Sorry for the delay, particularly since it looks like I'll be spending a fair amount of time here.
Joel Send a noteboard - 14/05/2011 12:31:33 AM
Most simply, they said that the burden of proof for one specific "sin" being a dis-qualifier for ministry laid on those in favor of exclusion, and the biblical proof simply wasn't there. Personally, I do not think that homosexual sex is any more sinful than any type of sex... look at the sexual sins that have been perpetrated by some heterosexuals, and yet, we don't exclude heterosexuals from ministry.
This was not in a flash in the pan, shot in the dark decision. It has been on the floors of debate for decades, with papers being written and arguments made by both sides. There are reams and reams of material.
This was not in a flash in the pan, shot in the dark decision. It has been on the floors of debate for decades, with papers being written and arguments made by both sides. There are reams and reams of material.
Any type of unrepentant ongoing sin ought to be a disqualifier to the priesthood, even if it's just lying to your wife about whether her favorite dress makes her look fat. Heterosexuals guilty of sexual sins have frequently been EJECTED from the priesthood, often even after public confession and repentance, but name two people known to actively engage in unrepentant sin yet nontheless accepted as priests. You're as welcome to your "personal" beliefs as anyone else, of course, but there is MILLENNIA of evidence that the myriad scriptural prohibitions of homosexuality should be taken literally, and it's hard for me to believe that the position the Holy Spirit consistently dictated up until about the time I was born was suddenly altered by the sexual revolution. God didn't change, society did, and while I don't insist on reading every part of the bible literally, in this case there's every reason to think we should against precious few suggesting otherwise. Reams and reams (maybe not the best choice of terms... ) of politically conscious (and often self serving) arguments against centuries of other arguments and Church practice don't really carry much weight with me, not when there are so many scriptural prohibitions and no such documentation to the contrary.
Ultimately what it boils down to is that all some change is devolution rather than evolution. The Church could be more inclusive if it made faith in God optional, too, but would it still be the Church if it did, or secular humanism with a cross over the door?
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Presbyterian Church (USA) passes Amendment 10-A.
11/05/2011 05:39:29 PM
- 1335 Views
What's the language? Did they at least TRY to give a doctrinal justification?
12/05/2011 02:10:46 AM
- 835 Views
Thank you for that rousing argument against married priests.
12/05/2011 03:36:51 AM
- 823 Views
Why ARE you letting women into the priesthood?
12/05/2011 04:16:50 AM
- 771 Views
Because Episcopalians don't listen to the Bible much.
12/05/2011 05:47:03 AM
- 713 Views
That's just fine as far as I'm concerned
12/05/2011 02:23:44 PM
- 711 Views
Yes, I suppose a church could go that route.
14/05/2011 07:38:02 AM
- 681 Views
I'm not attempting to impose a dichotomy on the Bible.
14/05/2011 03:25:30 PM
- 739 Views
I don't even know what following the Bible in its entirety means.
14/05/2011 09:09:10 PM
- 914 Views
As an exercise, I tried to think of how I would justify allowing homosexuals as clergy.
14/05/2011 04:19:43 PM
- 718 Views
Thanks (I'm actually OK with women priests though).
12/05/2011 07:09:11 AM
- 792 Views
There's ample precedent for female religious leaders, even within the bible.
12/05/2011 06:51:05 AM
- 822 Views
Since when is Moses' society the be-all end all?
12/05/2011 07:12:41 PM
- 702 Views
Since never, which is why I referenced five other eras you completely ignored.
14/05/2011 01:11:30 AM
- 803 Views
They did so, via negativa.
12/05/2011 04:22:17 PM
- 862 Views
Sorry for the delay, particularly since it looks like I'll be spending a fair amount of time here.
14/05/2011 12:31:33 AM
- 660 Views
Your church has a constitution?!
12/05/2011 03:36:41 AM
- 723 Views
My Church has a congress! *NM*
12/05/2011 03:37:52 AM
- 366 Views
Haha no way! *NM*
12/05/2011 03:46:32 AM
- 319 Views
Well, we have one group of laity and one of bishops, so it is only mildy utter chaos. *NM*
12/05/2011 05:51:09 AM
- 344 Views
I'm happy to hear this, personally. I also wonder how you reconcile this with the Bible.
12/05/2011 04:11:31 AM
- 907 Views
Every direct reference to homosexuality in the Bible is a reference to rape.
12/05/2011 04:12:43 PM
- 738 Views
Every single word that you wrote in your response is complete bullshit.
12/05/2011 05:50:07 PM
- 850 Views
Knock off your eisegesis, try some exegesis
12/05/2011 07:02:45 PM
- 790 Views
I'm trying to figure out just what your "gifts" are, because I don't see any.
12/05/2011 07:30:39 PM
- 761 Views
There are cases in which hypocrisy is far better than the alternatives.
12/05/2011 10:04:32 PM
- 834 Views
Hypocrisy is better than, say, setting gays on fire, yes.
12/05/2011 10:10:40 PM
- 795 Views
My statement is that, from a pragmatic point of view, hypocrisy shouldn't be discouraged too much.
13/05/2011 10:05:39 PM
- 801 Views
Oh, is that how we're playing this, then?
13/05/2011 06:29:31 PM
- 757 Views
I'm not playing. I'm pointing out some glaring errors on your part.
13/05/2011 07:25:08 PM
- 678 Views
The Bible says what it says. The problem... people like to tell us just what else it's saying.
13/05/2011 05:31:29 PM
- 700 Views
You don't reconcile... you pick the parts you like and adjust the rest to suit you.
13/05/2011 09:33:54 PM
- 661 Views
Another example...
12/05/2011 09:19:52 AM
- 655 Views
If you claim to follow the entire Bible, then you are completely correct.
12/05/2011 06:04:38 PM
- 631 Views
On the contrary, this move will take some butts out of the seats.
12/05/2011 07:16:22 PM
- 692 Views
We both know that isn't the case
12/05/2011 07:55:41 PM
- 799 Views
Cool cool. I have a question on a semi-related note, about Protestant Gospels
12/05/2011 05:33:49 PM
- 761 Views
No Protestant denomination has added so much as a word to the Bible
12/05/2011 05:58:16 PM
- 638 Views
So, everyone hates Judith, then?
12/05/2011 06:40:11 PM
- 700 Views
The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches accept Judith as part of Scripture.
12/05/2011 07:51:27 PM
- 675 Views
Does the Eastern Orthodox Church also segregate deuterocanonical works like Roman Catholicism does?
14/05/2011 02:19:03 AM
- 981 Views
The Eastern Church bases everything on the Septuagint.
14/05/2011 02:34:41 AM
- 726 Views
That sounds appealing, and makes sense.
14/05/2011 02:44:56 AM
- 748 Views
Oh, I just enjoy calling Protestants "heretics" to remind them not everyone agrees with them.
14/05/2011 03:25:42 AM
- 685 Views
Re: Cool cool. I have a question on a semi-related note, about Protestant Gospels
12/05/2011 08:52:48 PM
- 709 Views
The NIV is terrible. The NASB has the best translation I have found (of the NT, at least).
12/05/2011 10:43:58 PM
- 846 Views
I find this really weird, to be honest
13/05/2011 05:48:28 AM
- 718 Views
Well, it wasn't just Athanasius. But yes, we are lucky in that respect. *NM*
13/05/2011 06:32:48 AM
- 301 Views
Athanasius's list reflected the victory of Pauline Christianity
13/05/2011 02:52:53 PM
- 676 Views
There's a school of thought that says that's a strong vindication of Athanasius.
14/05/2011 02:37:49 AM
- 617 Views