Posted on 06/18/2006 2:25:46 PM PDT by Saint Reagan
your analysis is spot on IMHO.
I have a lot of contempt for politics and politicians. I have even more contempt for church politics and church politicians.
No, he is not. And their child is in our armed forces; surely you can make fun of that, too. :)
"Still, there are many Anglican leaders who believe women should not even be priests. "
Tough. I'll bet they're out to lunch, commiserating with the Anglican leaders who are still living in caves and think women should speak only when spoken to.
I, as a woman, am NOT offended. I agree with you.
Churches seem to be full of people that have very little time for the Bible.
Disorder breeds disorder -disorder is as disorder does. One can not be a little bit pregnant nor a little bit errant...
Yes, of course. Because being a woman is just an amoral choice afterall. ; )
Ah the irony! If it wasn't for the power and leadership of Elizabeth I, the anglican church wouldn't even exist. So much for men; the moment Charles I came to power, the Church was overrun by puritans (who had previously been too terrified of Elizabeth to bat an eyelid towards her).
It appears modern conservative episcopalians are a little rusty on their english history.
It took Bishop Schori just 12 years to go from ordination to Presiding Bishop? There must be a war on to get a promotion like that.
And just how many Episcopalians are there in the Diocese of Nevada?
OR they are not modern conservative episcopalians with need of prefaced titles or need of a history lesson documenting the errant path... Some as myself are simply Catholics commenting from a Catholic perspective...
I just saw this "leader" interviewed on CNN...
But they still are so intolerant they only allow Episcopalians to be be bishops. When will the intolerance? Only when they elect the first nonEpiscopalian bishop will the Episcopalian Church be free.
Ummm...?
LOL, you honestly believe that nonsense? Female pastors/leaders have nothing to do with homosexuality. I have a woman pastor right now in our church. Nothing wrong with her and she can outpreach and lead better than some male pastors I've had at other churches. And coming from a deep Southern Baptist background I never would have believed it. But I wouldn't trade her leading our congregation for almost anything.
YUP! I know it...
Actually your statement is flawed in that it is moral relatively premised. What I believe is not the measure. I KNOW that everything "bad" is "bad" and that includes homosexual activity... It is objectively obvious that birds of a feather congregate together...
Feel free to declare your position(s) on issues -attempting to diparage me personally will accomplish nothing... IF you would like to know EVERYTHING I believe unapologetically then study this site: The Holy See
Well by that standard, and women leaders in church are part of this 'birds of a feather', perhaps we shouldn't even let women in church? One of them may get uppity and think they have a better idea of spreading the Gospel of Christ than a man.
IF you would like to know EVERYTHING I believe unapologetically then study this site: The Holy See
Well as the Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, etc. aren't part of the Catholic Church (thank God), we'll just chalk this up to nonsensical theological differences that have nothing to do with the general purpose of churches than? That purpose being to spread the Gospel of Christ and preach repentance.
Yes it was and yes it continues to be as you ignore what I just posted and continue to mischaracterize my position which I provided for you after the initial assault.
Notice I bolded homosexual activity -there is difference in culpability and choice between homosexuality the disorder and homosexual activity itself...
As well I stated that what I believe is not the measure -everything "bad" is "bad" and that includes homosexual activity... In essence something is not "bad" because of homosexuality or just because something is "bad" does not mean it is "connected to homosexuality".
When I stated that it is objectively obvious that birds of a feather congregate together... I meant that all bad things tend to congregate -one bad thing foreshadows others... You know, judge the vine by the fruit...
In any case, since you're Catholic, you're not affected by the decisions of the Episcopal church.
Actually I am impacted as a member of the society that this "leader" wishes to homosexualize...
Finally, as I stated and will reitterate, feel free to declare your position(s) on issues and discuss them -attempting to diparage or discuss me personally accomplishes nothing towards any understanding of my position(s) or any understanding of your position(s) WHICH on this I have yet to see posted here...
UNLESS your position is simply one of opposition to me personally you have thus far accomplished nothing...
How about dealing with the reality that this "leader" represents rather than anecdote or straw man...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.