Posted on 11/02/2006 1:50:05 PM PST by Abathar
Just one of the reasons why I left the Episcopal Church 24 years ago, that and the National Council of Churches.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
I'll agree with you that some of it is cultural. However, God is very clear throughout the entire Bible that homosexuality is not natural and a sin.
Maybe I'll start calling them Sodomites. It's a good old word, fallen too much into disuse. I reject calling them 'gay' because they're anything butt, and because they don't deserve to steal a perfectly good word. I've been calling them homosexuals, but sodomite is really quite nice.
Jefferts=-Schori is what happens when a bureaucrat is elected.
Anglican ping, I guess. Though I'd much rather these kinds of pings got called what they are: Episcopalian pings.
Anglicans simply don't believe what TEC is preaching. We walked away and won't come back so long as people like Kathy are in charge
Which begs the question: why should two unrelated males gain these rights simply because they engage in sexual acts? In orther words, why should these special "friends" have rights denied to two men who have been closer than brothers since childhood (a committed relationship) but have no sexual relationship? Do you assign some "sacred" significance to the sexual act?
So saith the soul damned heretic.
another apostate revealing herself.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (KJV)
Sounds pretty wishy-washy to me.
AIDS?
No. I was born a sinner, thanks to Adam. (Romans 5:12--"...just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.") Are all sexual "deviants"? To some degree. The holy model for sex is the instititution between a man and woman which God Himself established and which models the bond between Jesus (the Bridegroom) and His church (the Bride).
Leviticus 18 is very clear about the sexual conduct of His people, the sons of Israel. (Leviticus includes prohibitions for all the people, not just the priestly class, the Levites). This includes all manner of sexual sin: incests, adultery, homosexuality, beastiality). See also Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corintians 6:9.
We are not to surrender up our bodies to be vessels for sin. On the contrary, we are called to be holy, set apart for the good works He has created for us. That does not include ordaining sin.
It's an interesting question, isn't it? It sure sounds like it to me, though to be fair it could be referring to any number of STD's, or it may just be a spiritual "penalty". But it sure does seem to fit the current AIDS epidemic in the world.
Sadly, this is what the Episcopal Church, as a whole, is becoming! For those of us who have grown up in the church, it is sad beyond belief!!
So: Has she come out of the closet and admitted to her homosexuality?
The Dalai Lama has pronounced against it. The Quran rejects it. The Bible rejects it. There are no provisions for it in Taoism, or in Hinduism.
Only, apparently, in Episcopalianism.
I resist this urge as it is uncharitable and utterly contradictory to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I do not seek public affirmation of my moral failings.
Haaah... the problem with you sir, is that you are too smart. Or another way to put it, is that perhaps we red staters are not so stupid as our worldly, sophisticated friends pushing the homosexual agenda think we are!
You are absolutely right... just because two men* (or three or four)engage in perverse sexual acts... why in HELL is that reason to "grant them special rights!"...When did that happen????
Look let's cut to the chase... we all know homosexuals are educated and make very good money. That means they have the options and the brains to invest their money and have plenty for when they retire... just like MANY SINGLE MEN out there. So this is not about the protection of assets for the surviving "spouse" or anything like that. And if they do have something they want to share and protect, you can go to LAWYER and create a document.
This is about... advancing the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and to do that they have even gone as far as adopting children (a SIN) in order to attempt bamboozle us - the stupid ones - into thinking they are a family, rather than just a couple of perverts doing their thing, pure and simple :)
They are even trying the "soft" approach now, as I have seen it here if FR. Oh you know how it goes, not all homos are liberal, not all like the ridiculous gay pride parade. Or they fiscal conservative.. etc etc etc. But notice, that whatever they do, they MUST LET YOU KNOW THEY ARE HOMOSEXUALS!... Because if they did whatever in hell they wanted to do and keep it private... well... then, that would not advance the agenda.. etc...etc...etc.
You know how the whole argument goes
The thing is as I said it before somewhere, THE CAT IS OUT OF BAG...and now we are aware of what they are trying to do and we will fight them, because it is OUR DUTY to defend the sanctity of marriage for our kids
There... I said a lot and now I am tired :). Take care
Remember context! This verse does not deal with women ministering in church (remember that Paul refers to deaconesses). This verse was addressing a particular problem, which was about women asking their husbands questions during the church service, disrupting the worship. This was an admonition for them to wait until they got home to ask their husbands if they didn't understand something.
Just one of the reasons why I left the ELCA 14 years ago, that and the National Council of Churches.
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.