Lewes bonfire, and gays in the church

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Those "large segments of Christendom" who do not similarly condemn the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber, the eating of shellfish, believe that women should be silent in the church, etc. show themselves to be the hypocrites that they are.

Illogical. By using your reasoning we could assume that murder and theft are "ok".

Originally posted by apathist
Gay exists throughout the animal kingdom. There is nothing unnatural about it.

I had a boss man who kept grabbing my ass. I tried to get offended, but failed. Its kinda nice, knowing your butt is grabable.

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a serious issue.

Originally posted by divegeester
Illogical. By using your reasoning we could assume that murder and theft are "ok".

This doesn't make any sense at all. Evidently you don't understand my reasoning. Perhaps you should explain yours.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Besides, there's this:

You, though, keep your senses in all things, suffer evil, do [the] work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.

Are YOU doing this? Or would you rather exalt hatred and turn this man away?

evangelising involves disseminating Gods words, not watering it down.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This doesn't make any sense at all. Evidently you don't understand my reasoning. Perhaps you should explain yours.

If as you say, "I don't understand your reasoning" and my response "makes no sense at all", then I think it is you who should start again, as you began this interaction.

Originally posted by divegeester
If as you say, "I don't understand your reasoning" and my response "makes no sense at all", then I think it is you who should start again, as you began this interaction.

By opening with the premise of "by using your reasoning", there is an implication that you understand my reasoning. By your following statements, it is clear to me that you don't understand my reasoning. That makes your openning premise false and subsequently the contingent comment that follows false - as well as your claim that what I said was "illogical".

To put it another way, you could have just as well as have said, "Illogical. By using your reasoning we could assume that [pigs that fly backwards fly fastest]". It doesn't prove my claim to be illogical.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
By opening with the premise of "by using your reasoning", there is an implication that you understand my reasoning. By your following statements, it is clear to me that you don't understand my reasoning. That makes your openning premise false and subsequently the contingent comment that follows false - as well as your claim that what I said was "illogical ...[text shortened]... that [pigs that fly backwards fly fastest]". It doesn't prove my claim to be illogical.

Do you have a question for me?

Originally posted by divegeester
Do you have a question for me?

No. I stand by the following seeing as you seem unable to logically refute it:

Those "large segments of Christendom" who do not similarly condemn the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber or the eating of shellfish, who do not believe that women should be silent in the church, etc. show themselves to be the hypocrites that they are.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No. I stand by the following seeing as you seem unable to logically refute it:

Those "large segments of Christendom" who do not similarly condemn the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber or the eating of shellfish, who do not believe that women should be silent in the church, etc. show themselves to be the hypocrites that they are.

Yes, and I said that by that logic we could be assuming that other OT/NT principles like murder is wrong, theft is wrong...should be regarded as being ok -- because what...we don't regard wearing garments of mixed cloth to be a sin>

Or do you not know why you calling those people hypocrites?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another arm chair psychologist, do you really think that religious people are afraid of homosexuals, that that is the real reason that they are opposed to homosexuality? really?

No, I think that most straight people are uncomfortable with homosexuality in general and that religious people use their religion to justify their reactions. I have absolutely no doubt that their objections to homosexuality do not originate in the teachings of their religions. In fact, the behavior and views of almost all religious people do not originate in their religions teachings but instead they pick and choose appropriate teachings to justify their behavior and views.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Not anti-homosexual, got it.

Rabidly anti-religion, got it.

And I can justify both stances without resorting to the 'its supernatural, I don't have to answer to common sense' card.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I think that most straight people are uncomfortable with homosexuality in general and that religious people use their religion to justify their reactions. I have absolutely no doubt that their objections to homosexuality do not originate in the teachings of their religions. In fact, the behavior and views of almost all religious people do not originat ...[text shortened]... ings but instead they pick and choose appropriate teachings to justify their behavior and views.

I disagree, the motivation for excluding gays is based on scripture and the premise that's its immoral and unnatural and anti-scriptural, not on some ludicrous psychological fears.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you know if the Episcopal Church considers homosexuality to be a sin? I wasn't able to find a definitive answer.

BTW, did you see "Love Free or Die"? It was on PBS a little while back.

I even had to do some scouring of the web to find out.

There is a deep schism in the Episcopal Church these days over homosexuality. There are those who embrace the liberal viewpoint and those who endorse a more archaic standard. This division has spawned the Anglican Communion of North America, basically composed of those more conservative churches who consider homosexuality to be a grave sin indeed. The Episcopal Church does not recognize this breakaway sect.

I'll give you this, from Wikipedia, covering events from 2003 to 2010 which have caused this schism in the church:

1. In 2003, ECUSA (Episcopal Church of the United States of America) became the first Anglican province to ordain an openly gay priest in a same-sex relationship as a bishop; however, the church's stance on gay issues has been debated for decades. In 1976, ECUSA's General Convention passed a resolution stating: "It is the sense of this General Convention that homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church."

Various interpretations were held within ECUSA on this resolution, ranging from the majority of dioceses that ordain noncelibate gay and lesbian clergy to the minority group who founded the Anglican Communion Network (the ACNA I referenced above) which opposes such ordinations. On 23 June 2005 the ECUSA defined its meaning in a one hundred and thirty page document entitled "To Set Our Hope on Christ":

We believe that God has been opening our eyes to acts of God that we had not known how to see before ... the eligibility for ordination of those in covenanted same-sex unions ... a person living in a same-gendered union may be eligible to lead the flock of Christ ... members of the Episcopal Church have discerned holiness in same-sex relationships and have come to support the blessing of such unions and the ordination or consecration of persons in those unions ... Their holiness stands in stark contrast with many sinful patterns of sexuality in the world ... The idea that there is only one correct way to read or interpret scripture is a rather modern idea.

2. In July 2009, the General Convention voted to allow bishops to bless same-sex unions, and also called for bishops to "collect and develop theological and liturgical resources" for possibly creating an official rite for such ceremonies at the 2012 General Convention.

3. In January 2010, the Reverend Mally Lloyd and the Reverend Katherine Ragsdale, two high-level Episcopal priests, married in a ceremony at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in Boston, Massachusetts.

So basically, the Episcopal Church is torn on the issue, as is the rest of the Anglican Communion. Their main ideas though, despite those in the ACNA, seem to tend away from calling homosexuality a sin. And others are calling that a dealbreaker. Stay tuned, is all I can say.


Nope, I do not know what this "Love Free or Die" is, that you mention. I'll go look it up. I find this interesting, since "Live Free or Die" is the motto of the state of New Hampshire, which is where this openly gay priest, Gene Robinson, was ordained a Bishop. I'm guessing that is what it's about.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I disagree, the motivation for excluding gays is based on scripture and the premise that's its immoral and unnatural and anti-scriptural, not on some ludicrous psychological fears.

is the biblical definition of gay the same as your definition of gay?

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you saying that me writing "just the thankful you are not in a cult...or gay" is equivalent to using the "N" word?

Well, maybe not equivalent, but let's say "similarly hurtful", okay?

Definitely "insensitive".