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 ...
Ping to #17
We'll go slow for you.
“The RCC has long ago disqualified itself for reasons other than embracing homosexuality?
Tell me sir, do you or do you not support contraception>
Jesus did not rail against the corruption of the Jewish leadership for the same reasons that denominations are not biblical. The Pharisees, Saducees, Priests, Sribes, etc. were focused on a misapprehension of the message of the Scriptures. They believed God wanted Jews to behave and make up the difference with sacrifices. That God was generally happy with them (after all, they were the "chosen race", right?). These men fabricated hundreds of ways to "accomplish" the Law. Read the Mishna, Midrashim.
That they were irretrivably lost, broken beyond repair, not seeking God, dead in their trespasses and sins never dawned on them in spite of the message of the prophets (Is). Their incorrect view of the real need for Messiah is quite different than groups creating organizations with brand names.
And, originally (if you insist) Paul was "sent" by God from Damascus (Galatians). There was no "official ordination" or any such thing by a group. That the various towns recognized what God was doing is a far cry from being a "member" of an Organization called the First Church of Jerusalem, part of Central Palestine Orthodox New Covenant Accepters of Jesus from Nazareth Holy Spirit Filled Believers Denomination. Please do not put words into the Scriptures that are not there.
Sola Scriptura’s bitter fruit strikes.
?? Tell me sir, do you eat donuts on Tuesday?
“... contraception” — you mean like Natural Family Planning (NFP)?
Yes, I know it’s explained as though it’s a tool for helping married couples know when they’re most fertile, so they are more likely to become pregnant. But in reality, Roman Catholics use NFP (or the rhythm method, which is essentially the same) to avoid becoming pregnant. In effect, through NFP Roman Catholics practice contraception, to avoid conception.
The Church predates the Bible. St. Paul helped establish the Catholic/Orthodox episcopate.
There wasn’t an agreed upon New Testament until over 300 years after Jesus ascended to heaven. So what did the faithful do without their King James Bible?
It’s a simple question Dutchboy.
Do you, or do you not support contraception?
No, this is not the fruit of Sacred Scripture, but the fruit of sin and the perverting of God’s Word.
You’ll notice that those who hold to Sola Scriptura are denouncing what this denomination is doing.
(How someone can hold such disdain for Holy Scripture boggles the mind ...)
I might as well ask you the same question.
Do you support contraception?
Why is that relevant? Roman Catholics **practice** contraception (e.g., Natural Family Planning). In theory, they aren’t supposed to use NFP to prevent pregnancy, but in reality they do.
So whether people support contraception is kinda irrelevant in this conversation, no, since Roman Catholics and Protestants differ very little in practice?
That said, some of what JPII wrote on this topic in his Theology of the Body is very insightful. Too often we (both RCs and Protestants) forget that children are a gift ...
I’ve responded twice to your question.
The *heart* should be that children are a gift, and that we should be inclined to welcome them as a gift. That should be our default attitude.
Sometimes, though, we may choose to postpone or avoid pregnancy, because of a variety of reasons. In those instances, contraception (NFP, barriers, vasectomy, etc.) is acceptable. It is appropriate to consider such a decision prayerfully, and cautiously, taking into consideration our motives for doing so.
We should recognize that some “contraceptives” actually do kill fertilized eggs, by preventing their attachment to the uterus. In that case, they are not contraceptives, but abortifacients, and are morally wrong.
If we are to accept that "Church" means a gathering of believers and not an entity unto itself why do you think the Apostles Creed, which is almost universally accepted by Protestantism, clearly differentiates between a (Holy Catholic and Apostolic) Church and a Communion of Saints.
It’s really a simple question. Where do you stand?
Do you or do you not support contraception, Theo?
I’m surprised that you are having difficulty articulating your beliefs when asked.
My Apologies. I missed your earlier reply.
“The *heart* should be that children are a gift, and that we should be inclined to welcome them as a gift. That should be our default attitude.”
Ok. The teaching of the Catholic church is that all sex should be open to children. For that is part of the purpose for what sex is for.
“Sometimes, though, we may choose to postpone or avoid pregnancy, because of a variety of reasons. In those instances, contraception (NFP, barriers, vasectomy, etc.) is acceptable.”
So you are ok with both contracepted sex and sterlization. So you really don’t believe that sex should be open to children.
Upon what verse of the bible do you base your opinion that using condom and sterilization is ok?
“We should recognize that some “contraceptives” actually do kill fertilized eggs, by preventing their attachment to the uterus.”
No, you are wrong here. There are no ‘fertilized eggs’. Egg and sperm cease to exist at conception.
The term for a single cell formed after the fusion of egg and sperm at conception is a zygote.
What abortifacients do, is they kill the developing embryo, as you said, by hardening the endometrium and preventing implantation into the uterine wall. In this, they are not ‘contra’ conception at all, in that they permit conception to occur. This applies to the pill and other forms of abortifacients.
Why is this relevent?
What’s the difference between sterilized sex and what homosexuality is arguing? Both are ways of removing sex from procreation.
I’ve answered your question.
Where do you stand on contraception, including NFP?
I don’t support conception at all. I believe that sex requires that husband and wife be open to children, and that you should not be having sex if you are not willing or prepared to have children. I don’t believe you should get married either, unless both of you plan to have children.
As for Natural Family planning, it’s a tool. It can be used to enhance the chance of conceiving (I’ve seen it used this way, or it can be used to delay children by avoiding having sex during fertile periods.
I believe that marriage is about total self-sacrificial giving, and as such, my duty as a husband is to provide for my wife and children as the Lord provides. I would not persaonally use NFP, unless it were to assist conception.
So you consider the Old Testament (written before the Church) not part of the Bible?
Jesus and the Apostles quoted regularly from it.
In addition, the NT Scriptures were around well before they were bound together. They were anointed Scripture when written in the 1st century AD.
Oh, come on now. Of course I know that a “fertilized egg” is a human, a zygote. I used the term so that readers would be more able to picture what’s going on in the womb — that a mere “egg” isn’t prevented from attaching to the wall of the uterus, but a “fertilized egg” (i.e., a “human zygote”) is prevented from attaching to the wall of the uterus.
You’re trying to pick a fight where there’s no fight. We both believe that life begins when at conception, and that some “contraceptives” are actually “abortifacients.”
You wrote, “So you are ok with both contracepted sex and sterlization. So you really don’t believe that sex should be open to children.”
Yes, I am OK with married couples using wisdom to decide that they have the number of children the Lord wills for them. If they’ve had 10 miscarriages in a row, they are free to choose to avoid becoming pregnant again. If the wife is becoming depressed to the point of suicide because of post-partum depression, she is free to choose to avoid becoming pregnant again. If the wife has developed a condition whereby if she were to become pregnant, her life would be in danger, she is free to choose to avoid becoming pregnant. If a couple is just unable to accommodate any more children, I am not going to damn them because they’ve made the decision to no longer become pregnant.
So now you’re equating a married couple that’s decided not to have any more children with homosexual “sex”?
Whew.
So, are you OK with the Roman Catholic practice of using NFP as a contraceptive? That’s now it is used in most cases — to avoid pregnancy.
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.