justifying sin" is necessarily missing the point when dealing with an honest difference of opinion.

I've been very unhappy with the way in which Christians turn on each other over divisive issues, and especially with the consistent refusal to agree on mutually acceptable terminology before getting into "is not"/"is so" shouting matches.

This is not directed at you specifically, Lynne; I'm just riffing off of things you said.

seebs

25th March 2004, 04:54 AM

if one isnt at least trying to follow in His steps, then how can they call themselves a christian????

They can't.

However, not everyone agrees about which things are the "real" immoralities, and which are cultural contexts in which Paul was writing, and so on, and so forth. The joy of being Protestant is that we can disagree about this stuff, and we have no interpretive authority to fall back on. If you want a Magisterium, you know where to get it; I hear they have regular classes for those interested. If you want to be able to say "sometimes I don't accept the interpretive authority of others", though, you have immediately lost the right to demand that others accept the same interpretations you do.

It's a blessing or a curse, depending on what we decide to make of it.

Badfish

25th March 2004, 04:56 AM

They can't.

However, not everyone agrees about which things are the "real" immoralities, and which are cultural contexts in which Paul was writing, and so on, and so forth. The joy of being Protestant is that we can disagree about this stuff, and we have no interpretive authority to fall back on. If you want a Magisterium, you know where to get it; I hear they have regular classes for those interested. If you want to be able to say "sometimes I don't accept the interpretive authority of others", though, you have immediately lost the right to demand that others accept the same interpretations you do.

It's a blessing or a curse, depending on what we decide to make of it.

So obviously you don't agree with the decision? I know I don't.

LynneClomina

25th March 2004, 05:08 AM

If you look through this thread, you'll see a number of attacks on her church and its members. i will reread, i have been following basically since this thread started. but again, how would i recognise it when i saw it? i have no idea which church she belongs too.

True. On the other hand, nothing she's done is an excuse for the way she gets treated. We're all supposed to be trying to be perfect, remember; that's the point of the religion.nope nobody deserves bad treatment. NOBODY. ppl on both sides of the issue have a responsibility to not knee-jerk react with rudeness or hostility.

Then I would urge you to greater efforts to try to make sure you actually understand their positions, before dismissing them. LBZ's position may be wrong, or may not; I certainly don't know, and I don't think any other living human can claim honest certainty on such a thing. However, I think it's pretty clear that she, like everyone else, is doing her best to stand up for Christian ideals as best she can understand them. by honest, i meant honest of their perspective. how else can they be honest? :scratch:

Any discussion which starts in terms of "justifying sin" is necessarily missing the point when dealing with an honest difference of opinion.um, if i understand what you said there right, i guess i agree. ya cant agree to agree on something you dont agree on..... :scratch:

I've been very unhappy with the way in which Christians turn on each other over divisive issues, and especially with the consistent refusal to agree on mutually acceptable terminology before getting into "is not"/"is so" shouting matches.yeah.

should there even be any discussion in here? this is a christian only forum - i thought arguing FOR something, especially heatedly, that is considered sin by orthodox christians wasn't allowed? isnt that basically equivocal to "promoting" it? not so much by saying "do it", but by saying your are wrong to say "dont do it"? to be told that we shouldnt defend our position of what orthodox(ie. historical, biblical) christians have always considered sin? that we are wrong? i'm so tired can think no more. see ya tomorrow.

This is not directed at you specifically, Lynne; I'm just riffing off of things you said.sure that's fine, but thanks for the clarification on that - my flesh does get offended sometimes when it shouldnt, y'know? :help: down flesh! bad flesh!

Badfish

25th March 2004, 05:11 AM

I don't know about the congregation, but the bible not only frowns on women pastors and homosexuality, I cannot even fathom what God thinks as she is making this "victorious" speech with her husband/wife beside her. Im sorry, God love 'em but it gives me a real bad feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Notice how churches are slowly conforming to known blasphemies? It looks like end times prophesies are nearing, there can hardly be a more controversial leader in a church. I don't understand this at all. Complete disregard for church structure as described by the bible. IMO

seebs

25th March 2004, 05:12 AM

So obviously you don't agree with the decision? I know I don't.

I do not believe it is my place to judge, honestly. I have no basis on which to condemn churches that interpret Scripture differently than I do, nor on which to praise churches that agree with me. Seems to me the right thing to do would be to leave it to people in that church to seek what unity or clarity they can. For my part, I will pray for their successful resolution of these divisive issues, and urge everyone involved to focus more on charity towards fellow Christians, and less on drawing lines.

Let me share with you a story.

There is a man who led the worship team at my church before I started going there. He's kind of a church legand as far as talent goes yet he struggled with homosexuality. Recently, after years of being away, he returned and asked to be a member of the worship team again. A request that was granted. He did a wonderful job his first time back and I must say after meeting him that I've met few people as sincere. After praise and worship was over and my Pastor began speaking he rabbit trailed off topic and ended up speaking out aginst homosexuals. This man that I greatly respect, even look to as a father figure, began to speak about how homosexuals make him sick. He went into a fit, to which most of the congregation lept to their feet to appluad their his hatred, however I noticed the man that had just that morning come back, slip away from the service out of shame. He was hated by his own church, by the very people that claim agape love.

That's more than I can bear.

He speaks my mind on this issue. We say there is no salvation but through Jesus, then tell people they're not good enough to be allowed near Jesus, on whom we have some special monopoly through being more righteous than they are. We've brought back the ritual holiness code of the Pharisees, as though the problem were only the details of their rules, not the underlying hopelessness of any effort at attaining "righteousness" thruogh avoiding the Bad Actions and seeking the Good Actions. It's salvation through works, or, more precisely, lack-of-salvation through works.

I don't like it one bit.

I would rather see these people answer as they are called, to the best of their ability, the same as the rest of us. We all have our burdens to bear, and I think they're heavy enough that I would hate to think I'd failed to help someone with his.

In the end, I think the focus on this issue is all wrong; we're trying to get people out of the church entirely unless they accomplish something that very few people have ever accomplished before we even let them in the door. It's not an especially good witness.

seebs

25th March 2004, 05:20 AM

i will reread, i have been following basically since this thread started. but again, how would i recognise it when i saw it? i have no idea which church she belongs too.

An easy rule of thumb is to not attack any church. :)

should there even be any discussion in here? this is a christian only forum - i thought arguing FOR something, especially heatedly, that is considered sin by orthodox christians wasn't allowed? isnt that basically equivocal to "promoting" it? not so much by saying "do it", but by saying your are wrong to say "dont do it"? to be told that we shouldnt defend our position of what orthodox(ie. historical, biblical) christians have always considered sin? that we are wrong?

There's a number of direct and indirect considerations, here. One thing that I am concerned about is the lack of charity I see towards the members of churches that do not currently accept the orthodox position on this issue. It strikes me as especially inappropriate in P/R/E, considering the number of issues on which most of us hold decidedly unorthodox positions.

Orthodoxy is not a popularity contest. Something doesn't "become orthodox" once 30% of the site's members accept it. A lot of our positions are not orthodox. I take this as a serious concern, and one I wrestle with when trying to evaluate my positions on issues... And having decided that I will sometimes adopt unorthodox positions when I believe the orthodox one to be in error, I have no basis on which to condemn other positions solely because they're unorthodox.

ChiRho

25th March 2004, 08:01 AM

"I looked at the website. It's a testament of regret by a reformed bigot. It is most assuredly not "heretical" and certainly not anti-Christian."- La Bonita Zorilla

Most Venerable La Bonita Zorilla,

I am sure that you must define "heretical" for me, so that I may use the true definition. I, most humbly and plainly, define "heresy" as thoughts, words, or actions that are in complete dissent with Scripture. If heretical thoughts, words, or actions continue and are left to fester, the heresy will erode the faith of Christians. My sin does not cease, most assuredly! I sin in thought, word, and deed everyday. I sin in what I have done and what I have not done. I know this to be true. My lust are great, most assuredly! But, if I routinely subjected myself to the local strip club night after night, eventually my faith would erode to nothing and I would fall under condemnation. Justify sins within, is a common practice and eventually, if unchecked, will lead to death.

"8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives."

1 John 1:8-10 NASB

Eventually, justifying homosexuality (any sin) will cause separation with Christ. When we look at sinful acts as good, holy and pure, what need is there to be repentant for them? If we held on to our heretical beliefs, our faith would shift from that of the One True God, Christ, to a self-made god that agrees with our sinful behavior. So, were the words of artybloke "heretical" or "anti-Christian?"

Most assuredly!

May the Peace of the Lord be with you always!

In Christ,

ChiRho

Patristic

25th March 2004, 09:53 AM

Both were evil systems. Not exactly alike, granted, but why split hairs over evil practices?
Wrong, the American system of slavery which stated one was a slave on account of race, had no human rights and dignity, and was considered a piece of property to be sold, mistreated, or abused is wrong. The Roman system of slavery was completely different; People weren't owned as property, individuals were subjected to servitude because they were prisoners of war, debtors who could not repay their debts, or some who even offered to be slaves because they saw it as an opportunity of advantage. Most slaves were kept in servitude from a period of 5-10 years, and after that period the slaves master would release him and the servant would assume the status of a libertus. After that time a former servant would become a cliente of his former master and his former master would be his patron. It was advantageous for slaveowners to treat their servants well because when the mater eventually freed them they would become his supporters when he ran for public office.

Slaves in Roman life weren't considered property, and although abuses did take place the life of a slave in the Roman empire was completely different than that of a slave in colonial European or North American countries.

Besides, I think those arguing the Church supported slavery should rethink their argument. The NT Church and early Church tolerated slavery as a component of the social order just like they tolerated the pagan government of Rome. They didn't vociferously support either institution. The Early Fathers always preached that masters should treat their servants well and should not abuse them like others were accustomed to do. When Christianity became the dominant religion the Church did everything in it's power to eliminate the practice of slavery and Fathers like Basil and Chrysostom roundly condemned the practice. Furthermore, I could list writings of various Popes, Patriarchs and Bishops throughout the ages who always denounced slavery.

The opinions of the Fathers are few and far between on this issue and hardly unanimous, and this is in stark comparison to their frequent condemneation of homosexual activity and their view of it as sin in the eyes of God.

LynneClomina

25th March 2004, 01:57 PM

I do not believe it is my place to judge, honestly. I have no basis on which to condemn churches that interpret Scripture differently than I do, nor on which to praise churches that agree with me. Seems to me the right thing to do would be to leave it to people in that church to seek what unity or clarity they can. For my part, I will pray for their successful resolution of these divisive issues, and urge everyone involved to focus more on charity towards fellow Christians, and less on drawing lines.

Let me share with you a story.

He speaks my mind on this issue. We say there is no salvation but through Jesus, then tell people they're not good enough to be allowed near Jesus, on whom we have some special monopoly through being more righteous than they are. We've brought back the ritual holiness code of the Pharisees, as though the problem were only the details of their rules, not the underlying hopelessness of any effort at attaining "righteousness" thruogh avoiding the Bad Actions and seeking the Good Actions. It's salvation through works, or, more precisely, lack-of-salvation through works.

I don't like it one bit.

I would rather see these people answer as they are called, to the best of their ability, the same as the rest of us. We all have our burdens to bear, and I think they're heavy enough that I would hate to think I'd failed to help someone with his.

In the end, I think the focus on this issue is all wrong; we're trying to get people out of the church entirely unless they accomplish something that very few people have ever accomplished before we even let them in the door. It's not an especially good witness.

beautiful post, seebs. that is truly my heart. that story is amazing. the only time to remove somebody from the church is when they are promoting the sin and being willful about it. other than that?....love love love love love.

what i hate is being called a bigot all the time when i am not. i once lived a homosexual lifestyle for about 10 years, before i came to Christ. been there dont that. i have some knowledge of what it's like. i also know the call of God to leave that lifestyle.

someone who struggles with it is one thing (like in your story); but someone who thinks they are right to be in the sin and telling everyone that it's alright and they're bigots if they dont agree, especially those who were once in that lifestyle - they're just reformed bigots or fakes or what ever, is an entirely different matter. that's as big a failure to love others as it is for those ppl who attack them. and then when you are trying to be peaceable with both sides and they throw bombs at you? :help:

seebs

25th March 2004, 04:57 PM

Here's the thing, though... Even if someone's not struggling, if he's not convicted, I don't know for sure that we have grounds to kick them out. I agree that actively attacking people who disagree is a problem - but then, I think that applies just as much to the people on both sides.

My experience, so far, has been that no one who talks about "being in the lifestyle" is talking about anything remotely similar to what the gay people I know experience. Whatever they had, it was something different.

The underlying issue here may well be that "homosexuality" is too broad a term, encompassing several different kinds or sources of affectational variation, and that we're trying to treat people with one condition as though they had another.

Basically, the line I'd draw is that I agree that people shouldn't call other people who disagree with them "bigots" so casually. That is indeed divisive and inappropriate for fellowship. On the other hand, if someone is genuinely seeking God's will, but not getting the answers I expect, and I start calling him names... Then I'm the one being divisive, and making it right for the church to question the appropriateness of my continued presence.

The church discipline rules require a great deal of prayerful consideration when you get to an issue where there is genuine, honest, disagreement among members on a topic. A concern I have is that people on both sides tend to assume that "all honest, real Christians agree with my position", and make exclusive and divisive decisions as a result.

In cases where a sin has a victim - gossip, slavery, murder, rape and the like - I can easily see the grounds for excluding someone from fellowship unless they cease to harm the victim. In sins that have no victim, I see no grounds for excluding sincere seekers from fellowship, even if they have not come to the conclusion I or others wish them to come to. The church is a hospital for sinners; they're the people who need the ICU. If the only reason I have to doubt their sincerity is lack of agreement, that is, I believe, not enough to justify excluding them.

seebs

25th March 2004, 05:01 PM

Besides, I think those arguing the Church supported slavery should rethink their argument. The NT Church and early Church tolerated slavery as a component of the social order just like they tolerated the pagan government of Rome. They didn't vociferously support either institution.

But they sent people to recruit slaves from pagan countries to work for them.

The Early Fathers always preached that masters should treat their servants well and should not abuse them like others were accustomed to do. When Christianity became the dominant religion the Church did everything in it's power to eliminate the practice of slavery and Fathers like Basil and Chrysostom roundly condemned the practice. Furthermore, I could list writings of various Popes, Patriarchs and Bishops throughout the ages who always denounced slavery.

It's actually pretty hard to find these early on. There's a few questioning remarks, but there's also a great deal of support. The early decision was to not enslave Christians, but by implication this allowed and indeed encouraged the keeping of non-Christian slaves.

The opinions of the Fathers are few and far between on this issue and hardly unanimous, and this is in stark comparison to their frequent condemneation of homosexual activity and their view of it as sin in the eyes of God.

Except that it's not entirely clear how frequent it is, or whether they mean what we're talking about today, or something very different.

Keep in mind, this is Christianity, not Judaism. We aren't much for lists of Forbidden Verbs. We don't have a holiness code. In Christianity, intent and understanding are crucial to determining whether or not something is sinful. It's not the physical details of a sexual act that make it sin or not-sin; it's the relationship between the people participating.

LynneClomina

25th March 2004, 05:24 PM

In cases where a sin has a victim - gossip, slavery, murder, rape and the like - I can easily see the grounds for excluding someone from fellowship unless they cease to harm the victim.
see, i feel that promoting sexual sin, saying we're bigots, saying we're dumb, making it sound like the sin is better than staying on the side of those against the sin cuz they are all idiots, i think all that has a victim - anyone who is vulneralbe who reads it can have their mind polluted and be dragged into sin by the lust that has been triggered in them by all this talk. i see it as very much a potential to hurt someone in this way.

someone who is willing to keep their mouth shut about their errant beliefs (especially when it's in the rules - no promotion of what is viewed by orthodox christians allowed in christian only forums) is fine, let them be sanctified by being around those who are salt and light. but if they are disruptive and promoting sin and disrespecting the rules, that is NOT a "man of peace". that is disruptive.

and the same goes for anyone who is hateful or cruel or name calling or anyting like that. even those on "this" side of the debate, y'know what i mean? i believe i have called to task some ppl who were attacking homosexuals more than just the sin of homosexuality, becuase we ARE to love. ALL of us.

Patristic

25th March 2004, 05:38 PM

But they sent people to recruit slaves from pagan countries to work for them.
Actually, Christians sold themselves into servitude to provide freedom for individuals they cared about. This was a form of evangelism they utilized to gain converts.

It's actually pretty hard to find these early on. There's a few questioning remarks, but there's also a great deal of support. The early decision was to not enslave Christians, but by implication this allowed and indeed encouraged the keeping of non-Christian slaves.Hard to find. How about these for starters.

"If any Christians have male or female slaves or children, out of love towards them, they persuade them to become Christians. When they have done so, they call them brothers, without any distinction."

-Aristides

"Domestic servants, too, are to be treated like ourselves. For they are human beings as we are. God is the same to free and slave."

-Clement of Alexandria

"Servants when they have believed, should serve their fleshly masters the better. In the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians , it says, servants obey your masters with fear and trembling...Moreover, masters should be the more gentle. Also in the same place, it says: and you masters, do the same things to them, forbearing anger,"

-Cyprian

They tolerated the institution, but always preached that a master should treat his servants with dignity and respect. Besides the Roman form of slavery has more in common with indentured servitude than it does with American slavery. The early Church condemned the idea of ownership of slaves, and just because some American churches took Scriptures out of context to assert their correctness doesn't prove a thing.

Except that it's not entirely clear how frequent it is, or whether they mean what we're talking about today, or something very different.

Keep in mind, this is Christianity, not Judaism. We aren't much for lists of Forbidden Verbs. We don't have a holiness code. In Christianity, intent and understanding are crucial to determining whether or not something is sinful.
Actually, go read any Father's commentary on Romans and you will see clear condemnations of homosexual behavior. I'm not in the mood for listing quotes right now, but if I wanted to I could amass them very easily in my defense. Nobody says anything even remotely close to what you are saying such as, we can't be sure if this is wrong or not, it's not our place to judge, we can't be sure what Paul was talking about. Perhaps you don't like rules and regulations but the Christian faith has always delineated between sin and righteous conduct. If we take your logic to it's extreme then just about everything is unjudgeable.

La Bonita Zorilla

26th March 2004, 02:13 AM

its interesting that you see others as smug and meanspirited, when the harshest comments seem to be not from them....
I would tend to disagree, but I know I am not perfect. Like the bumpersticer says, "If you feel attacked by feminism, it's probably a counterattack" and that applies to other retrograde comments made against other progressive movements as well.

Charlotte Bronte was attacked for advocating social mobility-the advancement of those in the lower social classes to be specific-in her novel Jane Eyre. One negative reviewer described the novel as "...pre-eminently an anti-Christian composition. there is throughout it a murmuring against the comforts of the rich and against the privations of the poor, which, as far as each individual is concerned, is a murmuring against God's appointment-there is a proud and perpetual assertion of the rights of man, for which we find no authority either in God's word or in God's providence...the tone of mind and thought which has overthrown authority and violated every code human and divine abroad, and fostered Chartism [a liberal movement in Britain at the time-LBZ] and rebellion at home, is the same which has also written Jane Eyre. "

To this Bronte replied in a preface to the second edition: "Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion. To attack the first is not to assail the last. To pluck the mask from the face of the Pharisee is not to lift an impious hand to the crown of thorns."

There are obviously people of good motives on either side of this issue. I've attacked none on the other side of this one except to counter what they have said, the bulk of which has been denial of any spirit of Christian brotherhood and sisterhood to LGBT Christians. Concerning the case in point, Reverend Dammann was a target of a campaign to oust her from her pastorate not for anything she did whatsoever, but because of who she is. Indeed she showed major courage in informing her Bishop of her relationship. At the same time there are queer pastors in the closet and so many other layers of irony and complexity to this situation. Smug, hateful comments about Rev. Dammann's "husband" only reveal the hardened hearts of those who utter them.

La Bonita Zorilla

26th March 2004, 02:30 AM

i have no idea which church she belongs
If one is interested in that, it can be included in one's profile. There are even icons available for using to indicate it.

This thread concerns Rev. Karen Dammann of the United Methodist church, my church.

should there even be any discussion in here? this is a christian only forum - i thought arguing FOR something, especially heatedly, that is considered sin by orthodox christians wasn't allowed? isnt that basically equivocal to "promoting" it? not so much by saying "do it", but by saying your are wrong to say "dont do it"? to be told that we shouldnt defend our position of what orthodox(ie. historical, biblical) christians have always considered sin? that we are wrong?
Those taking conservative positions on various issues often eventually support their position by some form of "but it's always been this way" but that's not always so. It would be very hard to prove that historistocally and anthropologically. What we perceive as "traditional marriage" in its present form in Western culture (U.S., Canada, Western Europe and far-flung colonized regions like Australia) hardly existed before 150 years ago. What exists in our culture now as loving, affirming same gender relationships existed much less than that. The world is constantly reinventing itself. Any quest for orthodoxy is doomed to fail like any other demand for political correctness. To ask for respect for those of different orientation is not in any form to "promote" "sin". Regarding the issue at hand that would be impossible to do. One could just as easily promote right-handedness and natural small noses.

La Bonita Zorilla

26th March 2004, 02:59 AM

I don't know about the congregation, but the bible not only frowns on women pastors and homosexuality
It does not surprise me those against female pastors take such a position on this issue as well.

On the issue of female pastors, to be against that is to be against the orthodoxy of the United Methodist Church.

As often happens Methodism stands in the forefront for social justice on more than one issue at a time.

La Bonita Zorilla

26th March 2004, 03:23 AM

I am sure that you must define "heretical" for me, so that I may use the true definition.
The problem is, any witch hunt for "heresy" is generally nothing more than highhanded attempts to stifle dissent.

In the play Inherit the Wind based on the Scopes Monkey Trial, the defense attorney called the prosecutor as a witness as an expert on the Bible. In the testimony elicited, the prosecutor intimated that he believed God talked to him. "But what if a lesser man, a Cates [name in the play for the Scopes character] believes God whispers to him? Who is to say he doesn't? Or shall we add a Testament of Brady [the prosecutor] between Leviticus and Numbers?"

My Bible does not have a Testament of ChiRho anywhere in it. This is not to say God does not speak to you. He speaks to me. Your Testament is not established as True and Correct, nor is mine established as Untrue and Incorrect. In the end, all we have is own own prayerful considerations, and should they conflict, that's okay.

if I routinely subjected myself to the local strip club night after night, eventually my faith would erode to nothing and I would fall under condemnation.
You know yorself better than I do. However, if you are comparing that to others' different capacity to love from your own, you are making an offensive and off-base comparison.

So, were the words of artybloke "heretical" or "anti-Christian?"
Most assuredly not.

ChiRho

26th March 2004, 09:18 AM

LBZ,

So all truth is relative and everything is true and so nothing is true... Truth cannot be objective and it goes to a black hole and dies! Nonsense! If you argue from the position that Scripture is not innerrant and plainly true, then neither you nor I could never be sure of our salvation. The deficiency has to be with us, not the Word. Holding Scripture to be the absolute Authority in judging Truth, please show me with plain reason and Scripture how your position could be correct. I beg you.

How does God speak to you, just curious?

ChiRho

La Bonita Zorilla

27th March 2004, 02:04 AM

So all truth is relative and everything is true and so nothing is true... Truth cannot be objective and it goes to a black hole and dies! Nonsense! If you argue from the position that Scripture is not innerrant and plainly true, then neither you nor I could never be sure of our salvation. No, our surety of salvation is based on faith.

please show me with plain reason and Scripture how your position could be correct. I beg you.Most Christians are not fundamentalists. For a view of the faith of most Mainline Protestants, see Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally by Marcus Borg. Borg discusses the prespective of viewing the Bible as historical and metaphorical but not literal.

How does God speak to you, just curious?I imagine it's pretty much the same for everyone; through prayer and meditation and in everyday events. Edie Brickell sang that "philosophy is words on cereal boxes; religion is a smile on a dog."

DaleC76

27th March 2004, 03:13 AM

Most Christians are not fundamentalists. For a view of the faith of most Mainline Protestants, see Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally by Marcus Borg. Borg discusses the prespective of viewing the Bible as historical and metaphorical but not literal.

Maybe not fundamentalist, but the vast majority of Christians still hold a decidedly conservative view of the bible. I also wonder what you mean by "Mainline Protestants."

Rechtgläubig

27th March 2004, 03:22 AM

ChiRho: How does God speak to you, just curious?
LBZ: I imagine it's pretty much the same for everyone; through prayer and meditation and in everyday events. Edie Brickell sang that "philosophy is words on cereal boxes; religion is a smile on a dog."I think this is the heart of it, ChiRho. We wouldn't be discussing this topic if people didn't replace The Word with Schwärmerei.

La Bonita Zorilla

27th March 2004, 03:30 AM

Maybe not fundamentalist, but the vast majority of Christians still hold a decidedly conservative view of the bible.
Somewhat conservative perhaps, but not "decidedly". And open to change.

I also wonder what you mean by "Mainline Protestants."
It's a term for the older more liberal Protestant denominations: Episcopals, Methodists, Lutherans, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, United Church of Christ, etc. It comes from the "Mainline Suburbs" of Philadelphia-where in previous generations most people got in and out of the city by train (the "main line") and most of them were members of these churches. As such it also represents the higher incomes and educational levels of these folks compared to conservative fundamentalists/evangelicals. The term's been in use for at least 100 years.

Interestingly, our last two Presidents, Bush II and Clinton are both Mainliners, as were almost all of them, Kennedy (Catholic) and Carter (Baptist) excepted. Both Clinton and Bush IIbecame de facto Methodists by marriage to Methodists, though Bush came from the more High Church mainline denomination of Episcopals (to which his parents belong), and Clinton from the Southern Baptists. President Garfield once considered heeding the call to the ministry in the Disciples of Christ, though he went into politics instead.

ChiRho

29th March 2004, 10:59 AM

La Bonita Zorilla,

I have prepared a short response to you reply:

"No, our surety of salvation is based on faith."

Faith in what? Whatever we choose? Should we cast colored marbles and vote to decide what is true and what isn't in Scripture? I think all truth should be determined strictly by a democratic system. That would be fair. See any problem yet?

Most Christians are not fundamentalists. For a view of the faith of most Mainline Protestants, see Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally by Marcus Borg. Borg discusses the prespective of viewing the Bible as historical and metaphorical but not literal.

This is total garbage! Your premises are so flawed, and false. Marcus Borg? Wow! A deist (if that) claiming Christianity! This doesnt even answer my question.

I imagine it's pretty much the same for everyone; through prayer and meditation and in everyday events. Edie Brickell sang that "philosophy is words on cereal boxes; religion is a smile on a dog."

Recht is correct. You are the one Kurt Cobain croons about in "In Bloom."

"He’s the one
He likes all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his gun
But he don’t know what it means
Don’t know what it means..."

So if I told you God was potato salad, and truely believed it, it would be true? Nonsense. God is not known by natural revelation or emotional experiences (not by a seemingly divine experience in a tree stand, etc.). We cannot know Truth outside of the Crucified Christ. It is through Him do we come to know who God is. If one attributes some feeling inside to God, how can one be sure? How does one know it is from God and not Satan or a good caffeine buzz? I am a sinner, no greater than anyone (including homosexuals). This is undeniable, concrete truth. How do I know this? Holy Scripture. The Law (strict sense) acts as a mirror to reflect my rebellion against God. A God-hater, if you will. But even this sinful reflection is distorted in my sinful eyes and causes me to omit sin from memory or not even to recognize all that I have done or failed to do, according to the Law. So, I must confess unto Thee "all my sins and iniquities with which I have ever offended Thee" and admit "I justly deserve temperal and eternal punishment." By the Words of my Christ, I am pardoned. The pure Promises of the Gospel save me and grant to me Peace.
This is true according to Thy Word.

Homosexuality is indeed sinful, regardless how one views it, but no greater sin than any other.

"Whereof one can speak, thereof one must not be silent"

John Warwick Montgomery

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Wilfred of Ivanhoe

29th March 2004, 04:39 PM

Well, here's a question for you: Did Jesus approve of adultery, or of serial marriage? Did He condemn the woman taken in adultery or the woman at the well? And who did He condemn for their actions?

Jesus had compassion upon the woman taken in adultery. He condemned the scribes, pharasees and hypocrites. That much is correct. However, remember what Jesus said to the woman taken in adultery, go and sin no more. Jesus showed compassion, but he also dealt with sin.

Wilfred of Ivanhoe

29th March 2004, 05:25 PM

La Bonita,

You and I have butted heads about this issue before. I have debated in a kindly manner and have always tried to site scripture to back up what I say.

Having read this thread, I must note that your last few posts have been the first time I've ever seen you post something in a level headed manner. I still do not agree with you, but for the first time you've actually made an attempt to back up what you are saying in a manner which is different from the usual, "You're a biggot" routine.

Leaving the gender issue aside, how can we elect elders who are in any type of open sin? Does not 1 Timothy 3 give us guidelines in order to elect elders? These should be people who are strong in the Word, not people who are openly sinning. All people sin daily, but the idea is that our elders and pastors should be strong, mature Christians, not those who are rebelling against God's Word.

Nobody will be able to convince me that I should read Romans 1 any different than how I have always read it, the same goes for Leviticus 17. La Bonita, from your views and your posts, I must come to the conclusion that you do not believe the Bible to be your ultimate source of truth. I know this sounds harsh, but I believe that you have set yourself up as the ultimate source of truth in your life. If you looked upon the Bible as your final guide, you would not take a stand for sin. For 2,000 years, God fearing men have interpreted these passages in their literal manner. It is only in these last times that man has set himself above the Bible and has gone about to distort God's Word to justify themselves in their lifestyle.

I've noticed that you adhere to the belief that God is love. You believe that homosexual couples love each other. Therefore, since God is love, and homosexual couples have love, the two are in perfect harmony. I'm sorry, but I don't think God was sitting on his throne with a hanky sobbing as all those gay couples were wed in San Francisco saying," Its about time those fundamentalists who take my Word literally figured out that its all about love." I don't pretend to know what goes on in the mind of God, but I do have his Word, his Word teaches that a man lying with a man is an abomination.

Yitzchak

29th March 2004, 05:49 PM

1 Corinthians 5:1-6
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named* among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. F11 6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
One observation here. Mourning is what is called for over sin in the body. I can only hope and pray that The United Methodists who are distressed by this ruling will commit themselves to prayer and fasting for real revival within the methodist church and in the Church.

Yitzchak

29th March 2004, 05:53 PM

They can't.

However, not everyone agrees about which things are the "real" immoralities, and which are cultural contexts in which Paul was writing, and so on, and so forth. The joy of being Protestant is that we can disagree about this stuff, and we have no interpretive authority to fall back on. If you want a Magisterium, you know where to get it; I hear they have regular classes for those interested. If you want to be able to say "sometimes I don't accept the interpretive authority of others", though, you have immediately lost the right to demand that others accept the same interpretations you do.

It's a blessing or a curse, depending on what we decide to make of it.
My view on this is that we do have an authority to appeal to. That authority is God himself. If we would fast and pray and seek the Lord with all our hearts, then we could leave it in his hands and not feel the need to correct it ourselves. The church longs for a man or woman who can get ahold of God and have a real and living word for the church.