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 ...
“You probably don’t actually attemtpt to do most of the so-called “commands” you have read in the Scriptures.”
The problem with your argument is that Jesus does go back and refer to “be fruitful and multiply” in the same way that he does the decalogue.
So we are still bound to this command given to Adam today, just as we are bound to the commands given to Moses.
Jesus talks about how “the two become one flesh, such that they are neither two, but one.” Contraception impairs this bond, because you are trying to get the sex without the true union. You are holding back.
The result of contraception has been very obvious. If sex is for fun, and pleasure only, then there is nothing wrong with other forms of sex that are not restricted to man and woman. See, this is the point. Men and women are made for each other. This is why sex works the way that they do. To argue that sex should be between a man and a woman, is to argue for their fruitfulness.
You cannot tear the two apart. When you do, you get homosexuality.
Blessings,
Just so the rest of us can read the passage, could you quote the part where Peter is the first pope and forms a chain of popes from that point on who are given this same ability, who speak ex cathedra, who are to be called Holy Father, who are to live in Rome and ride in a popemobile (okay this last one is unecessary)? None of these concepts, nor the several hundred others like them, are supported by Scripture.
“He had been advised from folks who lived there.”
That would imply organization, would it not, such that Paul would be informed of goings on in distant cities. See, you can’t square the circle. The communities were in communication with each other and they had an established heirarchy in the Apostles, who were their caretakers.
“Just so the rest of us can read the passage,”
No, we have to have agreement on the first part. That Christ established a Church for the express purpose of spreading the Gospel.
Until this point is settled, only then we can move on. Are you willing to concede that Christ did, in fact, establish a church with the express purpose of spreading the Gospel?
My goodness, that is a stretch. From writing to a close friend, who happens to be a well-read scholar of the OT, an apostle of the first magnitude, a fellow general contractor, to help advise them what to do with the quarrels/strife that cropped up between self-righteous Jewish believers and non-Jewish believers you can deduce, "...an established hierarchy in the Apostles, who were their caretakers."? Okay, we need to get you off the caffeine. No wonder we ended up with a cult in Rome.
If the word ‘apostle’ did not convey authority in the early church, why did Paul say, “I am the least of the Apostles, and unworthy to be considered one?”
What you have my agreement on is that Jesus said, "Upon this Rock (likely the confession that Jesus was the Messiah) I will build my congregation/assembly (ekklesia)."
Part of this thread has been about the fact that the word "church" is a manufactured word that came from German/Dutch "kirk". Go check the etymology. There was no such word in the Bible. And, if you insist on special treatment, then the same word is used in Acts 19:32 for a unregenerate mob rioting in Ephesus. Can't square the circle.
This question is not on point. Of course Paul could speak "authoritatively", he was an apostle. And, he was not appointed by anyone other than God. If anything, that would fly in the face of establishing a hierarchy of churchdom and men who had "authority" over believing congregations. Paul also noted he was the chief among sinners. If all are sinners, did he mean he runs all people in the world? Please stay on the point.
“Part of this thread has been about the fact that the word “church” is a manufactured word that came from German/Dutch “kirk”. Go check the etymology. There was no such word in the Bible.”
I presume you understand the word, “ecclesiastical” as, “pertaining of and to the workings of the church.”
Yes or no?
“And, if you insist on special treatment”,
I am not claiming special treatment. I am arguing that Christ built his Church for the explicit purpose to proclaim the Gospel to all nations.
And yes, Ekklesia means Church.
“Of course Paul could speak “authoritatively”, he was an apostle”.
Thank you. This is an important point. Paul had the authority to preach to the church in Rome because he was an Apostle. That is why they wrote to him about their issues, and why he wrote them back, expecting them to obey his directives.
“And, he was not appointed by anyone other than God.”
So you are saying that God appointed men, the Apostles, and gave them the authority to preach his word to men? Isn’t this a heirarchy, established by God, putting the Apostles above those who were not Apostles?
Okay, no one that I am aware of here advocated homosexuality. Least of all me. I said that the Presbyterian cult that honored these folks was off the reservation by a mile. If you are implying, however, that anyone who thought sex between a husband and wife could be for enjoyment was headed for the same homosexual-loving place as this screwy organization, I take exception.
Paul clearly advocated that husbands of Corinth stop denying their wives the enjoyment of their bodies and "...fulfill his marital duty to his wife" and ditto. And, this should be a regular experience except for a short time by mutual consent,. But, then be back, "...together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." I Cor. 7:1ff. I find nothing here with regard to conceiving children each time, nor that the pure pleasure of it would lead to homosexuality.
” anyone who thought sex between a husband and wife could be for enjoyment was headed for the same homosexual-loving place as this screwy organization, I take exception”.
Again. This is the fourth time, that my argument has been deliberately misstated.
I explicitly said that part, not all of sex, part of what makes sex what it is, is the ability to procreate. I did not say all. Of course, pleasure is important too. But the whole reason that God made you male and female in the first place, is so that sex would be procreative.
If sex is only for pleasure than it doesn’t matter if it’s between men and women, or men and men or women and women. That is my point.
This door was opened at Lambeth, the same folks who were the first to start trying to marry men with men and women with women, were the first to adopt contraception.
“Paul clearly advocated that husbands of Corinth stop denying their wives the enjoyment of their bodies and “...fulfill his marital duty to his wife” and ditto.”
Absolutely. But rather than truly obey what he was saying, you’d rather contracept so you can obey without having to sacrifice. That’s the problem.
“I find nothing here with regard to conceiving children each time”
Because that is up to God. Where does it say that you are permitted to used condoms and to mutilate yourself such that you would be sterile?
Are you arguing that anything that is not explicitly prohibited is permitted?
No, you have it backwrds. Your organization has made Church mean ekklesia. If your remark is correct, then an organized body of believers were the flash mob which was rioting in Ephesus. Can't square the circle...same word. Ekklesia simply means an assembly/gathering. Check it out, my FRiend.
*sigh*
What does the word “ecclesiastical” mean?
Are you arguing that anything that is not explicitly prohibited is permitted?
I have absolutely no idea where you are going with this. But, do Catholics practice rhythm? Is this some kind of interference with the otherwise procreative work and trying to get pleasure without payment? Sorry, this is all for me on this weird topic.
The word "ecclesiastical" does not appear in Scripture. This is one more of those transliterated, made up terms.
If you cut off your hand, you’d call that mutilation, right?
Mutilation means to perform surgery on a part of the body in order to destroy the healthy function of the body.
The healthy function of the body is to be fertile. Tubal litigation and vasectomies are mutilation, because they destroy the healthy function of your body in order to render yourself infertile.
Define it for me, please.
What does ecclesiastical mean?
those that deny that that Christ founded a visible Church almost always deviate from orthodox, historical, biblical belief in major areas. they are embarrassed that there are whole centuries where they can’t find anybody who holds to their beliefs and with whom they would worship ( even though Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and He would be with us always, even to the end of the world )
i have a question for dutchboy88, is there a human person or institution that can infallibly state what the correct canon of Scripture is that ever lived or is every person supposed to accept or rejects books based on their own beliefs and therefore we can not know for sure what is Scripture and what is not? if there was or is such an authority, please name it and where did this authority come from? if there is not, please tell me why not?
finally, what do you base your belief on the correct canon of Scripture, human tradition of men?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Equating mentally ill sexual deviants to people with wonderful gifts to bring to worship services is disgusting. Apparently mentally ill sexual deviants are much, much better humans than non-deviants. No wonder such liberal churches are losing members like water out of a strainer.
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.