on the heals of this perversion, can Bestiality and ChildMolestation be far behind on their list of sacraments in the NewChurch???
Posted on 06/22/2006 2:42:57 AM PDT by beaversmom
What do I have to do to join the American Episcopal Church? It sounds great now that it has a woman, the Bishop of Nevada, the Rt Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori, in charge and an openly gay bishop in Gene Robinson. That, for me, encapsulates all the best Christian virtues of tolerance, diversity and acceptance.
A woman at the head of a Church! Who would have thought it? All we need now is a female Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Oh, and a President too, but that may not take too long either.
I may cheer, yet all the talk of schism in the Anglican Communion rests on the premise that what the Americans have been doing is unacceptable. In fact, there are plenty of us who think it is wholly admirable. It’s just that we tend to be less vocal and less harsh in our language than the conservatives.
Here is the conservative Bishop of Pittsburgh, for instance, who said this week: “For the Anglican Communion worldwide, this election reveals the continuing insensitivity and disregard of the Episcopal Church for the present dynamics of our global fellowship.”
The idea that electing a woman is provocative is highly insulting to those of us with XX chromosomes. How would men feel if we refused to accept their authority, if we begged the Archbishop of Canterbury to be our leader instead because she (yes, doesn’t that sound odd?) didn’t have a beard?
You have only to look at it that way round to see how insensitive, how deeply unChristian, such views sound.
And, yes, I know it’s not exactly the same for gays, as there is some scripture in the Old Testament (though not in Christ’s teachings) that forbids homosexuality. Yet there is some pretty rum stuff in the Old Testament, Leviticus in particular.
Are women still to be deemed “unclean”, “impure” and untouchable for seven days in every month? Are priests with a physical disability to be banned? After all, God instructed Moses to tell Aaron: “No man among your descendants for all time who has any physical defect is to come and present the food of his God. No man with a defect is to come, whether a blind man, a lame man, a man stunted or overgrown, a man deformed in foot or hand, or with misshapen brows or a film over his eye or a discharge from it, a man who has a scab or eruption or has had a testicle ruptured.”
I bet there is a bishop or two in the Anglican Communion with misshapen brows or filmy eyes.
Leviticus also prohibits tattoos, beards with the edges shaved, and garments woven with two kinds of yarn. That puts paid to polycotton vestments then. We should not eat meat that has any blood in it, or any meat from camels, rock-badgers, hares or pigs. Shellfish are out too, but locusts are fine.
It is all very well for conservatives to say that we liberals cannot pick and choose what teachings we follow from the Bible. But they do the same. How many of them abjure prawn cocktails? Do they refuse to take out a mortgage or put money on deposit because of the injunction against usury? Do they wear no clothes with added Lycra?
Many thousands of years since Leviticus was written, we live our lives very differently. We are no longer nomadic tribesmen, herding our sheep, goats and camels. What should endure from the Bible are the eternal messages, those that can apply to all societies at all times.
We no longer make burnt offerings of oxen to the Lord. But we can all still try to love our neighbours as ourselves. And that fundamental stricture should apply whether our neighbour is male or female, gay or straight — even if he has misshapen eyebrows.
AMEN!
Something these people have forgotten about the fundamental basis of Christianity ....
Sending the Christ figure to live among mankind and spread His message .... would not have been necessary had God been eternally tolerant and accepting of any and all choices we made
Don't laugh, but one of the old Democrat ladies in a Methodist Church I used to attend became offended and walked out when, in a meeting with the pastor the day after 9/11 to plan a prayer service, I suggested we pray for the world to clearly understand what Jesus came here to say. She said it would offend her Jewish friends.
This 9/11 prayer service was to be held in our church, mind you, and the synagogue around the corner was having their own service.
I've recently begun a project of writing out the New Testament in my own handwriting. I started at Lent, and now I'm almost through Acts. My close reading, proofreading and checking against other translations reveals to me that repentance is one of the most-emphasized aspects of conversion. It is even called "the baptism of repentance" with reference to John.
I'm not an expert on the Bible, but I would be interested if you could point out where it says this in the New Testament. I know there is a lot of stuff in there about checking out the beam in your own eye first, etc.
I wonder how this would apply to those churches attended by members of the Mafia.
So, if homosexuals were always there, were open about it so people knew, were members of the church and no one confronted them about it, then the church leadership as a whole sinned.
I don't think that gay people used to be so open about their inclination. It just didn't take a rocket scientist for people who knew them to figure it out. I actually have no idea how the people I discussed acted on their particular inclination. If some people knew they were probably gay, but knew nothing about their particular relationships, what do you think should have been done?
It's obvious that gay people didn't just enter the church, in particular the Catholic Church, in recent times.
Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
The Word of the Lord.
9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."*
*Paul is citing Deuteronomy 17:7
Very appropriate quote from Mark. The Biblical text doesn't only admonish against the sin of homosexuality.
It specifies and elevates the union of a man and a woman as ordained by God.
Matt 18:15-17 "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."
1 Cor 5:7-11 "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
2 Thess 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
2 Thess 3:14 "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed."
1 Tim 5:20 "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."
There are more, but you get the idea.
I wonder how this would apply to those churches attended by members of the Mafia.
Obviously, they should be biblically disciplined.
If some people knew they were probably gay, but knew nothing about their particular relationships, what do you think should have been done?
The church isn't called to act on what they think might be going on, but what they know is going on. If they think they were 'probably' gay but didn't know, then no discipline would occur.
It's obvious that gay people didn't just enter the church, in particular the Catholic Church, in recent times.
Of course not. But any church that allows open sin and does not take disciplinary action is sinning itself.
Nothing like being prejudiced.
Homosexuality is just an extreme form of libertine sex. Most homosexuals are bisexuals and onanists, which means that at heart they are only interested in self-pleasure.
For this woman the totality of Christianity is, "love one another".
She doesn't realize that when asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus replied, "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment. "
If you accept this commandment then you listen to what G*D has to say, whether in the old testament or the new testament. The new supercedes the old for a Christian but you still listen to both.
If there is not something in the new that totally contradicts the old then there is a good chance that the old still holds true.
What about the virtues of obedience and holiness?
It's how to "bump" the thread with the fewest number of characters (that I know of, anyway). Wanted to save to read later and this is the easiest way to have it in my "ping" list.
BTW, USAFA_84, here.
I don't think it's so much because she's a woman, though that's important. The fact that she's not a BELIEVER is more disconcerting, I would think. This is, after all, the Bishop who wants folks to pray to Our Mother, Jesus. I mean, hasn't she even READ the Scriptures?
on the heals of this perversion, can Bestiality and ChildMolestation be far behind on their list of sacraments in the NewChurch???
I keep telling folks--the Reformation traditionally taught the Theology of the Cross(Christ and Him crucified.) Episcopalians now teach the Theology of Whatever(Vicki and his whatsisname.)
Ah, but it does say "in Christ there is neither male nor female"...
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.