god loves gays
geoffr...@jesusanswers.com
deleted what i have said and pretended i am not gay.
this is not the case. i am hapilly gay married with dick vannar.
obviously it isn't recognized by law, but i believe god blessed my
marriage even if you dont.
it is a fact that i go to holy trinity church and it is a fact that i
am anglican and it is fact that i am christian.
god loves gays. that's what even the escicopal leader at the churches
have to understand.
go the glbt's!
darth_s...@yahoo.com
your partners ass.
Willy
<darth_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146573575.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> God does love gays. he just doesnt love it when you stick your dick in
> your partners ass.
>
That's crude and rude, but never the less, just as God would love you if you
stuck it in your wifes arse, He likewise love's this brother.
I really don't think God is concerned about what you do in your bed,
provided that everyone is fully consenting, committed and honest.
Willy
cart...@gmail.com
> i am finding a lot of criticism to the fact that i am gay.
By whom? This may say a lot more about you than about others.
> people have
> deleted what i have said
Deleted from where? Obviously not on a.r.c.e. because NGs are archived.
And maybe it's WHAT you said, not who you ARE that caused the deletion.
> and pretended i am not gay.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Why would someone 'pretend' that
you aren't gay?
> this is not the case. i am hapilly gay married with dick vannar.
Congratulations.
> obviously it isn't recognized by law,
Depends on the jusrisdiction you live in.
> but i believe god blessed my
> marriage even if you dont.
This isn't a matter of belief so much as fact. You have posted to an
Anglican/Episcopal newsgroup. These churches have thingeys called
teachings and doctrines, which set forth particular matters. You might
want to look them up. One of the teachings is that a marriage is
composed of a male and female partner. This is simply a matter of black
and white -- you can go to the BCP and read it as well as I can. You
don't have to adhere to this teaching, but you don't have to adhere to
the teaching that God exists.
This is what I believe, based on Scripture and the teachings of the
Church: marriage can only be composed of a male and a female partner; a
sexual relationship outside of marriage is immoral; and the Christian
(and Anglican/Episcopal) ideal is faithfulness in marriage and celibacy
outside of marriage. This statement isn't simply my opinion, it is the
teaching (printed in black characters on white paper) of the Church. No
one will force you to agree, but no one will force you to join the
Church, either. This is your free choice.
> it is a fact that i go to holy trinity church and it is a fact that i
> am anglican and it is fact that i am christian.
If you don't accept the teachings of the Anglican faith and of
Christian doctrine, you can call yourself what you want, but your
'fact' will merely be fallacy. For example, if you denied the existence
of God, you might call yourself a Christian and you might even be on
roll at a local congregation, but you would be engaged in self
delusion.
You cannot follow God and follow the ways of the world at the same
time. You cannot simultaneously serve God and Mammon. You have to make
a choice, and if you choose not to follow Jesus Christ in discipileship
in ALL areas of your life, you will live with the eternal consequences
of your choice.
> god loves gays.
He most certainly does! He may not like what they do, but He most
assuredly loves them. Moveover, He calls gays to holiness and
perfection -- and to confession and repentence.
> that's what even the escicopal leader at the churches
> have to understand.
I think that they do understand this, which is why they call for
sexually moral behavior (with one or two exceptions of course, but
wheat and tares are sown together and we have to wait until the end of
time for God to sort them out.)
> go the glbt's!
I second this will all fervor. GO THE GLBTS!!!
CC
michael james
cart...@gmail.com wrote:
> geoffr...@jesusanswers.com wrote:
>
>>i am finding a lot of criticism to the fact that i am gay.
>
>
> By whom? This may say a lot more about you than about others.
Yeah, and when a woman gets raped its her fault,eh Carter?
In any case, I found only one post from this guy through google, and
it's an Aussie newsgroup.
http://groups.google.ca/group/aus.religion.christian/browse_thread/thread/da0f070660798ef4/e197ea3cca6361d2?hl=en#e197ea3cca6361d2
>
>
>>people have
>>deleted what i have said
>
>
> Deleted from where? Obviously not on a.r.c.e. because NGs are archived.
> And maybe it's WHAT you said, not who you ARE that caused the deletion.
>
>
>>and pretended i am not gay.
>
>
> This doesn't make any sense at all. Why would someone 'pretend' that
> you aren't gay?
>
>
>>this is not the case. i am hapilly gay married with dick vannar.
>
>
> Congratulations.
>
>
>>obviously it isn't recognized by law,
>
>
> Depends on the jusrisdiction you live in.
>
>
>>but i believe god blessed my
>>marriage even if you dont.
>
>
> This isn't a matter of belief so much as fact. You have posted to an
> Anglican/Episcopal newsgroup. These churches have thingeys called
> teachings and doctrines, which set forth particular matters. You might
> want to look them up. One of the teachings is that a marriage is
> composed of a male and female partner. This is simply a matter of black
> and white -- you can go to the BCP and read it as well as I can. You
> don't have to adhere to this teaching, but you don't have to adhere to
> the teaching that God exists.
Here we go again, a Baptist telling Anglicans how to be Anglican.
> This is what I believe, based on Scripture and the teachings of the
> Church: marriage can only be composed of a male and a female partner; a
> sexual relationship outside of marriage is immoral; and the Christian
> (and Anglican/Episcopal) ideal is faithfulness in marriage and celibacy
> outside of marriage. This statement isn't simply my opinion, it is the
> teaching (printed in black characters on white paper) of the Church. No
> one will force you to agree, but no one will force you to join the
> Church, either. This is your free choice.
There is nothing that says it has to be a male and a female. That is
YOUR interpretation.
1 Samuel 18
1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul,
that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan
loved him as his own soul.
2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his
father's house.
3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his
own soul.
Marriage: Two people who's souls have been made one. (knit)
i.e. tying the knot
Covenant: making a holy pact between two people and God.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see"
>
>
>>it is a fact that i go to holy trinity church and it is a fact that i
>>am anglican and it is fact that i am christian.
>
>
> If you don't accept the teachings of the Anglican faith and of
> Christian doctrine, you can call yourself what you want, but your
> 'fact' will merely be fallacy. For example, if you denied the existence
> of God, you might call yourself a Christian and you might even be on
> roll at a local congregation, but you would be engaged in self
> delusion.
>
> You cannot follow God and follow the ways of the world at the same
> time. You cannot simultaneously serve God and Mammon. You have to make
> a choice, and if you choose not to follow Jesus Christ in discipileship
> in ALL areas of your life, you will live with the eternal consequences
> of your choice.
>
>
>>god loves gays.
>
>
> He most certainly does! He may not like what they do, but He most
> assuredly loves them. Moveover, He calls gays to holiness and
> perfection -- and to confession and repentence.
so what! that is what He does to all people.
You just don't accept the validity of samesex unions, and constantly
denigrate them as unholy which is YOUR limited vision coloured by your
own prejudice. And that is why you look for and interpret Bible verses
the way you do.
>
>
>>that's what even the escicopal leader at the churches
>>have to understand.
>
>
> I think that they do understand this, which is why they call for
> sexually moral behavior (with one or two exceptions of course, but
> wheat and tares are sown together and we have to wait until the end of
> time for God to sort them out.)
and the "one two exceptions" are ... things that fit your desires? How
convenient!
cart...@gmail.com
> Yeah, and when a woman gets raped its her fault,eh Carter?
No, it's not, and what does this have to do with the post? Are you
suggesting that I blame the victim for the criminal acts of the
perpetrators?
> There is nothing that says it has to be a male and a female. That is
> YOUR interpretation.
Jesus said, quoting Matthew 19: "[A]t the beginning the Creator made
them male and female, and said, For this reason a man will leave his
father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become
one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one." Jesus didn't say, male
and male.
Besides, read your prayer book, particularly the sacrament of marriage.
It binds a husband and wife, not two husbands and two wives. This is
not MY interpretation, but the plain meaning of the words.
> 1 Samuel 18
>
> 1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul,
> that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan
> loved him as his own soul.
> 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his
> father's house.
> 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his
> own soul.
>
>
> Marriage: Two people who's souls have been made one. (knit)
>
> i.e. tying the knot
>
> Covenant: making a holy pact between two people and God.
>
>
> "There are none so blind as those who will not see"
Misdefinition of marriage in this context. See above. Marriage is a
relationship between a husband and a wife, something that Jonathan and
David could not have done.
> > He most certainly does! He may not like what they do, but He most
> > assuredly loves them. Moveover, He calls gays to holiness and
> > perfection -- and to confession and repentence.
>
> so what! that is what He does to all people.
> You just don't accept the validity of samesex unions, and constantly
> denigrate them as unholy which is YOUR limited vision coloured by your
> own prejudice. And that is why you look for and interpret Bible verses
> the way you do.
I've never denied same sex unions, only those that pretend to be
marriages and have a sexual context. As a business man, I've been in a
number of partnerships with other men, and I can assure that all of
these relationships were (1) nonsexual and (2) at times far more
intense that the relationship I have with my wife. If you want to see
an intense relationship, consider partners that face a $500k payroll
and an overdrawn bank account.
A sexual union outside of marriage IS unholy. You don't need to engage
in any interpretive gymnastics to see this, just read plain English.
> > I think that they do understand this, which is why they call for
> > sexually moral behavior (with one or two exceptions of course, but
> > wheat and tares are sown together and we have to wait until the end of
> > time for God to sort them out.)
>
> and the "one two exceptions" are ... things that fit your desires? How
> convenient!
The exceptions are those that claim to follow Christ but do not, like a
certain bishop in New Hampshire and several candidates for that
position in California.
CC
darth_s...@yahoo.com
no, its the truth.
<< really don't think God is concerned about what you do in your bed,>>
The Bible thinks otherwise. But of course the revitionists like
yourself must twist
scripture to suit the secular pop culture of the day.
mmm...@gmail.com
pointing me to where it says in black and white that the Episcopal
Church only believes in marriage between a man and a woman? I am
looking for a new church, one that is open and accepting of
homosexuals, and I thought the Episcopal Church was promising. Maybe I
am wrong.
Thanks...
michael james
darth_s...@yahoo.com wrote:
> <<That's crude and rude,>>
>
>
> no, its the truth.
>
>
> << really don't think God is concerned about what you do in your bed,>>
>
> The Bible thinks otherwise. But of course the revitionists like
> yourself must twist
> scripture to suit the secular pop culture of the day.
>
>
Jesus was a revisionist
cart...@gmail.com
> Since it seems that you have done your homework, would you mind
> pointing me to where it says in black and white that the Episcopal
> Church only believes in marriage between a man and a woman?
Certainly. The 1998 Lambeth Statement on Human Sexuality, adopted IIRC
with only 4 dissenting votes out of the entire Anglican Communion,
states that marriage consists of a man and a woman, states that
homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture, teaches abstinance
for those not called to marriage, and rejects same sex blessings.
The catechism states as follows:
Q. What is Holy Matrimony?
A. Holy Matrimony is Christian marriage, in which the woman and man
enter into a life-long union, make their vows before God and the
Church, and receive the grace and blessing of God to help them fulfill
their vows.
This should be enough. If it isn't, let me know, because there is a
wealth of other material to the same effect.
> I am
> looking for a new church, one that is open and accepting of
> homosexuals, and I thought the Episcopal Church was promising. Maybe I
> am wrong.
Don't confuse upholding the sanctity of marriage with animus toward
homosexuals, or the insistence of celibacy for singles with homophobia.
Gay people can practice sexual morality, and straight people can live
immoral lives. There is NO connection between a person's sexual
orientation and his walk with the Lord.
On the other hand, don't think that you can practice adultery,
fornication, sodomy, and a sexually immoral lifestyle and be true
disciples of Jesus Christ. If you walk with the Lord, you leave behind
the lusts and cares of the flesh. The Episcopal Church is exactly right
in teaching that sex outside a marriage is not compatible with
Christian practice.
CC
darth_s...@yahoo.com
how so? Even the new testament talks about the abomination
of gay sex.
D. E. Evans
> This should be enough. If it isn't, let me know, because there is a
> wealth of other material to the same effect.
How about action C051, of the 74th GC, where same gender
blessings, though not authorized, were "within the bounds of our
common life"?
PECUSA theology has changed since the 1976 BCP was authorized in
1979.
>> I am
>> looking for a new church, one that is open and accepting of
>> homosexuals, and I thought the Episcopal Church was promising. Maybe I
>> am wrong.
>
> Don't confuse upholding the sanctity of marriage with animus toward
> homosexuals, or the insistence of celibacy for singles with homophobia.
> Gay people can practice sexual morality, and straight people can live
> immoral lives. There is NO connection between a person's sexual
> orientation and his walk with the Lord.
That is the essence of the debate at the moment.
Is the gospel transformative or inclusive?
--
D. E. Evans, a.k.a. Sinuhe
<URL:http://www.deevans.net/contact.html>
cart...@gmail.com
> How about action C051, of the 74th GC, where same gender
> blessings, though not authorized, were "within the bounds of our
> common life"?
Not familiar with it, but strikes me that 'not authorized' and
'unauthorized' mean the same thing, and something unauthorized does NOT
mean 'within the bounds.' Besides, this raises the issue of conflict
with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus taught specifically that sex
outside of marriage made a man unclean, and that even sexual desire
('lust') outside marriage made one unclean. Both the OT and the NT
testament make it clear that same sex unions are unholy. If you have
access to revelation that declares them holy, you might want to share
it. At the very least, it will cause a lot of people to rethink their
positions, including me.
> PECUSA theology has changed since the 1976 BCP was authorized in
> 1979.
I'm not sure how to take your statement. Do you mean that this change
is good, or bad. Also, doctrines are more central than others. Whether
or not women afre supposed to cover their heads in church (an issue of
my generation) is one thing. Blessing of adultery is quite another.
> > Don't confuse upholding the sanctity of marriage with animus toward
> > homosexuals, or the insistence of celibacy for singles with homophobia.
> > Gay people can practice sexual morality, and straight people can live
> > immoral lives. There is NO connection between a person's sexual
> > orientation and his walk with the Lord.
>
> That is the essence of the debate at the moment.
I don't see any debate in what I said. There isn't any difference of
opinion, is there? If Jew and Greek, slave and free, can be right with
God, can't gay and straight? I believe that one who teaches that
homosexuality per se condemns a person is just plain wrong.
> Is the gospel transformative or inclusive?
It's transformative in the sense that it transforms the heart (Psalm 51
- "Create in me a clean heart"). It's inclusive in that it encompasses
all Christians everywhere.
CC
cart...@gmail.com
> <URL:http://www.deevans.net/contact.html>
Okay, I just looked at your website, and see that we have a lot in
common. I was a FreeBSD administrator for years, and still run two
FreeBSD systems from my home, although professionally I use Red Hat. I
agree with you about Java but not about Perl. I'm a DB administrator,
and find Perl the best tool for my job. I sometimes script in Scheme
for fun, but don't pretend to be able to actually program in it. For
databases I use MySQL and Postgres, and much prefer Postgres, although
I spend about 80% of my time in MySQL. Whenever I have a choice, I use
Postgres. Our big DB at work is an IBM product called UniData, and it's
a monster.
I'm also a vi man, but I recognize that this debate is about as vicious
as certain debates on a.r.c.e. To me, there ain't no question that vi
is far superior to emacs, but I recognize that I'm in the minority on
this issue. Coming from FSF, you probably use emacs for everything you
do ... tonight I'm say a prayer for the salvation of your soul.
All the best, CC
Jeff Miars
>
> On the other hand, don't think that you can practice adultery,
> fornication, sodomy, and a sexually immoral lifestyle and be true
> disciples of Jesus Christ. If you walk with the Lord, you leave behind
> the lusts and cares of the flesh. The Episcopal Church is exactly right
> in teaching that sex outside a marriage is not compatible with
> Christian practice.
>
> CC
>
Of course we shouldn't assume that anyone has an animus againsts gay
people, and the church's teacking on celibacy is absolutely correct.
That is, of course, until we tell gay people that they are not allowed
to marry, and therefore not allowed to express THEIR sexuality without
committing sin.
NOW are we expressing "animu"?
cart...@gmail.com
> Of course we shouldn't assume that anyone has an animus againsts gay
> people, and the church's teacking on celibacy is absolutely correct.
>
> That is, of course, until we tell gay people that they are not allowed
> to marry, and therefore not allowed to express THEIR sexuality without
> committing sin.
Who says gay people can't marry? Of course gay people can marry!
Marriage is open to people no matter what their sexual preference.
'Marriage' however needs to be understood as a relationship between a
husband and a wife. A partnership between two men or two women is not
and can never be a marriage. A marriage requires a husband and a wife,
not two husbands and no wives or two wives and no husbands.
This is not homophobic, just reality. As to expression of sexuality
outside of marriage, the same constriant applies to both gay and
straight. Gays don't get special treatment simply because they happen
to be gay. Single people should practice abstinance regardless of their
sexual orientation.
If you wan't to espress your sexuality outside of marriage, go right
ahead. Don't let me stop you. You are free to do exactly as you please.
Just recognize that you have a choice as to how you behave and that
taking one road necessarily precludes taking the other road. That is,
it's impossible to practice abstinance and indulge your sexual lusts at
the same time.
If you are a gay man and want to express your sexuality, take a wife
and learn to love her.
CC
D. E. Evans
> D. E. Evans wrote:
>> How about action C051, of the 74th GC, where same gender
>> blessings, though not authorized, were "within the bounds of our
>> common life"?
>
> Not familiar with it, but strikes me that 'not authorized' and
> 'unauthorized' mean the same thing, and something unauthorized does NOT
If you're not familiar with it, especially not being Anglican, then
why are you telling others where PECUSA stands? Since the General
Convention is where the 1979 BCP was authorized, and where other
canons are authorized, to be unfamiliar with it is to be unfamiliar
with what you are advising others on, in this instance. TEC is
currently O.K. with same gender partnerships. That is current to
2003, not 1979, (you quoted from the 1979 BCP). Just because TEC
doesn't officially support same gender partnerships at the level of
the national church, doesn't mean it isn't supported at the diocesan
level, acknowledged by the national church. Gene Robinson could
not have been ordained without such an aknowledgement, and change
of theological direction admitted, by General Convention.
>> PECUSA theology has changed since the 1976 BCP was authorized in
>> 1979.
>
> I'm not sure how to take your statement. Do you mean that this change
> is good, or bad. Also, doctrines are more central than others. Whether
I think it's in the wrong direction, in my opinion, but my opinion
and the statements of the General Convention are two different
things.
>> That is the essence of the debate at the moment.
>
> I don't see any debate in what I said. There isn't any difference of
The debate over same gender partnerships, and inclusion of gays as
bishops, is between PECUSA, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the
rest of the Communion, or at least a majority of the Communion; not
you and I.
>> Is the gospel transformative or inclusive?
>
> It's transformative in the sense that it transforms the heart (Psalm 51
> - "Create in me a clean heart"). It's inclusive in that it encompasses
> all Christians everywhere.
I believe we are in agreement here.
D. E. Evans
> Okay, I just looked at your website, and see that we have a lot in
> common. I was a FreeBSD administrator for years, and still run two
> FreeBSD systems from my home, although professionally I use Red Hat. I
> agree with you about Java but not about Perl. I'm a DB administrator,
> and find Perl the best tool for my job. I sometimes script in Scheme
> for fun, but don't pretend to be able to actually program in it. For
> databases I use MySQL and Postgres, and much prefer Postgres, although
> I spend about 80% of my time in MySQL. Whenever I have a choice, I use
> Postgres. Our big DB at work is an IBM product called UniData, and it's
> a monster.
A bit off topic. We can continue this conversation in private,
if you wish.
> I'm also a vi man, but I recognize that this debate is about as vicious
> as certain debates on a.r.c.e. To me, there ain't no question that vi
> is far superior to emacs, but I recognize that I'm in the minority on
> this issue. Coming from FSF, you probably use emacs for everything you
> do ... tonight I'm say a prayer for the salvation of your soul.
So as to dispell any public myth of my use of emacs, I use Berkeley
vi, and always have. I don't like word processors; I use troff.
--
Jeff Miars
In other words, ignore the way you are, and live a lie for the rest of
your life.
Is this what you also advise for the rest of the planet, or just for
certain parts of the population?
Or are you simply being disingenuous?
Charles Hohenstein
"D. E. Evans" <sin...@kaptah.deevans.net> wrote:
> If you're not familiar with it, especially not being Anglican, then
> why are you telling others where PECUSA stands? Since the General
> Convention is where the 1979 BCP was authorized, and where other
> canons are authorized, to be unfamiliar with it is to be unfamiliar
> with what you are advising others on, in this instance. TEC is
> currently O.K. with same gender partnerships. That is current to
> 2003, not 1979, (you quoted from the 1979 BCP).
Well, for once I have to disagree with you. As I recall, what the 2003
General Convention did was to refrain from adding an official rite for
blessing homosexual unions to the Book of Occasional Services,
substituting a descriptive statement (not a policy decision) that such
blessings are within the bounds of the church, or something like that.
Which, I take it, means only that we know that ECUSA clergy are blessing
such unions (sometimes with the explicit permission of the ordinary, and
sometimes without), even without official approval from the General
Convention. I don't think that is prescriptive at all. It is simply
acknowledging a fact.
> Just because TEC
> doesn't officially support same gender partnerships at the level of
> the national church, doesn't mean it isn't supported at the diocesan
> level, acknowledged by the national church.
Well, again, acknowledging that something is going on is not the same
thing as saying that it is praiseworthy or even permitted reluctantly.
ECUSA has taken no position (to my extreme regret) as to whether the
bishops who allow this are right or wrong or within their constitutional
authority.
> Gene Robinson could
> not have been ordained without such an aknowledgement, and change
> of theological direction admitted, by General Convention.
I don't think that's true at all. What the liberal majority tried to get
away with was to pretend that the election was of purely local and
administrative significance and that the Diocese of New Hampshire should
get the bishop they want--no theological justification offered or
necessary. If that is a theological position or an acknowledgment of a
theological direction, it was carved in oatmeal.
We came much closer to taking a theological position when we were forced
to explain ourselves at Dromantine and issued that laughable position
paper which equated the acceptance of perversion with the acceptance of
gentiles in the New Testament Church.
--
Charles Hohenstein
To reply, remove Gene Robinson
"The sad huddle of affluent bedwetters, thumbsuckers, treehuggers, social
climbers, homophiles, quavery ladies, and chronic petition signers that
makes up the current Episcopal Church . . ."--Thomas Lipscomb
cart...@gmail.com
> In other words, ignore the way you are, and live a lie for the rest of
> your life.
Absolutely not! Come to terms with what you are and live the truth.
> Is this what you also advise for the rest of the planet, or just for
> certain parts of the population?
I don't advise it for anyone.
> Or are you simply being disingenuous?
Let's get to the point. Scripture, and the historical doctrine of the
Christian church, are to the effect that sex is legitimate only within
the context of marriage. I understand exactly where you are coming
from. You want to have the privilege of having sex outside of marriage
and begin able to profess Christianity at the same time.
The key to marriage is not the so-called sexual preference (or
orientation) of the the partners, but the requisites set forth by the
Christian faith. Am I being dishonest when I say that gays can marry?
What disqualifies gays from marriage?
I simply do not understand how you can take the position that a
marriage can be composed of two husbands, or two wives, and call me
disingenuous. The word 'marriage' MEANS a partnership composed of male
and female. Those supporting same sex 'marriage' have simply made up a
lie that two men or two women can be married, when the notion is simply
nonsensical.
Even outside of the domain of religious belief, 'marriage' means and
always has meant the union of male and female. A little challenge for
you, Jeff: Find me one society or culture where 'marriage' mean a
sexual union of same gender partners. Even the most gay friendly
culture the world has ever known, the Hellenistic culture, did not
recognize same gender marriage, but reserved the term for a male/female
union.
CC
D. E. Evans
>> Gene Robinson could
>> not have been ordained without such an aknowledgement, and change
>> of theological direction admitted, by General Convention.
>
> I don't think that's true at all. What the liberal majority tried to get
> away with was to pretend that the election was of purely local and
> administrative significance and that the Diocese of New Hampshire should
> get the bishop they want--no theological justification offered or
> necessary. If that is a theological position or an acknowledgment of a
> theological direction, it was carved in oatmeal.
>
> We came much closer to taking a theological position when we were forced
> to explain ourselves at Dromantine and issued that laughable position
> paper which equated the acceptance of perversion with the acceptance of
> gentiles in the New Testament Church.
I think this is splitting hairs.
cart...@gmail.com
> A bit off topic. We can continue this conversation in private,
> if you wish.
I'd like to, but I'm going to be focusing on some large projects and
plan on cutting back substantially playing on the newsgroups. I lurk in
several, but c.l.p.misc currently occupies about half my play time, and
until the fall will probably be about all I'll have time for. For the
next several weeks, I'll only be doing drive by postings to a.r.c.e.
> So as to dispell any public myth of my use of emacs, I use Berkeley
> vi, and always have. I don't like word processors; I use troff.
And Stallman let you work for FSF? I'll bet you kept it secret.
As for me, I'm promiscuous. I've used WordPerfect, AmiPro, Word (of
course) Open Office, Star Office, notepad, wordpad, textpad, even
Access - and I think Access is a wonderful productivity tool, the time
you spend setting up your documents will save you in the long run, and
sometimes I generate as many as 1600 documents from a database at one
time.
vi is the best one of all, tho'
CC
Jeff Miars
Thanks for the invite.
I've seen you work often enough, and offer "challenges."
Not gonna play this time. You've already got your blinders on. Nothing
anyone can say will convince you. And I've learned my lesson to avoid
trying.
Maybe someone else wants to play.
BB
"Jeff Miars" <jmi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0WT6g.4202$Vn....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
It seems simple and straightforward to me - the challenge is to: "Find one
society or culture where 'marriage' mean a sexual union of same gender
partners" - Either you have the information or you don't (or can't find it).
What is nefarious about that?
To claim that he has another motive is not being honest and avoiding the
question.
BB
cart...@gmail.com
> Thanks for the invite.
You're welcome.
> I've seen you work often enough, and offer "challenges."
Which no one seems to accept. Except Hugh Beyer, and he seldom posts
any more.
> Not gonna play this time. You've already got your blinders on. Nothing
> anyone can say will convince you. And I've learned my lesson to avoid
> trying.
Here I am, inviting you to turn on the light, and you say, "No thanks,
you are already in the dark." I have changed my mind before one
a.r.c.e., and have done so in a public fashion, expressing my mea
culpas to the world. If you can show me, in a secular sense, where
'marriage' has referred to a sexual union between man and man, I'll
concede that you may have a point.
However, you know as well as I do that you can't do that, because
'marriage' has never meant the sexual union of a man and a man. Surely,
if such were common knowledge, you would be flaunting it in my face.
Because you aren't, I conclude that you can't.
> Maybe someone else wants to play.
Maybe. I'd enjoy the conversation.
CC
cart...@gmail.com
> If you're not familiar with it, especially not being Anglican, then
> why are you telling others where PECUSA stands?
You assumption is that the PECUSA has a stand. It doesn't. The PECUSA
is composed of individuals, most of whom have stands, but they do not
at all agree. I know some Episcopalian men who have very generously
supported the church with their time, talents, and energy, and with
their considerable financial resources, and they are OUTRAGED at the
consecration of Vicky Gene. They think that he, and all those who voted
for him, should be defrocked immediately. Is this where you think the
PECUSA stands?
> Since the General
> Convention is where the 1979 BCP was authorized, and where other
> canons are authorized, to be unfamiliar with it is to be unfamiliar
> with what you are advising others on, in this instance.
If you were looking for the authoritative sources of PECUSA doctrine,
you would look at a document 100 years old, or one 400 years old, or
even one 2,000 years old. But since I've been told many time on
a.r.c.e., there isn't any central core of belief for the PECUSA, I
suppose it's okay to just make it up as you go along, heedless of what
went before, and rely on emotion and feeling rather than the historical
revelation of God to the church and to the world.
> TEC is
> currently O.K. with same gender partnerships. That is current to
> 2003, not 1979, (you quoted from the 1979 BCP). Just because TEC
> doesn't officially support same gender partnerships at the level of
> the national church, doesn't mean it isn't supported at the diocesan
> level, acknowledged by the national church.
See what I mean. And if the very next General Convention decreed that
we would all fall down and worship giant phalluses, to be erected (pun
intended) in place of the altars in the churches, that would be okay
with you? If the General Convention did it, it must be right. Right?
> Gene Robinson could
> not have been ordained without such an aknowledgement, and change
> of theological direction admitted, by General Convention.
Gene Robinson was elected by men, not by God. His behavior demonstrates
it.
> > I'm not sure how to take your statement. Do you mean that this change
> > is good, or bad. Also, doctrines are more central than others. Whether
>
> I think it's in the wrong direction, in my opinion, but my opinion
> and the statements of the General Convention are two different
> things.
Thank God for small graces.
> The debate over same gender partnerships, and inclusion of gays as
> bishops, is between PECUSA, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the
> rest of the Communion, or at least a majority of the Communion; not
> you and I.
There isn't any debate, except among those who have forgotten or have
decided to pay no attention to God's Word. (By this I mean both the
written revelation in scripture and the human incarnation of the
deity.) Given the teaching in scripture (e.g., 1 Timothy) and the
authoritative teaching of the Christian church, do you think there
really is a question regarding the qualification of a practicing
adulterer to be a bishop?
> >> Is the gospel transformative or inclusive?
> >
> > It's transformative in the sense that it transforms the heart (Psalm 51
> > - "Create in me a clean heart"). It's inclusive in that it encompasses
> > all Christians everywhere.
>
> I believe we are in agreement here.
Let me ask you a serious question, since you seem to be a serious sort
of guy. In Galations 5, Paul identifies a list which we calls acts of
the sinful nature. How many must a person exhibit before we can
conclude that he indulges the sinful nature? One, two, or more? We
don't even have to get into sexual immorality. Vicky Gene knew that his
ambition would cause many to stumble and leave the church, yet he put
his own selfish ambition before the Body of Christ, and in fact caused
many to stumble, and created great dissentions.
Paul said it better than I, so let me quote: "You, my brothers, were
called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful
nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up
in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on
biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by
each other. So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the
desires of the sinful nature." Don't you wish that Vicky Gene had taken
this to heart?
CC
D. E. Evans
>> TEC is
>> currently O.K. with same gender partnerships. That is current to
>> 2003, not 1979, (you quoted from the 1979 BCP). Just because TEC
>> doesn't officially support same gender partnerships at the level of
>> the national church, doesn't mean it isn't supported at the diocesan
>> level, acknowledged by the national church.
>
> See what I mean. And if the very next General Convention decreed that
> we would all fall down and worship giant phalluses, to be erected (pun
> intended) in place of the altars in the churches, that would be okay
> with you? If the General Convention did it, it must be right. Right?
That's not what I said. I wasn't agreeing with it, I was merely
stating that is the way PECUSA has tried to get it to pass as
acceptable. However, you are right in suggesting TEC is split in
its acceptance of GC 2003.
If you would prefer, I'll change my statement to say that the General
Convention agreed with the consecration of Gene Robinson, and
acknowledged that it was common ("part of common life") for there
to be same-gender blessings around the country. That way the
facts are stated without us hashing over the semantics and
interpretatino.
However you get around it, though, it seems to me that PECUSA in
general (whether you talk of General Convention, the dioceses, or
the laity) is accepting it, and that we who are opposing it are a
minority. Perhaps my being in Utah colours my perception of what
is happening outside of it. To that I'll grant to both you and
Charles.
> deity.) Given the teaching in scripture (e.g., 1 Timothy) and the
> authoritative teaching of the Christian church, do you think there
> really is a question regarding the qualification of a practicing
> adulterer to be a bishop?
I don't, no. I think we are in agreement here.
> Let me ask you a serious question, since you seem to be a serious sort
> of guy. In Galations 5, Paul identifies a list which we calls acts of
> the sinful nature. How many must a person exhibit before we can
> conclude that he indulges the sinful nature? One, two, or more? We
1.
> don't even have to get into sexual immorality. Vicky Gene knew that his
> ambition would cause many to stumble and leave the church, yet he put
> his own selfish ambition before the Body of Christ, and in fact caused
> many to stumble, and created great dissentions.
I agree.
cart...@gmail.com
> That's not what I said. I wasn't agreeing with it, I was merely
> stating that is the way PECUSA has tried to get it to pass as
> acceptable. However, you are right in suggesting TEC is split in
> its acceptance of GC 2003.
I'm sorry if I came across heavy handed. I didn't mean to offend, even
though I meant to be very clear and unambiguous. This is an issue that
I feel strongly about -- not the sex part, but the part that we can
serve both God and Mammon, and do so with God's approval.
> If you would prefer, I'll change my statement to say that the General
> Convention agreed with the consecration of Gene Robinson, and
> acknowledged that it was common ("part of common life") for there
> to be same-gender blessings around the country. That way the
> facts are stated without us hashing over the semantics and
> interpretatino.
And I was snookered into participating in one. For the story, go to
I agree that this happens. I disagree that the ceremony constitutes a
wedding of any sort, or that the parties are married.
> However you get around it, though, it seems to me that PECUSA in
> general (whether you talk of General Convention, the dioceses, or
> the laity) is accepting it, and that we who are opposing it are a
> minority. Perhaps my being in Utah colours my perception of what
> is happening outside of it. To that I'll grant to both you and
> Charles.
I think those opposed to it are a majority. Unfortunately, those in
favor have seized the reins of power and are forcing their will on the
majority. We have already begun to see the consequences.
> > Let me ask you a serious question, since you seem to be a serious sort
> > of guy. In Galations 5, Paul identifies a list which we calls acts of
> > the sinful nature. How many must a person exhibit before we can
> > conclude that he indulges the sinful nature? One, two, or more? We
>
> 1.
Unfortunately, we all display one, two, or more. The difference is
between recognition of failure (as Paul did in Romans 7) and willful
blindness. Psalm 19 refers to hidden sins, and I think we are all blind
to some extent, but some seem to be more blind than others.
CC
Glorfindel
...
> "The entire law is summed up
> in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on
> biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by
> each other. So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the
> desires of the sinful nature." Don't you wish that Vicky Gene had taken
> this to heart?
Actually, I think a lot of us wish some of the other bishops and
(here) *you* would take it to heart....
D. E. Evans
> I'm sorry if I came across heavy handed. I didn't mean to offend, even
> though I meant to be very clear and unambiguous. This is an issue that
> I feel strongly about -- not the sex part, but the part that we can
> serve both God and Mammon, and do so with God's approval.
This is a subject I think that all of us are touchy about. I
could easily have been taken as heavy handed in what I wrote.
> I think those opposed to it are a majority. Unfortunately, those in
> favor have seized the reins of power and are forcing their will on the
> majority. We have already begun to see the consequences.
I don't know about this. In Utah, the majority seem in favour of
the changes. I usually get shot down in any discussion I have on
the subject.
cart...@gmail.com
minions:
sexual immorality,
impurity,
debauchery,
hatred,
discord,
jealousy,
fits of rage,
selfish
ambition,
dissensions,
factions,
envy,
drunkenness
I'd say it's pretty clear what influences their actions, and it ain't
the fruit of the spirit, gal.
CC
michael james
Jeff Miars wrote:Thanks for the invite.You're welcome.I've seen you work often enough, and offer "challenges."Which no one seems to accept. Except Hugh Beyer, and he seldom posts any more.
snip
1 Samuel 18
1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was *knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
3 Then Jonathan and David made a +covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
*KNIT...joined together as one(from knot)
+Covenant.. a sacred bond between two people in the sight of God.
You can spin it the way you want, and I am sure you will. But being one soul in two bodies and making a covenant of that love fits the very definition of marriage.
Now please stop this whining about no one ever answer your 'challenge' I have done so before.
**It's not true**
You obviously have missed the times I have posted the following....or you just ignored it (more likely) because it doesn't suit your purpose, to denigrate anything that would not be in accord with your innate bigotry towards deep samesex relationships.
cart...@gmail.com
What makes you think that the relationship between David and Jonathan
was a sexual one. I, too, have been closely knit with other men, and
have formed covenants, but they were not sexual -- they were business
partnerships.
There are many reasons for supposing this was not a sexual reason: (1)
David wan't gay, in fact, he was rabidly heterosexual, (2) the Mosaic
law forbade homosexual relationships, and David was a King/Priest and
"a man after God's own heart", (3) When David did sin, as with
Bathsheba, the chronicalers were quick to note it.
Is there anything in Scripture (or in Jewish tradition) that suggests
that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers? If so, tell me. I
really would like your thoughts on the subject.
CC
michael james
secondly being knit is an old English expression meaning to unite on a spiritual level so that those united become one. This is the very definition of marriage and there in Samuel 18 it states quite clearly that these two males are 'knit' .
cart...@gmail.com wrote:
And I've responded to this before as well. What makes you think that the relationship between David and Jonathan was a sexual one. I, too, have been closely knit with other men, and have formed covenants, but they were not sexual -- they were business partnerships.
That does not mean you were 'knit' with them. Please do some research on this word. I do not think it is in use in American English. But it is the origin
of the term 'tying the knot'. On your allusion of have made covenant with you business partners, that would be a legal term. However in the Bible this is a term
in this instance that they made a sacred covenant of their love, which is quite clearly indicated in the text. You obviously refuse to see what the words are saying
and interpret a sacred covenant of love a common business relationship..How gross! Do you really think that the authors of the Bible would have recorded
a simple business partnership between these two guys.?
The 'knit' means uniting of two souls in this instance. This is your very definition of marriage. So stop saying there is no such indication in the Bible. It is a falsehood.
AS for sexual acts between people who are 'married' or 'knit' that is a different level of the relationship of union. This is in the sphere of what people DO not what
people ARE..
I presume that if I refer to the texts where they met and hid in the tall grass and kissed eachother you will say that is how you acted with your business partners too?
Or if we refer to the ode to Jonathan "my love for thee was greater than the love of woman" you sill comeback that you had such a feeling for one of your male friends. If you dare to say such a thing, I hope you will not only reply on this newsgroup, but also tell your wife who this 'friend' is and see how she reacts to know that you have a friend you love more than her.
There are many reasons for supposing this was not a sexual reason: (1) David wan't gay, in fact, he was rabidly heterosexual, (2) the Mosaic law forbade homosexual relationships, and David was a King/Priest and "a man after God's own heart", (3) When David did sin, as with Bathsheba, the chronicalers were quick to note it.
There are many kings in more recents history where they married for purposes of state, and had their un-official lover.
cart...@gmail.com
Your principle argument consists of your reliance on the word 'knit.'
Let's look at some other English translations of the Hebrew text.
NIV "After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in
spirit with David, and he loved him as himself." Notice that this does
not say 'one in body'
NLT "After David had finished talking with Saul, he met Jonathan, the
king's son. There was an immediate bond of love between them, and they
became the best of friends." Notice that this says 'best of friends'
and not 'lovers'
NRSV "When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan
was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own
soul." Says 'bound to.'
TEV "Saul and David finished their conversation. After that, Saul's son
Jonathan was deeply attracted to David and came to love him as much as
he loved himself." Well, this one is ambiguous, isn't it?
The Message (if you like Rick Warren) "By the time David had finished
reporting to Saul, Jonathan was deeply impressed with David - an
immediate bond was forged between them. He became totally committed to
David. From that point on he would be David's number-one advocate and
friend."
Young's Literal "And it cometh to pass, when he finisheth to speak unto
Saul, that the soul of Jonathan hath been bound to the soul of David,
and Jonathan loveth him as his own soul." I think this is the one to
use if you want to get as close to the sense of the original Hebrew as
you can.
Reader's Version "David finished talking with Saul. After that,
Jonathan and David became close friends. Jonathan loved David just as
he loved himself."
As you can see, there is quite a variation, and I wouldn't put too much
stock in the KJV and descendants.
As for your citation of David's lamentation for Jonathan, you misquote
the text. What the text says is this: "How are the mighty fallen in the
midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places.
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou
been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!" David
referred to the love of Jonathan for David, not vice versa. This makes
quite a difference in your argument that David professed his love for
Jonathan in any kind of sexual or physical sense. Yes, David loved
Jonathan, but from every indication in scripture, they had no sexual
relationship.
If you want to suggest that homosexual relationship be entirely
non-plysical, I will be the first to agree with you.
Finally, the story of Bathsheba and David shows that David's motivation
for having sex with her was NOT for the purpose of having children.
After all, what did David do when she was with child?
If you want an account of homosexual relationships in scripture,
consider the account of Sodom.
CC
Brian J Dawson
<darth_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146767804.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> <<That's crude and rude,>>
>
>
> no, its the truth.
>
>
> << really don't think God is concerned about what you do in your bed,>>
>
> The Bible thinks otherwise. But of course the revitionists like
> yourself must twist
> scripture to suit the secular pop culture of the day.
>
>
>
>
>
> Willy wrote:
>> <darth_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146573575.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > God does love gays. he just doesnt love it when you stick your dick in
>> > your partners ass.
>> >
>>
>> That's crude and rude, but never the less, just as God would love you if
>> you
>> stuck it in your wifes arse, He likewise love's this brother.
>>
>> I really don't think God is concerned about what you do in your bed,
>> provided that everyone is fully consenting, committed and honest.
>>
>> Willy
>
Amen brother Darth. These damn picko "limpwristed" liberals don't even have
the hand strength to jerk off with healthy heterosexual thoughts. With their
"sophist" interpetation of God's Word they would have us believe in the
satanic lie of "ethical relativism"! Gays need to have a good solid
relationship with their fathers so they can be real men in the Biblical
sense.
Genesis 25:6
6 But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines
and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east.
Thats the problem now a days with these feminists stoping fathers from
giving good solid Bible based gifts to their sons! Why if these wimpy picko
homo loving liberals would just be MAN enough to follow the bible they could
STILL be healed of their preverted homo loving ways!
Numbers 31:17
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18
but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man".
* A virgin is a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE thing to waste! Why not ravage
one today for the lord? Not like the muslims in the next life with the
seventy seven virgins bye and bye when you die. But TODAY as Numbers
teaches. Oh these feminists and wimpy limpwristed liberals aren't man enough
to follow good ole fashion SOLID BIBLE teaching. Thats why they are more
then just limp in the wrist!
GOD's LAW:
The same yesterday!
The same today!
The same tommorrow! Amen brother Darth!
Brian J Dawson
Willy
<mmm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146773915....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Since it seems that you have done your homework, would you mind
> pointing me to where it says in black and white that the Episcopal
> Church only believes in marriage between a man and a woman? I am
> looking for a new church, one that is open and accepting of
> homosexuals, and I thought the Episcopal Church was promising. Maybe I
> am wrong.
>
> Thanks...
>
>
If you want an open and accepting church, I would encourage you to look at
the United Church Of Christ. Their website will find a congregation close
to you.
My wife and I are members of a large congregation in our city, and we have
never felt more at home in our life. It's just WONDERFUL.
Willy
Charles Hohenstein
"Willy" <wil...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> If you want an open and accepting church, I would encourage you to look at
> the United Church Of Christ. Their website will find a congregation close
> to you.
>
> My wife and I are members of a large congregation in our city, and we have
> never felt more at home in our life. It's just WONDERFUL.
I agree totally. The UCC is a terrific place for homosexuals. ECUSA
homosexuals would love it there.
michael james
In article <drN8g.15875$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, "Willy" <wil...@prodigy.net> wrote:If you want an open and accepting church, I would encourage you to look at the United Church Of Christ. Their website will find a congregation close to you. My wife and I are members of a large congregation in our city, and we have never felt more at home in our life. It's just WONDERFUL.I agree totally. The UCC is a terrific place for homosexuals. ECUSA homosexuals would love it there.
check it out. It's the front door of Christ Church Cathedral of the diocese of Montreal, Anglican Church of Canada.
If you were there you could walk through that door, turn to left and see hanging on the wall, the rainbow flag with a message
underneath welcoming all people whatever the sexual orientation into the Church.
Even you are welcome Charles :)
michael james
I probably would drop in for a visit. I am however first and foremost, Anglican - baptised and confirmed. Of course I can appreciate all places where people find a connection to the Christ and are uplifited and receive divine inspiration from within. (and that includes other religions) :)
Willy
"michael james" <michae...@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:0SV8g.17952$kW2.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
cart...@gmail.com
> God bless you on journey, and keep the faith.
>
> You can be sure it's only a matter of time until the facts of history and the blessing
> of modern science will FORCE the old regime to reckon with the error of their ways (and > teachings) and resposition themselves.
Willy,
The facts of history and the blessings of modern science are no match
for the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness.
Since the beginning, man has sought follow the desires of this sinful
heart and the lusts of the flesh, and from the beginning, God has sent
messanger after messanger, and messge after message, but we have never
learned. "All we like have gone astray and we have turned each to his
own way." "There is none righteous, no, not one." "All have sinned."
In the end, though, on the final day of history, when the names are
read from the Lamb's Book of Life and we are judged according to our
deeds, not one of us will be able to hide what he has done. All those
from throughout history, and in our present time, who promote
infidelity, unchastity, adultery, sodomy, sexual immorality, and the
like, will receive the penalty due them.
THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-GAY POST! Homosexuals can live upright lives, and
heterosexuals can live immoral lives. None of this depends on sexual
preference or orientation, but only on behavior.
CC
michael james
God bless you on journey, and keep the faith.You can be sure it's only a matter of time until the facts of history and the blessing of modern science will FORCE the old regime to reckon with the error of their ways (and teachings) and resposition themselves.Willy
I would like to think so but I doubt it. Science has determined through DNA analysis that all humans originate from Africa, about 100,000 years ago. So, has this
scientific knowledge eliminated racism? Many people don't believe in evolution either, thought there is plenty of evidence. People believe what they will believe.
In the end only first hand experience of God's presence, conscious experience, not emotional inference, is the only thing that can show people what is real and not real.
Until then people will argue over these Cole's notes we call the Bible, or the Koran etc..... and think they really know something.
Willy
<cart...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147455606....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
on you or your denominations loose and literal interpretation of the Holy
Scripture. You truly believe that the above mentioned acts will receive a
penalty.
But I know that Christ died to save man. And I know that a gay person is
what they are, not by choice. Whether they're borned or socially
conditioned, irregardless, they ARE what they ARE. It's "normal" to them,
but not to you. What is "normal" to you, is completely foreign to them.
Is it a catch 22? No, only within the confines of much of traditional
christianity. But the good news is Christ died for ALL... the prostitute,
the thief, and on and on, including those guilty of lewd sexual activity...
although most of what is said within scripture has nothing at all to do with
the actual act of sex, and everything to do with the fact that it was being
FORCED upon those unwilling. The word rape is never used, yet clearly it is
demonstrated as a horrific sin, just as any form of sexual molestation
would be.
Clearly the greatest sins are failing to act with justice, love, equality
and greed.
Willy
cart...@gmail.com
> Yes, but my brother, what you're saying is based on what YOU believe, based
> on you or your denominations loose and literal interpretation of the Holy
> Scripture. You truly believe that the above mentioned acts will receive a
> penalty.
I believe it becausse God said it -- in scripture, the message of which
I believe is both inspired by God and inerrant. I know that the words
'inspired' and 'inerrant' raise hackels, but to say otherwise would be
to say that (1) Christianity (and Judiaism) is based on man's
conjecture rather than revelation, and (2) that God is incapable of
perfect revelation. I except issues of transmission and interpretation,
as the written form of the message has suffered from transmission
through the ages by fallible man, and that the message has been
filtered through the lens of translations and interpretations by
imperfect man. However, the MESSAGE is perfectly true and is from God.
Part of God message, a part that is absolutely crystal clear and not
subject to any interpretation, yours, mine, or anyone else's, is that
we as God's people and as the Body of Christ, should walk in purity and
holiness -- and this EXCLUDES sexual immorality, including (two more
bad words) adultery and fornication.
You cannot follow God and live with your immoral lover at the same
time. These two life styles are mutuall exclusive,
> But I know that Christ died to save man.
Agreed.
> And I know that a gay person is
> what they are, not by choice.
Agreed.
> Whether they're borned or socially
> conditioned, irregardless, they ARE what they ARE. It's "normal" to them,
> but not to you. What is "normal" to you, is completely foreign to them.
Agreed.
> Is it a catch 22? No, only within the confines of much of traditional
> christianity. But the good news is Christ died for ALL... the prostitute,
> the thief, and on and on, including those guilty of lewd sexual activity...
> although most of what is said within scripture has nothing at all to do with
> the actual act of sex, and everything to do with the fact that it was being
> FORCED upon those unwilling.
I don't quite follow you, but will tend to agree with what you say. In
particular, I agree that it's not the ACT of sex, but the motive, and
the motive, as explicated in the Sermon on the Mount, is the lust for
another individual, not the sex act itself. Not only does discipleship
exclude having sex with your unmarried lover, it excludes WANTING to
have sex with him/her. You do agree with this, don't you?
> The word rape is never used, yet clearly it is
> demonstrated as a horrific sin, just as any form of sexual molestation
> would be.
Whether it stems from lust or rage, or perhaps from envy or some other
motive, makes no difference. The woman at the well didn't seem to have
been forced into marriages against her will, but Jesus told her to cut
it out.
> Clearly the greatest sins are failing to act with justice, love, equality
> and greed.
Only if you stop reading the Bible at Amos and Hosea. The GREATEST sin
is not loving God. Jesus said that the greatest command was to love God
with all our heart. He also said that those who love Him obey Him.
I agree that love of man necessarily follows from love of God, and that
justice and equity follows love of man. However, the absolute and
irrevocable prerequisite to practice of justice and equity, and loving
your brother as yourself, is love of God.
As an example, I feel that if Gene Robinson truly loved his partner
Mark Andrew (IIRC), he would refrain from sinning with him, that the
physical act of sex with Mark Andrew is not an expression of agape
love, but an expression of erotic love, which leads to hatred of God.
If you truly loved your partner, you would live with him in purity and
holiness, just as the medieval rites of same sex partnership required
the partners to do.
CC
James
>Re: god loves gays
>i am finding a lot of criticism to the fact that i am gay. people have
>deleted what i have said and pretended i am not gay.
>this is not the case. i am hapilly gay married with dick vannar.
>obviously it isn't recognized by law, but i believe god blessed my
>marriage even if you dont.
>it is a fact that i go to holy trinity church and it is a fact that i
>am anglican and it is fact that i am christian.
>god loves gays. that's what even the escicopal leader at the churches
>have to understand.
>go the glbt's!
Hello,
Christians must make sure that what they "believe" is in harmony with
the Bible. The Bible actually tells us to look up in the Bible any
religious teachings taught to us. Acts 17:11,
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians,
for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the
Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (NIV)
So let's see an example. Assume some church leader tells you that God
has no problem with homosexuals; that He accepts them even while they
practice that life style, because God is love.
So let's now follow the example of the above Bereans, and 'examine the
Scriptures' to see if those teachings are true. The latter one says
"God is love". Let's see. 1 Jo 4:8,
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (NIV)
Yes, that is verified in the Scriptures.
And the former one says that because of that great love, God accepts
practicers of the homosexual lifestyle. Let's see. Ro 1:26,27,
"26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their
women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men
likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with
passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and
receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." (RSV)
Looks like that one doesn't match. Remember we were looking up those
teachings in the Scriptures to see if what they told you "was true".
And in this case, apparently not.
Notice that God refers to them as having "dishonorable passions". He
calls them "shameless acts", and that they are in "error" when they do
those things. Doesn't look too much like acceptance by God here, does
it.
No, the Berean's example shows us that the Bible does not approve of
the practice of homosexuality. But just like other wrongdoers, if that
person repents and wants to start worshipping God the way He commands
(not the way men say), then God will accept him. Notice God's word on
this matter at 1 Co 6:9-11,
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor
thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But
you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name
of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (NIV)
Notice Verse 11, "And that is what some of you were. But you were
washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
So it is possible for a homosexual to change and gain an approved
relationship with God.
So the bottom line is this. If one wishes to pursue the homosexual
lifestyle, that is that person's choice. But they cannot be genuine
Christians, since true Christians must follow God's word the Holy
Bible. (2 Ti 3:16) And the Bible clearly disapproves of homosexuality.
As the founder of Christianity himself said about God's word at Joh
17:17,
"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." (NIV)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
AJ
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
saudi prince
Brian J Dawson
"James" <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:8v7e729phqra58ogm...@4ax.com...
2 Peter 2:7
7 and if He delivered righteous Lot, vexed with the filthy conduct of the
wicked.
*Notice 2Peter 2:7 calls Lot "rightous". Now how do you live a life to make
you this way? Well read about Lot.
Genesis 19:8
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I
pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your
eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the
shadow of my roof.
*** Solid Bible teaching. The same yesterday, today and tommorrow!
Deuteronomy 27:16 + 26
16'Cursed is the one who treats his father or his mother with contempt.'
"And all the people shall say, 'Amen!'
26'Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law.'
"And all the people shall say, 'Amen!'"
Matthew 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until
heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of
a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
accomplished.
**** Now How is the "Law" to be forfilled that is absolute and inviolate
the same yesterday, today and tommorrow? Unlike the sophists of today who
will misquite you?
Luke 14:26
26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife
and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be
my disciple.
***NUTS! BULLSHIT! Lets stop looking to this book for answers. It's like
reading tea leaves. Some pages are good then others are .... well pure shit!
Brian J Dawson
cart...@gmail.com
What do you suggest that we look to for answers?
CC
Dore
>>Re: god loves gays
>
>>i am finding a lot of criticism to the fact that i am gay. people have
>>deleted what i have said and pretended i am not gay.
>>this is not the case. i am hapilly gay married with dick vannar.
>>obviously it isn't recognized by law, but i believe god blessed my
>>marriage even if you dont.
>>it is a fact that i go to holy trinity church and it is a fact that i
>>am anglican and it is fact that i am christian.
>>god loves gays. that's what even the escicopal leader at the churches
>>have to understand.
>>go the glbt's!
It doesn't matter whether you are gay or straight. What matters is your
obedience, commitment, reverence, and sincere relationship with God, NOT
other humans. Even the straight people who are married and are devoted to
mates are disobedient to God, because they have NOT devoted their lives to
GOD first, but have committed themselves to other humans. NO marriage is
blessed in these end times, because all are required to be prepared for the
judgment and redemption, being faithful, pure, holy, righteous and their
lives completely devoted to God so they can be saved.
Now I realize that the gays have fought since the beginning of time to be
accepted by society, and your trials and hardships have been many, just to
be accepted loving the one you love, however, God wants you all to Himself
and does NOT want to share your love with another, whether gay or straight.
So although you want to pretend that your marriage and commitment to your
mate is acceptable, it is not, and if it be of any comfort, neither is any
straight couples. God loves righteousness, truth, faithfulness, sincerity,
commitment and devotion, no matter your sexual preference, for sex is
nothing more than lust and lust and sex is sin, which God despises. So even
though you are gay, and want to be accepted and loved by God, as well as
society, God does NOT care that you are gay, but does care to whom you
commit your life to, and if be not Him, then you do not love God and that is
the most important aspect of this life.
--
Dore
"James" <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:8v7e729phqra58ogm...@4ax.com...