There is a difference between love and perversion.
What really irritates me is the new public perception, no thanks to the homosexual lobby, that two (platonic) male friends must be gay.
They can paint it anyway they want to but it remains an abomination unto the Lord, and that’s the bottom line.
Anglican ping!
In the mid 1980s, I saw a lecture by a religion professor. He had a rather interesting idea: The Moral Majority was a sincere effort to heal the divisions in this country that still remained after the Vietnam War. Of course, the war was only part of what divided the country; forces set in motion in the late 1940s or early 1950s included the sexual revolution. Some of this was good: the civil rights movement that ended Jim Crow and allowed women to enter the professions. Some of this was bad: drugs and sexual promiscuity (the AIDS epidemic could not have happened before about 1970 because the gay community identified liberation with wild promiscuity, starting circa 1970).
How pathetic that the Anglicans have to be saddled with a dogmatic idiot who is apparently proud of the fact that he has learned nothing in the last 30 years.
Sadly, a lot of preachers are like this, and they are the primary reason why protestantism is largely a dead faith walking. These A-holes killed Christ for the sake of a hippie piece of a-- in college and a mess of pottage thereafter.
It would have been better for him to go with the millstone to the bottom of the sea.
He just wanted a 3-some
>> The 1970s shaped my thinking. Many factors were combined, among them existential philosophy, the campus war against American involvement in Vietnam, the challenge to apartheid and to discrimination based on race, colour and gender, and the sexual liberation provided by the contraceptive pill. <<
Oh, silly me. I thought you (the “priest,” not you, hiho^2) were just being a stupid, apostate, heretical, modernist hippy. How dare I leap to such unfounded conclusions! (/sarc)
No comment about a man with the title “Rector” giving his blessing to a gay union...
“It is not we who have whipped up the whirlwind, replacing words of love and inclusion with those of hatred and exclusion. We set out to express, experimentally, pushing at boundaries, a love of a type which is not unusual or perverse but which is perfectly ordinary and accepted outside the Church. Why, then, can it not be accepted inside the community that is based, not on law, but on the loving presence of God in Jesus Christ?”
I find it interesting how many people confuse strong emotions with gospel truth, and lust with love. Yet the scriptures have very little involvement with emotions except as engendered by the Holy Spirit. In fact, the gospel has Christ telling his followers that if they are not willing to leave family behind to follow Him, they are not worthy disciples. Nor are His commandments couched in terms of feelings but rather acts or refusals to act, regardless of feelings. When we do the right things, we will have the right feelings, sometimes before, much more often after. We are called to trust the Lord’s injunctions and act on faith, which basically means we won’t emotionally want to do so. A man may “love” his mistress and a woman her paramour but no one would argue (I think) that their relationship is holy and deserves the blessings of church authority. Yet if someone feels they are in love, then according to too many nowadays, God must surely be at the bottom of it and therefore approving. Sad commentary on how little this pastor knows his scriptures and the role of emotions in knowing how to follow Him. They want us to trust our emotions and let God follow rather than trust God and let our emotions follow.
Silly me, I would have thought that a clergyman's thinking would be shaped by a book, rather than by a decade. Some quotes from that book, one that people used to believe that every minister should read and follow [all quotes from Young's Literal Translation, which is for the most part a good word by word transliteration that allows the reader to see whether other translations may have changed the original meaning]:
Leviticus 18:22 "And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is]."
Leviticus 20:13 "And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done"
Romans 1:27 "and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving."
1 Corinthians 6:9 "have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites"
Matthew 19:4-5 "and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be -- the two -- for one flesh?"
I Timothy 1:9-10 "having known this, that for a righteous man law is not set, but for lawless and insubordinate persons, ungodly and sinners, impious and profane, parricides and matricides, men-slayers, whoremongers, sodomites, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that to sound doctrine is adverse"
Maybe I'm missing something, but I find it hard to see how a minister would choose to revere the 1970s over the Bible. I can't imagine reconciling homosexual "marriage" with Christianity.
Does this mean he was an oversexed vicar? Or, that he was a wanker from pre-teens to adulthood?
At any rate, the only thing he will accomplish is to make more congregants sick at their stomachs so that they'll have to leave.
This guy’s “thoughts” are so inane that it’s hard to know where to begin. In fact, he’s such a twit that one almost feels cruel for confronting him with his twittitude.
For a guy who was “Robustly heterosexual since early adolescence, unable to see that any love surpasses the love of women, and once branded by the odious Daily Mail as ‘Dud the Stud’”...
He sure does a good impression of a limp-wristed sob-sister.
No mere priest, but a philosopher-priest!
The Sunday Times in its golden age under Harry Evans was a major influence, creating a critical mindset that no longer accepted authority without question and the blue-back Penguin books provided a theoretical underpinning for future action...
It's all about that OBEDIENCE nonsense...
This Naughty Vicar is a caricature of the Trendy With-It Rector of the Church of What's Happenin' Now. Except in his case it all happened in the 1970s, and he's stuck there.
"Curse Nature; she gets ahead of you every time!"
- one of Kipling's characters in "The Village That Voted the Earth Was Flat".
It seems to me that those who want to abuse the Bible to make it approve of homosexuality are the ones "ripping verses from their theological and literary contexts." The traditionalists are simply taking it back!