Posted on 10/26/2011 9:26:04 AM PDT by Cronos
Before returning to New England for the second time, I served two African American Presbyterian Churches. And during that time I never thought, two decades ago, that the entire church body would change its position on LGBTQ worshippers.
But a historic yet bittersweet moment happened on October 8th in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
And the moment didn’t happened without a long and arduous struggle against the church’s ecclesiastical heterosexism.
After decades of open struggle with the church’s recalcitrant attitude and discrimination against its lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) worshippers who wanted to serve as pastors, elders or deacons, the Presbyterian Church (USA), known as the more liberal and tolerant branch of the denomination, finally conducted its first openly gay ordination.
...As a church that is borne out of a liberal Protestant Christian tradition, the Presbyterian Church’s problem with its LGBTQ worshippers is a history of how it not only broke the backs and souls of the many who wanted to serve, but also how the church recklessly discarded the gifts we bring.
...as a church that proudly touts itself as “reformed and always reforming,” when it came to all things LGBTQ prior to this recent Amendment, the church was not only losing its theological ground of being one that affirms diversity without divisiveness, but it was also losing its public face of inclusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at ukprogressive.co.uk ...
| [15] When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. [16] Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains: [17] And he that is on the housetop, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house: [18] And he that is in the field, let him not go back to take his coat. [19] And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days. [20] But pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the sabbath. |
And forthwith they went out towards them, and made war against them on the sabbath day, [33] And they said to them: Do you still resist? come forth, and do according to the edict of king Antiochus, and you shall live. [34] And they said: We will not come forth, neither will we obey the king's edict, to profane the sabbath day.
[35] And they made haste to give them battle.
[36] But they answered them not, neither did they cast a stone at them, nor stopped up the secret places,
[37] Saying: Let us all die in our innocency: and heaven and earth shall be witnesses for us, that you put us to death wrongfully.
[38] So they gave them battle on the sabbath: and they were slain with their wives, and their children, and their cattle, to the number of a thousand persons
Forget about Jesus not quoting them, these are not quoted at all in the NT
Yet we in orthodoxy hold them as sacred too
Forget about Jesus not quoting them, these are not quoted at all in the NT
Yet we in orthodoxy hold them as sacred too
And lets go further -- some books like Hagai, Habbakuk, Amos, Joel don't fit in this narrow definition of "only if Jesus quoted it is the OT book valid".
BenKenobi — do you agree with the following quote from Little Jeremiah?
“Once sex is divorced from monogamous marriage and the potential of procreation, it becomes solely genital sensation, which then naturallly becomes ‘anything goes’, if that sensation becomes the sole purpose of sex.”
Do you agree with him that sex consists ONLY for orgasm and procreation? Or do you think there’s a relational element to it, something that reflects the communion we enjoy with the Bridegroom?
Newpapers also record historical accounts. But they do not carry the weight of inspired Scripture. Similarly, the Apocryphal books reference some historical events, but should not be considered to carry the same authority as Scripture.
You’re really stretching to say that Jesus actually “quoted” from Maccabees. He said things that may sound like what’s written in Maccabees, but he never “quoted” as authoritative the text. He never says, “It is written” and then follows that with a quote directly from the Apocrypha. He does, however, quote from the OT.
The Apostle Paul quotes pagan poets and writers (1 Corinthians 15:33; Acts 17:28). If simply referencing a text bumps it up into the realm of authoritative Scripture, then these Pagan texts are biblical as well. But in order to consider a text as Scripture, there’s a higher standard.
If Maccabees is to be considered inspired and authoritative, then suicide (for example) should be commended, as it is in 2 Maccabees 14:41ff.
If you consider the Apocrypha to be inspired and authoritative, then you will come to believe extra-biblical doctrines, such as Purgatory, indulgences, praying for the dead, and so on.
But it is not.
I just Googled this topic, and found some paragraphs that show the Apocryphal books as extra-biblical. Let me just quote those, rather than take time to write them myself:
The Apocrypha was used alongside the writings of the Church fathers. Manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint had them as an addendum to the canonical Old Testament. Philo a Jewish philosopher in A.D. 40 quotes from the Old Testament and recognizes the standard threefold division but never quotes the Apocrypha as inspired. In the 2nd Century The Jewish historian Josephus deliberately excludes it. He wrote: “The Jews had only twenty-two books that deserved belief, but those which were written after the time of Artaxerxes (the Apocrypha) were not of equal credit with the rest, in which period they had no prophets at all” (Lib. 1, Con. Apion.).
What makes this interesting is modern findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls in the Qumran caves date back to as early as 250 B.C. most are from 100-150 B.C.. Within the 800 scrolls, all the Old Testament books were found minus Esther, neither were there any of the Apocryphal writings. The more one is aware of Hebrew and there culture the less likely they accepted these books. Both Jerome and Origin knew Hebrew; the first Latin Bibles were translated from the Septuagint and included the Apocrypha. Jerome’s Vulgate had distinguished the Apocrypha as canonical and was assigned a secondary status. He at first refused to translate these books into Latin but later made a quick translation it was after his death they were brought into the vulgate from the Latin version.
The early church fathers were not supportive of its acceptance Polycarp, Ignatius , Clement mention the New Testament only as inspired. Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius as well as Origin and Jerome later rejected this. Athanasius is clear on what was accepted as scripture this was not the apocryphal writings. The Scriptures were spread out throughout the world and almost all that we have today is the same that was accepted in the 2nd century by the majority of the Church.
No Roman Catholic was required to believe that the Apocrypha was Scripture, until 1,500 years later at the council of Trent. Most believe it was Rome’s reaction to the new movement of getting back to the Scriptures that were God breathed....
By contrast to the possible and vague references to the apocrypha, the references to the Old Testament books are both clear, and more importantly they imply that those books carried divine authority. For example in John 10:34,35 the Lord Jesus quotes from Psalm 82:6, and immediately comments that the scriptures cannot be broken. For the apostle Paul, “it is written” (in the Old Testament books) was the sure ground for his doctrinal teaching. Thus the New Testament testifies to divine authority of the Old Testament. Significantly there are no such quotations to the apocrypha that imply divine inspiration of these books.
Sounds like you need to take a good solid course in the origin of Scripture, not sponsored by Rome. I spent three years doing this and found the claims of the RCC to be utterly without foundation.
Theo, I don’t know why this discussion become so contentious. Starting with you, btw.
There’s also the emotional bonding but that only can happen in a good way within marriage.
Outside of marriage, of course, there are attendant emotions, but emotions are fleeting things and can be very wrong directed, used or acted upon.
What is your POV, since you obviously think I’m All Wrong?
You had written the following:
“Once sex is divorced from monogamous marriage and the potential of procreation, it becomes solely genital sensation, which then naturallly becomes ‘anything goes’, if that sensation becomes the sole purpose of sex. Hedonists do say that pleasure is the only thing that matters, not everyone, and certainly not people who are trying to do God’s will.”
I interpreted that as you saying that if I didn’t agree with you that sexual intercourse is primarily about procreation, then my wife and I are hedonists.
I don’t take kindly to someone diminishing my relations with my wife to mere hedonism.
I snapped at the beginning of the conversation in this thread because I hate the Roman Catholic practice of demeaning Christians who aren’t members of their denomination. I reject the Apocrypha as authoritative, I reject as heretical the doctrines that emerge from the Apocrypha, I reject the Pope as being authoritative, and I reject the contention that I am somehow outside of Christ’s Church because I’m not a member of your denomination. Yes, my reaction to such Christ-diminishing denominational arrogance is visceral.
I agree with him that sex, once removed from marital and conjugal constraints, becomes solely about pleasure.
You left out that middle part for some reason...
Okay, thanks for elucidating your position. (Including BK in the discussion since he was in it previously.)
1. I have no theological horse in this discussion at all.
2. I am saying sex cannot be divorced from procreation any more than eating can be divorced from nutrition.
When people eat for mere pleasure, not considering proper amounts or nutritional value, eventually (or even sooner than that!) they suffer ill effects from trying to divorce the pleasure the tongue derives from food, from the actual purpose of eating, which is to sustain life and health.
Same with with sex. It’s pleasure, but it’s actual purpose is procreation. Once the procreation part is divorced by human interference, it becomes something akin to an “eating disorder”. Only worse, because “eating disorders” or just plain being a glutton, or eating crappy junk food, harms only oneself.
3. How any of this relates to any particular peoples’ relationships with their spouses is not my concern, and I am not in any way trying to diminish or enhance such relationships, I’m talking about Natural Law created by God.
I’m not a Catholic btw although I share many points of view with them, as with any sincere believer; some more, some less. And although I’m not a Catholic, I have many Catholic friends and I don’t feel demeaned by them in the least.
Seems some people get really bent out of shape by others condemnation of birth control. Maybe that’s what’s bothering you.
Blah. Wall of text. Apparently FR doesn’t like Greek....
Anyways. Summary. Maccabees explains why he committed suicide. It does not argue that everyone should. It says it was a noble sacrifice, in the sense that he was a noble and highly born, and it was expected of him to kill himself in those days.
Two, arguing that the apocrypha must be unbiblical because it teaches doctrines that the Catholic church believes is not a good argument. You need to establish why these particular doctrines are in fact unbiblical, rather than arguing that because they are unbiblical, you must take them out of the bible.
So that means you are now arguing that Purgatory and indulgences and prayers for the dead are unbiblical. Why is this so?
It’s collapsing in on its self-interest. They’ve creted a class of victims out of people who are, in essence, consumed completely by self-interest.
They can’t be saved from that which they don’t want to be saved. We want to be GAY, and then I want to be forgiven for the rest of it. “I’m sorry for part of it, and in fact I blame God for the rest of it.”
Self-interest eventually blinds and destroys every good thing.
I used to wonder why God chose to make men when He already had angels. Angels live a life of complete servitude. Everyone knows somebody who so devotes so themselves to a cause, whether it is teaching, Scouting, or helping the poor that inevitably this person will receive a public honor in which they will be described as ‘angelic’, or ‘like an angel in man’s clothing’.
Perhaps man was God’s way of finding out how far away from Him could something with free will exist without its soul being crushed by self-interest. Angels benefit from a palpable contact with, and knowledge of, God. Our knowledge and contact have been more brief and ‘once removed’ per se. To the degree I’m permitted to even speculate on such things is perhaps the best evidence I have of God’s mercy on me - a clay pot’s musings on why it was made.
Formatting deeply desires to be your friend.
It was formatted.
The Greek characters messed up the format. *sigh*.
Read his comment #130. He makes it clear that he believes that sexual intercourse between husband and wife becomes mere hedonism if the goal excludes procreation.
Maybe you could post that again with paragraphs? Looks intereting but my eyes are refusing to do my bidding.
;-)
At present the only way to do this is to engage in contraceptive or sterlized sex. :)
Nice try.
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.