Posted on 06/26/2006 12:26:36 PM PDT by sionnsar
>No, a homosexual is defined by his or her preferences <
What you describe as tendancies or preferences are what God views as sinful lust.A Homosexual,a adulterer and a fornicator all have sinful lust.A "celibate homosexual" is defining himself as an unrepentant sinner and in effect calling God a liar by implying he has a "preference " for which he is not reponsible.
A man that can not acknowledge his sin and ask God for forgiveness is not qualified to be a Elder or Pastor.
Thanks! Wow -- almost the polar opposite of my Province's Canons, which quite explicitly prohibit the Bishop, Diocese or Province from ownership of a parish's property, except for the amount of a loan to the parish. But then, one might guess that our Canon was written after, and i response to, the Dennis Canon...
No, you didn't say congregations. But - I think your message is very clear. Wrong, but clear.
Well, Bishop Stanton has said he will not attempt to take the Christ Church's possession, building, funds, etc.
As he put it, they paid for it.
He is sympathetic with their position. That's why I'm wondering...
We had two gay priests; they were both in the closet (sort of) and excellent, especially the first one. Then we had a nice man who stayed too long and I loved him but he was lacking as a rector. Then we had an interim priest for a year who was female and she was excellent.
Then the vestry elected our current woman priest and I was disappointed, but she has turned out to be great.
As for those who equate being a woman with being a homosexual, I cannot even dignify such a ludicrous stance with a reply.
>As for those who equate being a woman with being a homosexual, I cannot even dignify such a ludicrous stance with a reply.<
Then you need to read your Bible.Neither is qualified to be a pastor.Your argument is with God not me.
>No, you didn't say congregations<
My origional statement:
How are you and your church different from the ones with homosexual clergy?
You appear to have a reading comprehension problem as well as a problem with the authority of scripture.
Maybe you can explain why it is ok to appoint as pastor anyone who does not meet God's specification's and how God will not see both acts as a sin by the church.
You are as much a reason for the split in the Church as the liberals are.
I don't argue with God. And it would be stupid to argue with you. That's why I didn't.
You're quite right. The Denis Canon was pushed through the first Gen. Convention following the big split in 1979 (due to the BCP re-write & women's ord.). Whole parishes left ECUSA (with their churches & wallets) & caused the revisionists to realize that they couldn't continue to pursue their progressive agenda into the future without the risk of further lossses of membership, money, & assets. Some "clever Dick" (presumably named "Denis") correctly judged the situation & this Canon was crafted as a means to extort compliance with future "innovations" by holding church properties & assets hostage. The underlying message to the Denis Canon is, "Leave if you want to, but leave everything you or your parents or your grandparents worked so hard to build." Something akin to having a black sheep relative come along to throw you out of the family home with just the shirt on your back.
This extortive Canon has worked very well for the past two decades & is, in fact, the only thing that has kept ECUSA from utter dissolution immediately following the consecration of Vicky Gene. It's my opinion that this consecration would not have even take place had the Denis Canon not existed as ECUSA's insurance policy.
There is however, a possible loophole, but it has not been brought to the test in the courts. It has been suggested that this Canon was not properly adopted over the course of TWO General Conventions. If this could be proven in court, a Judge would have to rule that it created an invalid & unenforceable contract. Personally, I don't understand why dissenting parishes & dioceses haven't (or cannot) bring some sort of a Class Action lawsuit in the federal court over this Canon. To my mind, it makes more sense than battling this out in the individual state courts where there are widely varying definitions of what constitutes a valid contract. Perhaps there is good reason why a Class Action suit is not possible, but I've never seen this option even discussed or offered as a possibility.
If this Canon could be invalidated, this whole situation with ECUSA would resolve itself post haste.
>You are as much a reason for the split in the Church as the liberals are.<
My church has not split.We blunted the liberals 10 years ago.We continue to grow because we honor God's word and do not ordain unqualified people because it makes us feel more inclusive.
I am sorry if being confronted with the truth of God's word makes you uncomfortable.
"I am sorry if being confronted with the truth of God's word makes you uncomfortable."
Yeah, right.
Just curious - are you Anglican?
No, Calvinist.
But I can recite the Lord's Prayer in either Anglican or Presbyterian form.
Well, thanks for trying to straighten all of us Episcopalian/Anglicans out.
It's sort of like me going to a Catholic or Baptist or Greek Orthodox discussion and telling them what their theology ought to be and exactly where they're going wrong. And, I'm sure they would appreciate it just as much as I do yours.
May God bless the both of us with wisdom and discernment.
Sorry, Suzy. I'll go back and read my posts and see if I can discern any attempts to straighten people out.
I don't remember any.
I've been on these threads since before sionnsar took over the ping list. How long have you been participating?
My primary interests are the property issues - I index those stories as they are posted, and usually contribute to those discussions as needed. What have you done to help those trying to make difficult decisions for themselves or their congregations?
I don't post much anymore on the regular Episcopal threads, as the regulars are quite familiar with my positions, (usually an attack on the inaction of the 'conservative' bishops) and there is no need to repeat myself.
I quite agree.
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.