Archbishop puts focus on sexuality
Spaminator
By Bill Toland
Allegheny Times Staff
AMBRIDGE, PA - The Archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the 77
million-member Anglican Communion, delivered a sweeping lecture to an
overflow crowd of students and clerics on Friday and, in the process,
cast an international religious spotlight on Ambridge and its seminary.
Archbishop George Carey, on hand for the 25th anniversary celebration
of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, outlined his "five
characteristics of Christian leadership" while touching often on issues
of sexuality, including a rebuff to those who would sanction same-sex
unions. "I don't believe in shutting doors on anybody," the archbishop
said. "(But) intimate sexual acts should be expressed in the committed
relationship of husband and wife. All other forms of sexual behavior
are deviations from that norm."
The remarks drew applause.
Carey, who will retire in October, also discussed the sexual abuse
scandal that has roiled the Roman Catholic Church for five months. He
condemned the acts while expressing sympathy for the troubled clergy
who carry out the molestation.
"While talking of children, it would be wrong to omit mention of the
appalling reality of sexual abuse of young people," he said.
"Such deeds are terrible and shame us all. ... In the United States,
the tragedy is both fresh and raw, but no part of the world or of the
church can ignore the suffering or fail to learn the lessons. Our
understanding of the nature of human sexuality may always remain
troubled and incomplete," he said, reminding the audience of 550 to be
wary of casting the first stone.
The archbishop's stance on sexuality was reflective of generally held
Anglican views, but his words were strong in light of his audience. The
Episcopal Church is commonly more liberal in its interpretation of the
Bible than most Anglicans, and for years the church has wrestled with
issues such as the ordination of openly gay ministers and the sanction
of same-sex marriages.
Ambridge's seminary, however, has a reputation as one of the more
conservative Episcopal seminaries in the country. It was founded a
quarter century ago as a theologically conservative option to the
denomination's other seminaries.
The British prelate challenged all Christians to be leaders, saying
that leadership suffers, and the church declines, when theological
revisionists attempt to apply "moral relativism" to the Scripture,
converting "truth into symbolism."
"What kind of leaders will tomorrow's world and church require? I have
responded with five characteristics: Men and women with Christ as their
Lord, driven by his commission, holy and disciplined in their lives,
inclusive of all ... with the vision to guide and inspire them."
He closed his lecture by commending Trinity, saying: "Places like this
seminary are designed to nurture and nourish such abilities and
qualities."
Immediately after the lecture, Ambridge Mayor George Kyrargyros offered
the archbishop the "key to the borough," while the Trinity board of
directors presented to Carey the original artist's rendering of the
seminary's new library and classroom building. Carey formally dedicated
the building later in the day.
Carey was invited to western Pennsylvania by Bishop Robert Duncan, head
of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and an acquaintance of the
archbishop for about a decade.
Duncan welcomed the warm spotlight that accompanied Carey's visit,
noting that the archbishop comes to America only four or five times
yearly.
Twice this year, he will be coming to the Pittsburgh area.
"His visit is a great blessing for us," Duncan said.
The visit drew clerics and worshipers from across the state and around
the world; clergy from Uganda, Michigan and California joined those
from Sewickley, Pittsburgh and Johnstown.
The Rev. Gordon Kamai, a Hawaii native who graduates from the Ambridge
seminary this year, said Carey's visit "lends an international
significance to our community.
"His presence here demonstrates a serious recognition of the
Episcopalian Church by the wider Anglican Communion," he said.
The Anglican Communion is an umbrella body that includes 28 separate
Christian churches, including the Episcopal Church. The Pittsburgh
Episcopal diocese has 20,000 members and about 70 congregations.
The Ambridge seminary is the largest Episcopal school in the United
States, with an enrollment of 250 full- and part-time students.
Archbishop addresses the issues
Before his lecture Friday at the Trinity Episcopal School
for Ministry in Ambridge, Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey sat
down for a question-and-answer session with a group of reporters to
discuss his impending retirement, offshoot missionary groups, and the
possible severing of ties between Parliament and the Church of England:
Q: There are people in the audience today who are from the AMiA
(Anglican Mission in America, a group of missionaries that has
separated itself from the American Episcopalians and the Anglican
Communion). Is there anything you'd like to say to them?
A: I value what they're doing. I know it comes out of a sincere desire
for the love of God, and sometimes after a deep depression, they think
the mainstream church has left the truth of God behind. ... They are
valued as Christians. I just want to find ways in which we can bring
them back and into the mainstream life of the church again.
Q: Some members of Parliament, pollsters and even fellow clerics
believe the Church of England should sever its formal and ceremonial
ties with the state, especially in light of the Sept. 11 attacks, which
muddled the relationship between religion and state policy. You
disagree. Why?
A: In times of great grief, or great national tragedy, where do the
people turn? Do they go to Wembley Stadium? ... No, they turn to the
church.
There is still much to be gained from the relationship between church
and state, (and) no steps should be taken to weaken the links between
us without examination of the historic significance and of the impact
on the community as a whole.
Q: Dr. Rowan Williams, head of the Church of Wales, is one of the
front-runners to replace you upon your October retirement. He's spoken
of dissolving the ties between church and state as if it's an
inevitability. Would you support him as your replacement if he pursues
that course?
A: No matter my successor, there are bound to be some issues on which
we don't agree. I would support my successor, no matter which course he
chooses. ... Rowan and I are very good friends.
Q: The Anglican Communion includes the American Episcopal Church, which
is going through some growing pains. There is ongoing debate over
whether it's proper to ordain openly gay ministers and whether the
church should recognize same-sex unions. Your thoughts on both of those
issues?
A: God has given us sexuality. It's a mysterious gift. We all fail
within it. But I'm of the belief, and I've been consistent on this
throughout my tenure, that any sexual relationship beyond the confines
of a heterosexual marriage is a deviation from the Scripture. ... I
don't approve of that.
Q: The one thing you wanted to do as archbishop that you'll never get
to do - what is that?
A: I suppose every archbishop wants to preside over a coronation. I'll
never get to do that. ... I'll be remembered as the archbishop who
buries people, I'm afraid.
Q: Come Nov. 1, what's in store for you? Lots of golf? Will you buy a
motorcycle?
A: Probably packing. And whatever else my wife tells me to do.
Bill Toland can be reached online at bto...@timesonline.com.
=A9Beaver County Times/Allegheny Times 2002
--
". . . This is the first and great commandment, and the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
And by the way, please stop sending email petitions, no matter how worthy the cause sounds. They are worthless and harmful. See http://urbanlegends.about.com/science/urbanlegends/library/weekly/aa052798.htm
louis
"Spaminator" <stop...@petitions.bs> wrote in message
news:stopspam-060...@sdn-ap-006njpennp0572.dialsprint.net...
> Archbishop puts focus on sexuality
>
> By Bill Toland
>
> Allegheny Times Staff
>
> AMBRIDGE, PA - The Archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the 77
> million-member Anglican Communion, delivered a sweeping lecture to an
> overflow crowd of students and clerics on Friday and, in the process,
> cast an international religious spotlight on Ambridge and its seminary.
>
> Archbishop George Carey, on hand for the 25th anniversary celebration
> of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, outlined his "five
> characteristics of Christian leadership" while touching often on issues
> of sexuality, including a rebuff to those who would sanction same-sex
> unions. "I don't believe in shutting doors on anybody," the archbishop
> said. "(But) intimate sexual acts should be expressed in the committed
> relationship of husband and wife. All other forms of sexual behavior
> are deviations from that norm."
Thus shutting - or rather slamming - the door in the faces of faithful gay
people.
How ironic.
Spaminator
<l...@nowhere.net> wrote:
I disagree with you on this, Louis. Recognizing a scriptural prohibition
isn't slamming the door, just upholding the faith. There are, you know,
certain norms in the good Book. And, as you know, recognizing something
as sin is not calling one who engages in that sin bad. We all go to
confession and do our penance -- whether it's general, as in the case of
most ECUSA members, or individual. We are all sinners. So I don't see
anything about people in his statement, but only behaviors.
And I don't see any slamming doors, except on the idea of redefining
marriage within the church as opposed to in the state. What's the great
need to redefine marriage within the church, and re-interpret the
scriptural prohibition on any sex outside of marriage, unless it's to
change scripture itself? Do you really want to go down that road? Where
does it end? Starting with the state would be much more productive,
because it has no longer has such prohibition built in (since the USSCT's
upholding of privacy, even in states where sodomy statutes remain enacted)
and it's more responsive to social changes than the church, which has a
normative document you'd have to reinterpret first.
Come to think of it, though, this is ECUSA we're talking about here. Ok,
the church is more responsive to social changes than society itself....
louis
This attempt to separate gay people from their sexual lives is fallacious.
Look what Carey is advocating: lifelong forced celibacy for all gay people
because we are deviants. We are not to be full and accepted members of the
Church, but "sinners" who are tolerated at best. While I'm not advocating
marriage for gays (let the straights have ~that~ corrupt institution!) I do
think some form of union can and should be recognized. If, as you say, gay
unions are forbidden by the Bible (as is any sexual expression that isn't
one of straights in marriage) and we must be restrained by that prohibition,
then it is an inescapable conclusion that gay ~people~ are to be rejected. I
feel rejected. Not being gay, you are incapable of understanding this point.
The Roman church has taken a similar position to yours: we are
"intrinsically disordered" and any expression of our erotic beings (beyond
eternal shame and self-hatred) is to be considered an inherent "moral evil."
This is absurd on its face. I'll spell it out for you: homosexuality is not
just a "behavior" or a "life style," it is a whole state of being. When you
condemn the behavior you cannot help but condemn the person who wants to
engage in it. After all, even Christ didn't make that distinction.
I don't know. Maybe it's impossible for a faithful gay person to exist
within the Church. Only the revisionists are prepared to accept us fully,
and I cannot go along with their theology.
>
> And I don't see any slamming doors, except on the idea of redefining
> marriage within the church as opposed to in the state. What's the great
> need to redefine marriage within the church, and re-interpret the
> scriptural prohibition on any sex outside of marriage, unless it's to
> change scripture itself? Do you really want to go down that road? Where
> does it end? Starting with the state would be much more productive,
> because it has no longer has such prohibition built in (since the USSCT's
> upholding of privacy, even in states where sodomy statutes remain enacted)
> and it's more responsive to social changes than the church, which has a
> normative document you'd have to reinterpret first.
Well, then, perhaps gay people should abandon Christianity completely.
>
Spaminator
> > > > Archbishop George Carey, on hand for the 25th anniversary celebration
> > > > of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, outlined his "five
> > > > characteristics of Christian leadership" while touching often on
> issues
> > > > of sexuality, including a rebuff to those who would sanction same-sex
> > > > unions. "I don't believe in shutting doors on anybody," the archbishop
> > > > said. "(But) intimate sexual acts should be expressed in the committed
> > > > relationship of husband and wife. All other forms of sexual behavior
> > > > are deviations from that norm."
> > >
> > > Thus shutting - or rather slamming - the door in the faces of faithful
> gay
> > > people.
> > >
> > > How ironic.
> >
> > I disagree with you on this, Louis. Recognizing a scriptural prohibition
> > isn't slamming the door, just upholding the faith. There are, you know,
> > certain norms in the good Book. And, as you know, recognizing something
> > as sin is not calling one who engages in that sin bad. We all go to
> > confession and do our penance -- whether it's general, as in the case of
> > most ECUSA members, or individual. We are all sinners. So I don't see
> > anything about people in his statement, but only behaviors.
>
> This attempt to separate gay people from their sexual lives is fallacious.
> Look what Carey is advocating: lifelong forced celibacy for all gay people
> because we are deviants.
I disagree that this is what he is advocating. Living without sin is
impossible. Recognizing it as sin is helpful. And what's this about
"forced" -- who's doing the forcing? We all deviate in that we all sin.
> We are not to be full and accepted members of the
> Church, but "sinners" who are tolerated at best.
But this is the lot of all of us. What of unmarried hetero couples in the
church -- are you saying they are treated any differently than gay
couples? If they are in any given parish, I would say that is a sign of
ill health there.
> While I'm not advocating
> marriage for gays (let the straights have ~that~ corrupt institution!) I do
> think some form of union can and should be recognized. If, as you say, gay
> unions are forbidden by the Bible (as is any sexual expression that isn't
> one of straights in marriage) and we must be restrained by that prohibition,
> then it is an inescapable conclusion that gay ~people~ are to be rejected. I
> feel rejected. Not being gay, you are incapable of understanding this point.
Certainly I have some capacity to empathize with the rejection you feel,
and I do. And I agree that some form of union should be recognized,
although not within the church. But I must disagree that there can be any
equating of sin with sinner in a Christian context, no matter what the sin
or how embedded it is in one's personality. The basis of Christ's
forgiveness, I believe, is completely undermined when the two concepts are
merged. Taking the name of the Lord in vain is forbidden also, as is
dishonoring thy parents, as is covetousness. And yet these sins are
legion. If those who have committed them are to be rejected as people
simply because the sins are condemned, that includes just about all of
us. Even if you limit the group to those who commit a sin repeatedly,
believing it to be part of their being, you still have a huge group of
people -- likely the majority. It simply cannot be that those who sin
repeatedly like this are inescapably rejected as people. And I also must
reject the notion that we are to live perfectly. We cannot.
> The Roman church has taken a similar position to yours: we are
> "intrinsically disordered" and any expression of our erotic beings (beyond
> eternal shame and self-hatred) is to be considered an inherent "moral evil."
> This is absurd on its face. I'll spell it out for you: homosexuality is not
> just a "behavior" or a "life style," it is a whole state of being. When you
> condemn the behavior you cannot help but condemn the person who wants to
> engage in it. After all, even Christ didn't make that distinction.
Of course we are all intrinsically disordered, but that implies nothing
about shame or self-hatred. (Nor do the words that offend Leslie in the
BCP '28's general confession, IMHO.) I do not condemn my daughter for
wanting a cookie she can't have. Nor myself for wanting a lover I can't.
Nor you for what you want. For that matter, nor you for what you have
done. Nor I for what I have. And I certainly don't condemn the heroin
addict as a person, only the behavior, no matter how entrenched, embedded
in personaltiy, or long-standing. Ours is not to judge. But certainly,
God's is.
I cannot conceive of any notion of parenting under your system. A parent
must condemn certain behaviors in his or her offspring, if only to steer
him or her away from danger. But by doing so, the parent does not judge
condemn the offspring, only the behavior. The parent continues to love
the offspring. The analogy holds for our heavenly Father.
>
> I don't know. Maybe it's impossible for a faithful gay person to exist
> within the Church. Only the revisionists are prepared to accept us fully,
> and I cannot go along with their theology.
I have known several faithful gay people within the church who are not
revisionists and who do seem quite content in it.
> >
> > And I don't see any slamming doors, except on the idea of redefining
> > marriage within the church as opposed to in the state. What's the great
> > need to redefine marriage within the church, and re-interpret the
> > scriptural prohibition on any sex outside of marriage, unless it's to
> > change scripture itself? Do you really want to go down that road? Where
> > does it end? Starting with the state would be much more productive,
> > because it has no longer has such prohibition built in (since the USSCT's
> > upholding of privacy, even in states where sodomy statutes remain enacted)
> > and it's more responsive to social changes than the church, which has a
> > normative document you'd have to reinterpret first.
>
> Well, then, perhaps gay people should abandon Christianity completely.
>
Both the church and gay people would be greatly harmed by such a move.
louis
>
> I disagree that this is what he is advocating. Living without sin is
> impossible. Recognizing it as sin is helpful. And what's this about
> "forced" -- who's doing the forcing? We all deviate in that we all sin.
Homosexuality is not a sin.
>
> > We are not to be full and accepted members of the
> > Church, but "sinners" who are tolerated at best.
>
> But this is the lot of all of us. What of unmarried hetero couples in the
> church -- are you saying they are treated any differently than gay
> couples?
Certainly: they have the option to marry.
We don't.
> If they are in any given parish, I would say that is a sign of
> ill health there.
As is the presence of gay people, according to your system.
Again, homosexuality is not a sin, so your analysis fails.
>
> > The Roman church has taken a similar position to yours: we are
> > "intrinsically disordered" and any expression of our erotic beings
(beyond
> > eternal shame and self-hatred) is to be considered an inherent "moral
evil."
> > This is absurd on its face. I'll spell it out for you: homosexuality is
not
> > just a "behavior" or a "life style," it is a whole state of being. When
you
> > condemn the behavior you cannot help but condemn the person who wants to
> > engage in it. After all, even Christ didn't make that distinction.
>
> Of course we are all intrinsically disordered, but that implies nothing
> about shame or self-hatred. (Nor do the words that offend Leslie in the
> BCP '28's general confession, IMHO.) I do not condemn my daughter for
> wanting a cookie she can't have. Nor myself for wanting a lover I can't.
> Nor you for what you want. For that matter, nor you for what you have
> done. Nor I for what I have. And I certainly don't condemn the heroin
> addict as a person, only the behavior, no matter how entrenched, embedded
> in personaltiy, or long-standing. Ours is not to judge. But certainly,
> God's is.
So, according to the church, we get condemned by God. Big womping deal.
>
> I cannot conceive of any notion of parenting under your system. A parent
> must condemn certain behaviors in his or her offspring, if only to steer
> him or her away from danger. But by doing so, the parent does not judge
> condemn the offspring, only the behavior. The parent continues to love
> the offspring. The analogy holds for our heavenly Father.
If God made me gay and then turns around and prohibits it, what does this
say for Him as a father? A devil, rather...
> >
> > I don't know. Maybe it's impossible for a faithful gay person to exist
> > within the Church. Only the revisionists are prepared to accept us
fully,
> > and I cannot go along with their theology.
>
> I have known several faithful gay people within the church who are not
> revisionists and who do seem quite content in it.
Then they are living with cognitive disonance.
> > Well, then, perhaps gay people should abandon Christianity completely.
> >
> Both the church and gay people would be greatly harmed by such a move.
>
The church would be, certainly (no more organists). But gay people? I
wonder...
l
Leslie F. Terrell
"louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:1_1C8.2508
Snip
>
> > > Well, then, perhaps gay people should abandon Christianity completely.
> > >
> > Both the church and gay people would be greatly harmed by such a move.
> >
> The church would be, certainly (no more organists). But gay people? I
> wonder...
Having seen what happens when a faithful christian abandons their faith
because of an unfaithful church I don't reccomend it. It's not pretty.
--
Pax Christi,
Les
maadh...@haha.yahoo.com
to email me take out haha
Spaminator
<l...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> "Spaminator" <stop...@petitions.bs> wrote in message
> news:stopspam-080...@sdn-ap-006njpennp1584.dialsprint.net...
> > > We are not to be full and accepted members of the
> > > Church, but "sinners" who are tolerated at best.
> >
> > But this is the lot of all of us. What of unmarried hetero couples in the
> > church -- are you saying they are treated any differently than gay
> > couples?
>
> Certainly: they have the option to marry.
> We don't.
>
> > If they are in any given parish, I would say that is a sign of
> > ill health there.
>
> As is the presence of gay people, according to your system.
>
I intended to refer to the last sentence when I said "are." If gay and
straight sinners are treated any differently in any given parish, that, I
believe, is a sign of ill health in that parish.
louis
Leslie F. Terrell <Nos...@haha.com> wrote in message
news:j62C8.11534$6T5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:1_1C8.2508
> Snip
> >
> > > > Well, then, perhaps gay people should abandon Christianity
completely.
> > > >
> > > Both the church and gay people would be greatly harmed by such a move.
> > >
> > The church would be, certainly (no more organists). But gay people? I
> > wonder...
>
> Having seen what happens when a faithful christian abandons their faith
> because of an unfaithful church I don't reccomend it. It's not pretty.
>
> --
l
PS- Don't worry, I'm not about to abandon Christ. It's formal,
institutionalized Christianity I'm reevaluating.
In the world of science, you construct a theoretical system to explain all
the facts you've gathered by observation. Thus, through collective effort
the scientific community will have a settled viewpoint on reality. However,
on occasion, a new fact will be uncovered which puts into question the
system and it has to be adjusted or abandoned. Similarly with Christianity:
homosexuality is a stubborn fact which is sticking in the craw of orthodoxy
and the organized church. But because it is not a system and an organization
which relies on facts but on purported revelation, it has no mechanism to
adjust itself to this fact, so the entire edifice is called into question.
If we take a rigid and unrelenting view of the Bible which only allows one
interpretation, then, in the case of homosexuality, millions of people are
condemned. This, I contend, is contrary to the bedrock beliefs of
Christianity. This dissonance is threatening its very foundations (as we can
see in the controversies surrounding its churches). (Note: I make a
distinction between the worldly church, which is ~very~ fallible even though
is sometimes forgets this, and the spiritual church which is Christ.
Unfortunately, at the moment, it is the revisionist faction in its programme
of complete destruction - ala Spong - which is championing gay rights. We
must detach this issue from them in order to make a change palatable to the
faithful party.)
Note: I do believe that Christianity is based on revelation. However, the
problem comes with our interpretation of this revelation. I believe the
bedrock beliefs of the church (cf, the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds) are
true; however, certain beliefs depending upon time and place can be called
into question. Consider slavery: once upon a time it was defended as
biblical - similarly with the divine right of kings - both were defended on
biblical grounds but both are now considered false and unchristian. I
predict the same will one day happen with homosexuality.
Meanwhile, it pays to take the trumpeting and posturing of churchmen and
women with the proverbial grain of salt. I'm getting to the point where I
can take or leave them and their opinions. I know this is a somewhat
protestant viewpoint, but what the heck! Even an Anglo-Catholic has a duty
of think critically about the antics of the worldly church.
louis
Leslie F. Terrell
"louis" <l...@lorien.net> wrote in message
news:7tdC8.1210$r1....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Leslie F. Terrell <Nos...@haha.com> wrote in message
> news:j62C8.11534$6T5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:1_1C8.2508
> > Snip
> > >
> > > > > Well, then, perhaps gay people should abandon Christianity
> completely.
> > > > >
> > > > Both the church and gay people would be greatly harmed by such a
move.
> > > >
> > > The church would be, certainly (no more organists). But gay people? I
> > > wonder...
> >
> > Having seen what happens when a faithful christian abandons their faith
> > because of an unfaithful church I don't reccomend it. It's not pretty.
> >
> > --
> Sometimes life isn't pretty, or haven't you noticed?
>
> l
>
> PS- Don't worry, I'm not about to abandon Christ. It's formal,
> institutionalized Christianity I'm reevaluating.
That's what Will said. But you've already been a buddhist, so I guess
you're not about to go down that road, eh?
Yes, we must. I think the best way is by having faithful people openly gay
in the church. This is what has happened with my church in weatherford,
which is how we've gotten a relatively conservative group (in respect to
theology and church practice) to accept homosexuals without "questioning
their credintials". Of course, our church is closely connected with
university and the arts, so we get a lot of young gay men there. I don't
mean to stereotype, but we do tend to have a lot of gay musicians running
around the university, and with several music faculty teaching there and
being members at the church, the exposure's a little greater.
>
> Note: I do believe that Christianity is based on revelation. However, the
> problem comes with our interpretation of this revelation. I believe the
> bedrock beliefs of the church (cf, the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds) are
> true; however, certain beliefs depending upon time and place can be called
> into question. Consider slavery: once upon a time it was defended as
> biblical - similarly with the divine right of kings - both were defended
on
> biblical grounds but both are now considered false and unchristian. I
> predict the same will one day happen with homosexuality.
Agreed.
>
> Meanwhile, it pays to take the trumpeting and posturing of churchmen and
> women with the proverbial grain of salt. I'm getting to the point where I
> can take or leave them and their opinions. I know this is a somewhat
> protestant viewpoint, but what the heck! Even an Anglo-Catholic has a duty
> of think critically about the antics of the worldly church.
Mmmm, or, as I keep telling you, stick around. General convention voted the
homosexual union thing down by a very narrow measure the last time.
louis
>
>
> That's what Will said. But you've already been a buddhist, so I guess
> you're not about to go down that road, eh?
>
And I'm not Will.
> Mmmm, or, as I keep telling you, stick around. General convention voted
the
> homosexual union thing down by a very narrow measure the last time.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what the general convention decides.
I'm breaking the shackles and zeroing in on the essentials.
;-)
l
Leslie F. Terrell
>
> "Leslie F. Terrell" <Nos...@haha.com> wrote in message
> news:YskC8.13269$vT1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >
> > That's what Will said. But you've already been a buddhist, so I guess
> > you're not about to go down that road, eh?
> >
> Nope. Although I'm now combining Christian prayer with Zen meditation.
>
> And I'm not Will.
That you're not. Will had the patience of a saint (and the heart of a lion,
but that's beside the point). I mean, he and I never fought--not really.
Mostly because, whether he liked it or not, he was to christlike to stay
angry or have someone stay angry at. I tried a coupla times, but I couldn't
do it.
>
> > Mmmm, or, as I keep telling you, stick around. General convention voted
> the
> > homosexual union thing down by a very narrow measure the last time.
>
> Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what the general convention decides.
> I'm breaking the shackles and zeroing in on the essentials.
I thought this new church was your dream paridise?
louis
>
> "louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:QdFC8.2120$9a.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Leslie F. Terrell" <Nos...@haha.com> wrote in message
> > news:YskC8.13269$vT1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > That's what Will said. But you've already been a buddhist, so I guess
> > > you're not about to go down that road, eh?
> > >
> > Nope. Although I'm now combining Christian prayer with Zen meditation.
> >
> > And I'm not Will.
>
> That you're not. Will had the patience of a saint (and the heart of a
lion,
> but that's beside the point). I mean, he and I never fought--not really.
stay
> angry or have someone stay angry at. I tried a coupla times, but I
couldn't
> do it.
You knew him in person.
A note in passing: it's been bugging me for months - "to" is a preposition,
you don't use it as an adverb or adjective. When you want to emphasize
something, use "too."
;-)
> >
> > > Mmmm, or, as I keep telling you, stick around. General convention
voted
> > the
> > > homosexual union thing down by a very narrow measure the last time.
> >
> > Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what the general convention
decides.
> > I'm breaking the shackles and zeroing in on the essentials.
>
> I thought this new church was your dream paridise?
Well, maybe not a paradise. It uses the rituals with which I can most
relate; it is the closest thing to Catholicism I can get without actually
being RC; it isn't under the illusion that it can solve the world's problems
through leftist programmes; and it really preaches the real Gospel. I like
it so far, but it's early days yet. I'm trying to be more authentic to
myself: independent while still taking part, an iconoclastic believer. The
straitjacket of ultra-orthodoxy was too stifling. Reason and personal
experience are also important to the Anglican, and I intend to bring them to
bear on Scripture and Tradition. As a faithful gay person, this is my
calling - the land of paradox.
l
Leslie F. Terrell
"louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:qrRC8.107t...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's what Will said. But you've already been a buddhist, so I
guess
> > > > you're not about to go down that road, eh?
> > > >
> > > Nope. Although I'm now combining Christian prayer with Zen meditation.
> > >
> > > And I'm not Will.
> >
> > That you're not. Will had the patience of a saint (and the heart of a
> lion,
> > but that's beside the point). I mean, he and I never fought--not
really.
> > Mostly because, whether he liked it or not, he was to [too]christlike to
> stay
> > angry or have someone stay angry at. I tried a coupla times, but I
> couldn't
> > do it.
>
> You knew him in person.
actually, no, I didn't. We were "online" friends and we never met in person.
I wish we had. But you're right about it being far more personal, I sent
the man homemade sugar cookies (fuckin' great, btw, according to Justin)
every christmas and baked goods every once in a while in a sad attempt to
fatten him up. *snort, I don't do that for just anybody. My church is
lucky they get such things every four months or so and I live within a mile
of them and love them all dearly.
>
> A note in passing: it's been bugging me for months - "to" is a
preposition,
> you don't use it as an adverb or adjective. When you want to emphasize
> something, use "too."
> ;-)
You know, people have tried for years to correct my minor grammer
mistakes... I'll try, but I can't promise you anything. (Scary thing is
that I'm minoring in English so I can get certified to teach that too... in
addition to history.)
> > >
> > > > Mmmm, or, as I keep telling you, stick around. General convention
> voted
> > > the
> > > > homosexual union thing down by a very narrow measure the last time.
> > >
> > > Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what the general convention
> decides.
> > > I'm breaking the shackles and zeroing in on the essentials.
> >
> > I thought this new church was your dream paridise?
>
> Well, maybe not a paradise. It uses the rituals with which I can most
> relate; it is the closest thing to Catholicism I can get without actually
> being RC; it isn't under the illusion that it can solve the world's
problems
> through leftist programmes; and it really preaches the real Gospel. I like
> it so far, but it's early days yet. I'm trying to be more authentic to
> myself: independent while still taking part, an iconoclastic believer. The
> straitjacket of ultra-orthodoxy was too stifling. Reason and personal
> experience are also important to the Anglican, and I intend to bring them
to
> bear on Scripture and Tradition. As a faithful gay person, this is my
> calling - the land of paradox.
Have you seen anyone having any problems with you (or anyone else as you
don't really know these people yet) bringing that to the mix?
Sometimes people can suprise you. When faced with a "real live homosexual"
I know a lot of supposed homophobes who do an about face in their opinions.
My parents, for example, upon actually meeting my (church) friends went from
saying they shouldn't be there to saying that while they may not agree with
it (like it's any of their business) but being cruel to people has dire
consequences, so people like brother had better back off. I think after
attending a service that Bryon lay-read, they might start to change their
tune. But it takes time--it took me around 5 years--and being exposed to
Will and others who became my dear friends--to finally admit to myself that
I just didn't believe the cloud of hateful bullshit surrounding
homosexuality. It's not so much a rational process, but an emotional one.
I'm still uncomfortable hanging out with dikes, lol, but Christy shouldn't
have bought men's underwear in my presence anyway. (She was my best friend
in high school--don't take that comment to seriously.)
--
Pax Christi,
Les
maadh...@haha.yahoo.com
to email me take out haha
--
I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and delight in
my people; no more shall the sound of
weeping be heard in it, or the cry of
distress.
~Isaiah 65:17-19
The Steel Wolf
<Nos...@haha.com> scripsit:
>I'm still uncomfortable hanging out with dikes, lol,
Why do you find flood embankments so discomforting? ;)
louis
> Have you seen anyone having any problems with you (or anyone else as you
> don't really know these people yet) bringing that to the mix?
Don't know. Haven't gotten that far.
>
> Sometimes people can suprise you. When faced with a "real live
homosexual"
> I know a lot of supposed homophobes who do an about face in their
opinions.
> My parents, for example, upon actually meeting my (church) friends went
from
> saying they shouldn't be there to saying that while they may not agree
with
> it (like it's any of their business) but being cruel to people has dire
> consequences, so people like brother had better back off. I think after
> attending a service that Bryon lay-read, they might start to change their
> tune. But it takes time--it took me around 5 years--and being exposed to
> Will and others who became my dear friends--to finally admit to myself
that
> I just didn't believe the cloud of hateful bullshit surrounding
> homosexuality. It's not so much a rational process, but an emotional one.
> I'm still uncomfortable hanging out with dikes, lol, but Christy shouldn't
> have bought men's underwear in my presence anyway. (She was my best friend
> in high school--don't take that comment to seriously.)
>
You may be right. But I'm beyond caring what the straights think anymore.
l
Leslie F. Terrell
"louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:ly0D8.2494
> > Have you seen anyone having any problems with you (or anyone else as you
> > don't really know these people yet) bringing that to the mix?
>
> Don't know. Haven't gotten that far.
>
> > I just didn't believe the cloud of hateful bullshit surrounding
> > homosexuality. It's not so much a rational process, but an emotional
one.
> > I'm still uncomfortable hanging out with dikes, lol, but Christy
shouldn't
> > have bought men's underwear in my presence anyway. (She was my best
friend
> > in high school--don't take that comment to seriously.)
> >
> You may be right. But I'm beyond caring what the straights think anymore.
<sigh> They are your brothers and your sisters.. whether you like it or
not. And you need them, and they need you. (You do realise that if all
goes well, we'll be spending eternity together?) If I had maintained that
attitude about gay people, who the hell would I be friends with now?
Rednecks? Wooohoooo they could puke in my house and I could clean it up.
The gay guys just puke projectile over the balcony eight feet.... singing
does wonders for the diaphram muscles, but it doesn't end up in the carpet
and he does that on purpose. (Louis, this is what Priscilla and I mean by
you having an anger problem.) I think we all have a lot of healing to get
through on this issue before it can be resolved, but it must be resolved.
Do not make yourself a casuality!!!
Leslie F. Terrell
"The Steel Wolf" <stee...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
news:3ce093f3....@news-server.mmcable.com...
Yes, the fact that the one I'm thinking of uses an ace bandage for a bra
disturbs me to the core... lol. But keep in mind... I'm 100% girl. I wont
leave the house without makeup.
Leslie F. Terrell
>
> "The Steel Wolf" <stee...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> news:3ce093f3....@news-server.mmcable.com...
> > anno Domini Fri, 10 May 2002 16:46:51 GMT, "Leslie F. Terrell"
> > <Nos...@haha.com> scripsit:
> >
> > >I'm still uncomfortable hanging out with dikes, lol,
> >
> > Why do you find flood embankments so discomforting? ;)
>
> Yes, the fact that the one I'm thinking of uses an ace bandage for a bra
> disturbs me to the core... lol. But keep in mind... I'm 100% girl. I
wont
> leave the house without makeup.
OH< Did I mention this girl and I used to watch boys together and rate them
like we were grading an essay or something (10 points for effort... five off
for bad presentation.)
Leslie F. Terrell
Oh, did I mention by way of making up for the projectile puke Justin has a
beautiful tenor voice and he plays Bach's fugue's on the organ at church
after Canterbury?
Priscilla Ballou
I'm envisioning retaining walls in sensible shoes.
Priscilla
--
When life hands you lemons, sometimes you make lemonade and sometimes you
need to just sit with those lemons.
Priscilla Ballou
"Leslie F. Terrell" <Nos...@haha.com> wrote:
> "The Steel Wolf" <stee...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> news:3ce093f3....@news-server.mmcable.com...
> > anno Domini Fri, 10 May 2002 16:46:51 GMT, "Leslie F. Terrell"
> > <Nos...@haha.com> scripsit:
> >
> > >I'm still uncomfortable hanging out with dikes, lol,
> >
> > Why do you find flood embankments so discomforting? ;)
>
> Yes, the fact that the one I'm thinking of uses an ace bandage for a bra
Actually, if you have large breasts, a bra which resembles an ace
bandage can be quite comfortable! But that's not what you meant.
> disturbs me to the core... lol. But keep in mind... I'm 100% girl. I wont
> leave the house without makeup.
Lots of 100% girls don't wear makeup.
Leslie, you may want to look at your stereotypes of lesbians.
louis
>
> "louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:ly0D8.2494
> > > Have you seen anyone having any problems with you (or anyone else as
you
> > > don't really know these people yet) bringing that to the mix?
> >
> > Don't know. Haven't gotten that far.
> >
> Snip>
> > > I just didn't believe the cloud of hateful bullshit surrounding
> > > homosexuality. It's not so much a rational process, but an emotional
> one.
> > > I'm still uncomfortable hanging out with dikes, lol, but Christy
> shouldn't
> > > have bought men's underwear in my presence anyway. (She was my best
> friend
> > > in high school--don't take that comment to seriously.)
> > >
> > You may be right. But I'm beyond caring what the straights think
anymore.
>
> <sigh> They are your brothers and your sisters.. whether you like it or
> not. And you need them, and they need you. (You do realise that if all
> goes well, we'll be spending eternity together?)
A frightening thought.
If I had maintained that
> attitude about gay people, who the hell would I be friends with now?
Hmmm....fellow straights?
> Rednecks? Wooohoooo they could puke in my house and I could clean it up.
> The gay guys just puke projectile over the balcony eight feet.... singing
> does wonders for the diaphram muscles, but it doesn't end up in the carpet
> and he does that on purpose. (Louis, this is what Priscilla and I mean by
> you having an anger problem.) I think we all have a lot of healing to get
> through on this issue before it can be resolved, but it must be resolved.
> Do not make yourself a casuality!!!
Nope. I let you maternal ones do that for me.
louis
louis
hmmm....since you're reading this thread do you have anything to say besides
your usual quips?
>
Zephon
>
> Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what the general convention decides.
> I'm breaking the shackles and zeroing in on the essentials.
>
> ;-)
> l
I have difficulty understanding this attitude. Are you not a part of the
larger Church? Are you content to just be doing your own thing, just you
and God?
Zephon
louis
"Zephon" <Zep...@galaxy7.com> wrote in message
news:XTbD8.177$X%5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:QdFC8.2120$9a.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
>
> > Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what the general convention
decides.
> > I'm breaking the shackles and zeroing in on the essentials.
> >
> > ;-)
> > l
>
>
> I have difficulty understanding this attitude. Are you not a part of the
> larger Church?
Are you? The larger Church (defined as the Anglican communion or the
Catholic church?) wants no part of us. Lambeth proved that. The only part
who does is revisionist and heretical.
The club I want to be part of doesn't want me; the part that wants me I want
no part of.
>Are you content to just be doing your own thing, just you
> and God?
Sounds good.
>
> Zephon
>
>
>
>
>
The Steel Wolf
scripsit:
Not a great deal, no. Really, there's only one thing of any substance
that comes to mind. I can appreciate that you would feel like turning
your back on straight society as a whole at times, but I do hope that
you distinguish between those straights who would marginalise you and
those who are willing to embrace you with open arms. In other words,
sometimes from your posts I get the feeling that you have a bit of
resentment for straight society--which I can certainly sympathise
with--but please remember that you have friends there as well.
James Arnold
<snip> I have left a lengthy bit unsnipped b/c I didn't think it was
fair to chop anything, please zoom to the end if you know what was
posted. -JA
>:>>> "I don't believe in shutting doors on anybody," the archbishop
>:> > > said. "(But) intimate sexual acts should be expressed in the committed
>:> > > relationship of husband and wife. All other forms of sexual behavior
>:> > > are deviations from that norm."
>:> >
>:> > Thus shutting - or rather slamming - the door in the faces of faithful
>:gay people.
>:> >
>:> > How ironic.
>:>
>:> I disagree with you on this, Louis. Recognizing a scriptural prohibition
>:> isn't slamming the door, just upholding the faith. There are, you know,
>:> certain norms in the good Book. And, as you know, recognizing something
>:> as sin is not calling one who engages in that sin bad. We all go to
>:> confession and do our penance -- whether it's general, as in the case of
>:> most ECUSA members, or individual. We are all sinners. So I don't see
>:> anything about people in his statement, but only behaviors.
>:
>:This attempt to separate gay people from their sexual lives is fallacious.
>:Look what Carey is advocating: lifelong forced celibacy for all gay people
>:because we are deviants. We are not to be full and accepted members of the
>:Church, but "sinners" who are tolerated at best. While I'm not advocating
>:marriage for gays (let the straights have ~that~ corrupt institution!) I do
>:think some form of union can and should be recognized. If, as you say, gay
>:unions are forbidden by the Bible (as is any sexual expression that isn't
>:one of straights in marriage) and we must be restrained by that prohibition,
>:then it is an inescapable conclusion that gay ~people~ are to be rejected. I
>:feel rejected. Not being gay, you are incapable of understanding this point.
Louis is correct on this one. I'm sure this is both from personal
experience and those of friends of his. As a psychologist, I can
assure everyone that this personal experience is supported by the
data. In situations where people are forced to live contrary to their
sexuality (and other important dimensions of personhood), we see a
dramatic increase in mental health issues - particularly depression
and anxiety. These are clearly reactive in this sort of context.
You can't do the "love the sinner and hate the sin" on this one. I
also know what it is like personally to be in a committed relationship
and can't imagine my life if my partner choice (Ich kann nicht anders)
was looked on a sin by people in my church.
Re the Bible. Yes there are statements about homosexuality in the
English versions and I am not skilled enough in the original languages
to understand if the prohibitions that are oft cited are about
homosexuality or about pedophilia - which I have heard stated by some
making points about this. Frankly, I see no problem even if the Bible
does prohibit homosexuality. It is not a psychology text, any more
than it is an authority on geology, biology, the movement of stars
and planets, We live with all sorts of other contradictions, I
think we can live with this one too. The correct thing to do in all
circumstances is to reverently and carefully consider all aspects of
issues and come to a reasoned understanding with full knowledge of the
implications. And please don't respond that that this ends up with
situation ethics or "anything goes". I accept evolutionary biology
and deep geological time the same way (though these have far, far
less impact on the lives of people on a day to day basis). Committed
relationships and those who take them seriously should be celebrated
always in all ways.
Blessing and peace on you all.
-J. Arnold
Leslie
Probably turn to females and nice old men who everybody thinks could
have been gay...
But I wouldn't want to see that.
Pax,
Les
Leslie
> "Leslie F. Terrell" <Nos...@haha.com> wrote in message
> news:xM0D8.13280$Vm2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:ly0D8.2494
> > > > Have you seen anyone having any problems with you (or anyone else as
> you
> > > > don't really know these people yet) bringing that to the mix?
> > >
> > > Don't know. Haven't gotten that far.
> > >
> Snip>
> > > > I just didn't believe the cloud of hateful bullshit surrounding
> > > > homosexuality. It's not so much a rational process, but an emotional
> one.
> > > > I'm still uncomfortable hanging out with dikes, lol, but Christy
> shouldn't
> > > > have bought men's underwear in my presence anyway. (She was my best
> friend
> > > > in high school--don't take that comment to seriously.)
> > > >
> > > You may be right. But I'm beyond caring what the straights think
> anymore.
> >
> > <sigh> They are your brothers and your sisters.. whether you like it or
> > not. And you need them, and they need you. (You do realise that if all
> > goes well, we'll be spending eternity together?)
>
> A frightening thought.
Get used to it.
>
> If I had maintained that
> > attitude about gay people, who the hell would I be friends with now?
>
> Hmmm....fellow straights?
Rednecks don't appeal to me to much and none of the straight people go
to my church and have the patience to tolerate me.
>
> > Rednecks? Wooohoooo they could puke in my house and I could clean it up.
> > The gay guys just puke projectile over the balcony eight feet.... singing
> > does wonders for the diaphram muscles, but it doesn't end up in the carpet
> > and he does that on purpose. (Louis, this is what Priscilla and I mean by
> > you having an anger problem.) I think we all have a lot of healing to get
> > through on this issue before it can be resolved, but it must be resolved.
> > Do not make yourself a casuality!!!
>
> Nope. I let you maternal ones do that for me.
Seeking and serving Christ in _all_persons, arent' we Louis?
<shudders at the thought of herself having a kid at this point>
Pax,
Leslie
Leslie
> In article <iO0D8.13283$Vm2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Leslie F. Terrell" <Nos...@haha.com> wrote:
>
> > "The Steel Wolf" <stee...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ce093f3....@news-server.mmcable.com...
> > > anno Domini Fri, 10 May 2002 16:46:51 GMT, "Leslie F. Terrell"
> > > <Nos...@haha.com> scripsit:
> > >
> > > >I'm still uncomfortable hanging out with dikes, lol,
> > >
> > > Why do you find flood embankments so discomforting? ;)
> >
> > Yes, the fact that the one I'm thinking of uses an ace bandage for a bra
>
> Actually, if you have large breasts, a bra which resembles an ace
> bandage can be quite comfortable! But that's not what you meant.
>
> > disturbs me to the core... lol. But keep in mind... I'm 100% girl. I wont
> > leave the house without makeup.
>
> Lots of 100% girls don't wear makeup.
You're not getting what I'm saying... but I don't think you're trying
too.
>
> Leslie, you may want to look at your stereotypes of lesbians.
Priscilla....Chris wants to be called daddy by her children. I think I
can call her a dike---I have known her since the 9th grade and she did
live with me for three months. This is also the same woman who thought
she should get a sex change but decided that would defeat the purpose
of being gay. She ranks right up there with my roomate's lesbian aunt
who lived on a farm and raised goats (and who told her mother to bite
her clit and her father to suck her hole). Now, I like Angie because
she's funny as hell and generally very nice, but I'd be afraid to
take her anywhere for fear of being embarrassed. Chris is a different
story--if someone doesn't like her they can just kiss my ass. She's
uncouth, not rude. (That, and like I said, she's one of the best
friends I've ever had and NOT on my list of people who can take care
of themselves.) Then there's my lesbian great aunt who behaves like a
typical southern belle with a drug problem and a money filching habit
thrown in for color. Followed by Amber, the lesbian waitress at my
old work who is probably one of the nicest people alive and probably
should have sued Jim for not letting her wait tables in the private
club because she has her hair cut to short and consequently "looks
like a dike". Then there's the former president of my university who
I never would have suspected in a million years because she _is_ the
quintesential oklahoma version of a southern belle... with a brain the
size of texas, of course. While I may not have a boatload of close
lesbian buddies I do know *something* about this segment of the gay
community, and I think my "stereotype" was an isolated example based
on one of my personal friends. (Do I need to go through my list of
bisexual lady friends to convince of this, or is the above enough?)
One thing I thoroughly dislike is making assumptions about other
people making assumptions--especially when I thought it had been made
perfectly clear where I was coming from. I do not like things like
wearing men's underwear and using ace bandages for bras, and
God-fobid, going out of the house without makeup. The only people I
know who do these things are gay---I assume the difference lies
somewhere in a the mysteries of personality traits that comes with
sexual preference. I also assume it has something to do with
socialization. My socialization was very different from Christy's
socialization--primarily becuase her family is crazy--but also because
she was "grooming herself" so a different sector of society than I
am/was. If you'll notice, my list of no-no's above all have to do with
attracting the oppisite sex. (and I know for some women, they have to
do with attracting the same sex) Christy doing those things have to do
with her wanting to look more like a guy (hence: daddy). I've spent
most of my life avoiding what's she's currently trying to
accomplish---as far looks go. In other things, we're still a lot
alike, I just have a bit of a head start. I do wish she'd get out of
nursing and into college, but that's probably the academic in me
trying to get my old buddy into a higher income bracket. Getting used
to the girl I used to go cruising for guys with wearing an ace bandage
for a bra is a little bit of a stretch for me. Intellectually, no.
Emotionally, yes. Hell, we even drove past a coffee shop to see if a
girl she likes was there... i'm getting there.
Pax,
Leslie
Leslie
Zephon, let me assure you that you HAVE been baptised into the larger
body of Christ, whether they recognize that yet or not, as you ARE
part of the spiritual Body of Christ, which is the Church.
Just because louis is ready to turn his back on the brethren doesn't
mean you have too.
You can be an honorary maternal type... though I think paternal would
be more appropriate..
Pax,
Leslie.
Zephon
IT WAS A JOKE, LOUIS! Lighten up!
Zephon
Zephon
>
> "Zephon" <Zep...@galaxy7.com> wrote in message
> news:XTbD8.177$X%5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > news:QdFC8.2120$9a.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> >
> > > Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what the general convention
> decides.
> > > I'm breaking the shackles and zeroing in on the essentials.
> > >
> > > ;-)
> > > l
> >
> >
> > I have difficulty understanding this attitude. Are you not a part of
the
> > larger Church?
>
> Are you? The larger Church (defined as the Anglican communion or the
> Catholic church?) wants no part of us. Lambeth proved that. The only part
> who does is revisionist and heretical.
>
> The club I want to be part of doesn't want me; the part that wants me I
want
> no part of.
Well, all I can say is that I don't have such a negative, defeatist view of
the Church. I'm proud to be part of the Episcopal Church, whether I
personally agree or not with all promulgations of General Convention or
Lambeth. No, not everyone accepts me, but more do than don't, just as in
the world at large. I am content to know that God will be the final judge.
Having said that, to me the most important faith community is one's local
parish, so I could not tolerate it if they were homophobic, no matter how
much I may appreciate the liturgy. If a local body does not accept me as I
am, then I'm outa' there because there can be no true communion.
But I don't want JUST a local parish. I want to be part of the worldwide
Church.
And as for your continual whining about "revisionists and heretics", all I
can say is that is not my experience, so I agree with what someone said
earlier, that you APPEAR to be judging the entire Church based on your
experience at ASP and perhaps similar churches (obviously I cannot say for
sure, but that is the appearance).
> >Are you content to just be doing your own thing, just you
> > and God?
>
> Sounds good.
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. Since you claim to love the Lord (is
that true, or is it just traditional liturgy that you love?), do you feel
that's all he wants for you? That there isn't something more to being the
redeemed people of God than "me and God"? That Christ's passion was less
about saving Louis than about saving Louis to become a member of Christ's
body?
(OMG, I'm preaching again. Sorry.)
Zephon
louis
What's the point of trying to communicate with you when you dismiss my
legimate concerns as "whining"?
There APPEARS to be a conflict brewing throughout ECUSA between
traditionalists and modernists (or whatever you want to call them).
Unfortunately, the focal point for this is homosexuality. I'm sick of the
whole thing, frankly. I'm sorry you can't give me the benefit of the doubt
regarding this.
>
>
> > >Are you content to just be doing your own thing, just you
> > > and God?
> >
> > Sounds good.
>
>
> I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. Since you claim to love the Lord (is
> that true, or is it just traditional liturgy that you love?), do you feel
> that's all he wants for you? That there isn't something more to being the
> redeemed people of God than "me and God"?
Well, there ~is~ a long tradition of hermits.
And, yes, I "claim" to love the Lord. Sorry I can't do it in a way to suit
your preconceptions.
That Christ's passion was less
> about saving Louis than about saving Louis to become a member of Christ's
> body?
I am: the mystical Body of Christ. I've made the distinction between that
and the worldly body (or haven't you been reading my posts?).
The Passion was about saving each and every one of us individually, as
individual persons distinct from the mob. We ultimately confront Him as an
individual, not as some kind of assimilated Borg drone. Sure, the church is
the agent through which we worship, but it's not some kind of stone idol.
I just need some time to sort things out, time between myself and God. I
know this is a big no-no in the community-sotted liberal camp, but there it
is. I'm sorry I can't conform to your expectations.
>
> (OMG, I'm preaching again. Sorry.)
>
Whatever...
> Zephon
>
>
>
>
>
louis
"Leslie" <maadh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c1759d70.02051...@posting.google.com...
> Seeking and serving Christ in _all_persons, arent' we Louis?
>
friend at all.
In case you haven't noticed, it's been traumatic to have to exile myself
from the church where I finally felt comfortable enough to return to (what I
perceived as the gay-hating tradition of) Christianity. Add to that, the
disappearance of my job and my parents' increasing old age (with the
attendant orphanizing in sight).
I think I have to get away from this ng for a while. It's become increasing
toxic...
l
louis
Like my straight friends who continue to make homophobic jokes when I'm not
around?
>
Zephon
"James Arnold" <arnoldjim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cddd7cd....@news.sk.sympatico.ca...
<snip>
>
> Louis is correct on this one. I'm sure this is both from personal
> experience and those of friends of his. As a psychologist, I can
> assure everyone that this personal experience is supported by the
> data. In situations where people are forced to live contrary to their
> sexuality (and other important dimensions of personhood), we see a
> dramatic increase in mental health issues - particularly depression
> and anxiety. These are clearly reactive in this sort of context.
Isn't that the reason for the higher suicide rate among gay and lesbian
teens? And I suspect there is a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse
among gays and lesbians. It's hard to accept oneself if one is constantly
barraged with condemnation. You end up living a live of fear and lies and
hiding things, which much of my life has been.
Does anyone remember the Sam Manzie case in NJ a few years back? Even
though he (at 15) killed a younger boy (which I condemn), my heart went out
to Sam (and still does as he is in prison) because, just from the media
accounts, I got a sense of the unbearable pain and anger he felt being gay
in a homophobic environment and devout Catholic upbringing. (If you know
anything about the case, I encourage you to continue to pray for Sam and
both families.)
And that all brings back my own fears and anger as a teen, when I couldn't
openly express the feelings I had for other boys, yet had to date girls (to
be one of the boys) when I really wanted to be with the boys.
And as far as "reactive" (if I follow you), I know that is why I have such a
chip on my shoulder toward fundamentalists and the "love the sinner, hate
the sin" types. In most cases they probably mean well, but they just cannot
grasp the depths of the ignorance in which they are wallowing and the
suffering they cause.
> You can't do the "love the sinner and hate the sin" on this one. I
> also know what it is like personally to be in a committed relationship
> and can't imagine my life if my partner choice (Ich kann nicht anders)
> was looked on a sin by people in my church.
Of course in the gay-lesbian context, BOTH parties are looked upon as living
in sin. And even MORE SO than an unmarried straight couple living together.
Nicht wahr?
> Re the Bible. Yes there are statements about homosexuality in the
> English versions and I am not skilled enough in the original languages
> to understand if the prohibitions that are oft cited are about
> homosexuality or about pedophilia - which I have heard stated by some
> making points about this. Frankly, I see no problem even if the Bible
> does prohibit homosexuality. It is not a psychology text, any more
> than it is an authority on geology, biology, the movement of stars
> and planets, We live with all sorts of other contradictions, I
> think we can live with this one too. The correct thing to do in all
> circumstances is to reverently and carefully consider all aspects of
> issues and come to a reasoned understanding with full knowledge of the
> implications. And please don't respond that that this ends up with
> situation ethics or "anything goes". I accept evolutionary biology
> and deep geological time the same way (though these have far, far
> less impact on the lives of people on a day to day basis). Committed
> relationships and those who take them seriously should be celebrated
> always in all ways.
> Blessing and peace on you all.
> -J. Arnold
>
How utterly reasonable (typical of you, I'm afraid).
I have to confess, James, I don't have a high regard for psychologists in
general because of negative experiences I have had when I tried therapy, but
I have to tell -- you are renewing my faith in the profession.
Zephon
Zephon
>
> "Leslie" <maadh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c1759d70.02051...@posting.google.com...
> > Seeking and serving Christ in _all_persons, arent' we Louis?
> >
> Thanks for the vote of confidence, Leslie. I guess you really aren't my
> friend at all.
Hey, Leslie -- why don't you give him the "Boo hoo hoo" he gave you earlier.
Zephon
Zephon
>
<snip>
> What's the point of trying to communicate with you when you dismiss my
> legimate concerns as "whining"?
Well, let me give you the benefit of the doubt that you have not learned yet
that people get tired of people crying and whining all the time. You are
the most negative person I have ever read. You criticize everything and
everyone around you, and have little good to say about anything or anyone.
It's like you are right, everybody else is wrong, and not only are they
wrong, they are "revisionists and heretics" because they can't see things
your way.
>
> There APPEARS to be a conflict brewing throughout ECUSA between
> traditionalists and modernists (or whatever you want to call them).
> Unfortunately, the focal point for this is homosexuality. I'm sick of the
> whole thing, frankly. I'm sorry you can't give me the benefit of the doubt
> regarding this.
You don't have to play the "sorry" game for me -- I don't fall for that call
for sympathy.
And I do not agree with what you say here. Yes, homosexuality is a big
issue in the EC, as it is in ALL the mainline churches, as well as the RC's,
EO, and in Judaism. But to say that homosexuality is the focal point of the
conflict between traditionalists and everybody else is simply not true.
<snip>
> I'm sorry I can't conform to your expectations.
Oh I'm sorry you can't either. Boo hoo hoo. Poor Louis.
Zephon
The Steel Wolf
scripsit:
>"The Steel Wolf" <stee...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
>news:3cdf92b5...@news-server.mmcable.com...
>> I can appreciate that you would feel like turning
>> your back on straight society as a whole at times, but I do hope that
>> you distinguish between those straights who would marginalise you and
>> those who are willing to embrace you with open arms. In other words,
>> sometimes from your posts I get the feeling that you have a bit of
>> resentment for straight society--which I can certainly sympathise
>> with--but please remember that you have friends there as well.
>Like my straight friends who continue to make homophobic jokes when
>I'm not around?
If they make jokes about you behind your back, they're not your
friends--or at least not very good ones. But by the same token, they
aren't representative of every straight person in the world. There
are a lot of people who simply aren't like that.
Leslie F. Terrell
"Zephon" <Zep...@galaxy7.com> wrote in message news:D7wD8.1752$X%
Well said. I didn't know how to effectively put it to Louis without having
him killfile me again. I am just a breeding maternal type and a modernist
democrat, remember? His attitude makes me wonder why I should give a shit
when people like me are getting in fights with their families (in some case,
their churches) over HIS rights as a Christian! (I don't think he realizes
my bigotted brother hesitates to leave his kids with me at my home because
of this.) Then I think about Bryon, Justin, Will and Christy and I remember
why I got involved. (And why I will continue to stay involved in spite of
people who think of me as a worthless baby machine/psycotic feminist---how
he can manage to disdain both the maternal types AND the feminists blows my
mind) This about more than middle aged gay men with attitude problems---it's
about Christ--and how we behave as his Church.
--
Pax Christi,
Les
maadh...@haha.yahoo.com
to email me take out haha
--
I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and delight in
my people; no more shall the sound of
weeping be heard in it, or the cry of
distress.
~Isaiah 65:17-19
Leslie F. Terrell
>
> "Leslie" <maadh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c1759d70.02051...@posting.google.com...
> > Seeking and serving Christ in _all_persons, arent' we Louis?
> >
> Thanks for the vote of confidence, Leslie. I guess you really aren't my
> friend at all.
How do you think I feel about the way you insinuated (by assuming that all
the work should be left to us "maternal" types) that my only purpose on
earth was to reproduce and nurture everybody in sight??? And since when
have you even began to act like my friend?? All I've gotten from you on
that count is adament statements that you weren't letting any of this get
personal and that you saw no need for a tete-a-tete--or even personal
contact. Do you even think about how the things you say about straight
people make them feel? Does it mean anything to you that I get in fights
with my family over having gay friends---let alone my ambush-by-God that's
getting involved in lobbying for gay rights--and that my own brother is
hesitent to let his kids stay at my home because they might be "conned" into
thinking "queers" are nice people? Do you even give a shit that I love
those kids more than anything else on this side of the grave?
>
> In case you haven't noticed, it's been traumatic to have to exile myself
> from the church where I finally felt comfortable enough to return to (what
I
> perceived as the gay-hating tradition of) Christianity. Add to that, the
> disappearance of my job and my parents' increasing old age (with the
> attendant orphanizing in sight).
The cross was an uncomfortable place too, but God didn't get down off it
before it was finished, did he? I've been working my ass to encourage you
to stay in the church and do the right thing long after you had crushed any
pleasant feelings I had toward you and all you gave me in return was
rejection and healthy dose of apathy.
>
> I think I have to get away from this ng for a while. It's become
increasing
> toxic...
Like everything else?
Leslie
Leslie F. Terrell
"Zephon" <Zep...@galaxy7.com> wrote in message news:%nxD8.1911$X%
> > > Seeking and serving Christ in _all_persons, arent' we Louis?
> > >
> > Thanks for the vote of confidence, Leslie. I guess you really aren't my
> > friend at all.
> <snip>
>
>
> Hey, Leslie -- why don't you give him the "Boo hoo hoo" he gave you
earlier.
>
Because it was obnoxious when he did it, and it'd be obnoxious if I did it.
Not that what I did do was the most sensitive thing in the world, but the
last thing Louis needs (see, I do care a little bit) is to be coddled right
now.
louis
Fuck you, Jerkon.
>
>
>
>
>
Zephon
>
>
> Fuck you, Jerkon.
Thanks for sharing.
Zephon
FTT
something like "you reap what you sow".
FTT
Leslie F. Terrell
"FTT" <f...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:W8YD8.8586
> > > Fuck you, Jerkon.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for sharing.
> >
> > Zephon
> >
> Too bad Zephon, you got what you gave
> something like "you reap what you sow".
I think there is more than one guilty party in this equation. (and I'm not
just talking about myself) If you're going to do some reprimanding, spread
it around... there's more than one piece of toast on the table.
--
Pax Christi,
Les
maadh...@haha.yahoo.com
to email me take out haha
--
louis
btw: I wasn't insinuating anything about your sole purpose.
And I did make a mistake in using the "friend" idea: I must've had a
brainlock. I'm sorry I refered to it. I should have said "friendly."
And what's wrong with taking a critical view of Christianity? Can't it take
it? It's a historical FACT that Christianity has been one of the most
vicious propronets of homophobia for millenia (and still is). Doesn't this
factor into any appraisal of it? I'm not talking about Christ here, but the
church. And another problem I've been having with Christianity lately is the
idea of love your enemies. At our last service the rector was making the
pitch for loving our Middle Eastern enemies, doing good to them, etc. I
wonder if that was supposed to be our position on Hitler and his band of
thugs. It's stupid and dangerous, and will lead to our destruction if we
cannot vigously protect ourselves. If I were to be attacked (or my mother or
nephew) I would NOT turn the other cheek; I would kill the attacker if I
could. I'm wondering if this disqualifies me as a Christian.
l
PS - I'm sorry for being so negative but I just can't play the cuddly-wuggly
Pooh bear Jerkon wants.
Leslie F. Terrell
"louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:j0_D8.8707
Louis...
1) I've heard from a friend with vested interest in the subject that the
church actually blessed homosexual unions during the middle ages. (His
vested interest stems from him being gay and desiring to become a
priest---and a married one at that) We also have evidence that early gay
christian couples were buried together. (i.e. their names are on the same
tombstone sort of thing) The problem seems to have stemmed from "eunuchs"
(translate that: any man without ability or desire to reproduce) getting
involved in a certain heresy and thus bringing down the wrath of Rome on
their heads. Now, I don't have a source on this, because I heard in an
internet article that definately can't be trusted, but I fwd'd it to the
afore mentioned friend and he thought it sounded pretty valid. From his
reading anyway. I generally assume Bryon's sources to be correct, as he not
only has a vested interest in the history of homosexuality and the Christian
church but also a vested interest in accurate scholarship. But anyway, like
many stupid heresies and assorted bullshit that have evolved over the years,
this one has become sacred in the mind of the church and the church needs to
correct this error. I know you don't want anything to do with the rest of
us anymore, but I promise you that there are those of us in the Body working
to correct the problem. Not that you appreciate it or give a shit...
2) I'm afraid you're going to have to live with loving your enemies. That
teaching comes from Christ's own recorded words. Loving them does not mean
not killing them when they are killing your children... it means wanting the
best for them and not toturing them before you execute them. You can
sincerely want somebody to change and be willing to do anything to help them
do it without allowing them to continue to do evil to you. I hate to tell
you this, but you are freakin' stuck with teaching if you wish to continue
to be stuck with Christ. He feeds satanists and assholes all the time and
just as often as he does the nice people who pathetically try to please him.
You are supposed to be kind to ungrateful and good to the wicked just like
your father in heaven.
It doesn't neccessarily disqualify you as a christian, it just gives you
something to work on. Try praying for them to turn from their evil
bastardly ways or something.
Btw, I would suggest maiming your attacker.. rather thoroughly so they don't
come back of course, but I'd stop at maiming if I could.
> l
>
> PS - I'm sorry for being so negative but I just can't play the
cuddly-wuggly
> Pooh bear Jerkon wants.
Well, I'm starting to think you *really need some help because you didn't
have this problem about a year or so ago... I'm serious. You need to see a
phsychiatrist... not a psychologist, but the one that can perscribe
medication. I know a lot of people with clinical depression and you
appear to fit the profile (among my friends anyway, I'm not a shrink). With
the right medication your problems won't seem so---errr.. problematic.
You'll be able to deal with them better. I know a lot of people who use
anti-depressants and they help tremendously for a lot of people.
This is more of my seemingly pointless attempts at friendly actions... more
of that damned christian stuff.
Leslie F. Terrell
"louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:j0_D8.8707
snip
> >
> Nope, just this newsgroup.
>
> btw: I wasn't insinuating anything about your sole purpose.
>
> And I did make a mistake in using the "friend" idea: I must've had a
> brainlock. I'm sorry I refered to it. I should have said "friendly."
Oh, Louis, once upon a time you did have my friendship. You rejected that,
and if I do say so myself, that was pretty stupid. I may be a bitch, but
I'm a really loyal bitch and worth keeping around.
I'm also not much fun as an enemy, but you fortunately still have the claim
on me of being a baptised Christian and therefore one I'm required to give
my consideration to.
louis
> >
Don't be so defensive. I may give you a hard time but I'm still talking
aren't I? ;)
I've read some reviews of this book and it takes quite a few hits. It's
based on some pretty big assumptions from what I recall, and the author is
basically trying to make a case for something which didn't exist.
>
> 2) I'm afraid you're going to have to live with loving your enemies.
That
> teaching comes from Christ's own recorded words.
Yeah, I know: it sucks. However, if I can pray for their conversion while
still crushing them I suppose I can get with the program.
>Loving them does not mean
> not killing them when they are killing your children... it means wanting
the
> best for them and not toturing them before you execute them. You can
> sincerely want somebody to change and be willing to do anything to help
them
> do it without allowing them to continue to do evil to you. I hate to tell
> you this, but you are freakin' stuck with teaching if you wish to continue
> to be stuck with Christ. He feeds satanists and assholes all the time and
> just as often as he does the nice people who pathetically try to please
him.
> You are supposed to be kind to ungrateful and good to the wicked just like
> your father in heaven.
Another problem: why do the wicked prosper while the innocent suffer? Ah
yes, I know, a mystery. I've heard the "free will" argument, but how much
free will does an infant, blown to bits by a Palestinian bomb, have? Yes, I
know, Christ suffered among and along with us, but why the necessity for
suffering at all (cf, Dostoeyevsky's "Brothers Karamotsov" for an excellent
discussion of this matter)?
>
> It doesn't neccessarily disqualify you as a christian, it just gives you
> something to work on. Try praying for them to turn from their evil
> bastardly ways or something.
>
> Btw, I would suggest maiming your attacker.. rather thoroughly so they
don't
> come back of course, but I'd stop at maiming if I could.
> >
The best way to keep them from coming back, ever, is to send them to
Paradise.
> >
> > PS - I'm sorry for being so negative but I just can't play the
> cuddly-wuggly
> > Pooh bear Jerkon wants.
>
> Well, I'm starting to think you *really need some help because you didn't
> have this problem about a year or so ago... I'm serious.
Oh, come on, Leslie...stop being so melodramatic. Just because I'm letting
off some steam in the one place I can you think I need my head shrunk. I'm
just starting to let the shadow speak a bit without censorship. I'm tired of
polite, weak, superficial conversation when the world is dying of its own
greed and stupidity. Besides, I've seen you get angry and blow up as well.
I'm tired of having to play a part which doesn't fit. Jerkon is so worried
about negativity: he should read William James' "Varieties of Religious
Experience" for an interesting discussion of the via negativa.
I am not about sweetness or light. I'm sorry I've let you have it a few
times but you do tend to get on one's nerves here and there. Since 9/11 I've
had to reevaluate my thinking and outlook, and I'm just not going to play
footsie with the appeasement oriented anymore. Contrary to popular belief,
all of us don't have to have the exact same viewpoints and stances: it's
okay to be angry at times and to dissent from accepted doctrine. As I told
what's-his-name, we are not Borg drones, obedient to the collective, but
individuals with individual beings and destinies. If I feel that revisionism
and liberalism is wrong and dangerous I'm going to say so...loudly.
I promise I won't yell at you or be mean anymore. Maybe we can have good
discussions like we used to. I'll start loving my enemies one at a time,
starting with you. :-0
[olive branch]
l
"Then he said,'Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you
have striven with God and with men, and
have prevailed.'"
Genesis 32:32
louis
>
> "louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:j0_D8.8707
> snip
>
> > >
> > Nope, just this newsgroup.
> >
> > btw: I wasn't insinuating anything about your sole purpose.
> >
> > And I did make a mistake in using the "friend" idea: I must've had a
> > brainlock. I'm sorry I refered to it. I should have said "friendly."
>
> Oh, Louis, once upon a time you did have my friendship. You rejected
that,
> and if I do say so myself, that was pretty stupid. I may be a bitch, but
> I'm a really loyal bitch and worth keeping around.
What was that song..."The Bitch is Back"?
Leslie F. Terrell
"louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:xL0E8.211
Well, I've seen pictures of the tombs soo....
> >
> > 2) I'm afraid you're going to have to live with loving your enemies.
> That
> > teaching comes from Christ's own recorded words.
>
> Yeah, I know: it sucks. However, if I can pray for their conversion while
> still crushing them I suppose I can get with the program.
your rancor is frighteningly funny.
>
> >Loving them does not mean
> > not killing them when they are killing your children... it means wanting
> the
> > best for them and not toturing them before you execute them. You can
> > sincerely want somebody to change and be willing to do anything to help
> them
> > do it without allowing them to continue to do evil to you. I hate to
tell
> > you this, but you are freakin' stuck with teaching if you wish to
continue
> > to be stuck with Christ. He feeds satanists and assholes all the time
and
> > just as often as he does the nice people who pathetically try to please
> him.
> > You are supposed to be kind to ungrateful and good to the wicked just
like
> > your father in heaven.
>
> Another problem: why do the wicked prosper while the innocent suffer? Ah
Mmm....hard is the way and narrow is the road?
They probably prosper because they take the easy way out... they give in to
the world and dance in the devil's garden while they can... and it's all
gone come the final reckoning. (either that or worked out in many years of
purgatory) It's easy to be a dickhead and kick all the people who kick
you. It's a lot harder to be polite and yet at the same time not let let
them walk all over you.
> yes, I know, a mystery. I've heard the "free will" argument, but how much
> free will does an infant, blown to bits by a Palestinian bomb, have? Yes,
I
> know, Christ suffered among and along with us, but why the necessity for
> suffering at all (cf, Dostoeyevsky's "Brothers Karamotsov" for an
excellent
> discussion of this matter)?
This is something you should ask a priest... <sigh> or Will, but he's kind
of dead, so we're a bit out of luck on that. I'll let you know if I get any
emails from heaven... C.S. Lewis treated it in "the Problem of Pain"--which
is a bitch of a difficult read but worth it for elitist bitches like
ourselves who get off on his sort of logic. Also Screwtape letter VIII.
In any case, at least intellectually, I have accepted it in my life and in
the lives of others. Not that shit grieves me any less.. I've just come to
the conclusion that even though I don't completely understand but my vague
idea tells me that it is my ignorance that is the problem and not God's
plan. Besides, whenever i try to get pissed off at God I usually end up
blubbering at his feet withing ten hours... not so much "help me" as "i miss
you".
>
> >
> > It doesn't neccessarily disqualify you as a christian, it just gives you
> > something to work on. Try praying for them to turn from their evil
> > bastardly ways or something.
> >
> > Btw, I would suggest maiming your attacker.. rather thoroughly so they
> don't
> > come back of course, but I'd stop at maiming if I could.
> > >
>
> The best way to keep them from coming back, ever, is to send them to
> Paradise.
Or hell. Think about it.
>
> > >
> > > PS - I'm sorry for being so negative but I just can't play the
> > cuddly-wuggly
> > > Pooh bear Jerkon wants.
> >
> > Well, I'm starting to think you *really need some help because you
didn't
> > have this problem about a year or so ago... I'm serious.
>
> Oh, come on, Leslie...stop being so melodramatic. Just because I'm letting
> off some steam in the one place I can you think I need my head shrunk. I'm
> just starting to let the shadow speak a bit without censorship. I'm tired
of
> polite, weak, superficial conversation when the world is dying of its own
Let me put it this way--you remind me of my bipolar friend right after he
had come out to me, lost his balls (so to speak) and snuck back into the
closet without telling a soul---except two internet friends. He was so
damned nutbally I even went to my priest (the result was the funniest
conversation I'v ever had with the man, and also one of the most serious.)
Anyway, he and you have something in common---negitivity. Everything was
shit to Nick too.
> greed and stupidity. Besides, I've seen you get angry and blow up as well.
Yeah, but everything's not shit to me. Even working at mcdonald's has some
good points: Yes, I'm enduring that humiliation at the age of 21. But see, I
can see good things. I see smart kids whose lives I'll help shape in a few
years who'll learn to the right thing because I reenforced that idea in
class. I see sunsets, and roses and people being good to each other all
over the world in spite of the pervasive evil that keeps trying to gain
complete dominion. I see my really old ex coworker--a bachelor for most of
his life, married... I think he's 60 or something. I see good things...all
you see is shit!!!! (btw, he was in church sunday in my hometown and I got
to show off our prayer book and hymnal)
> I'm tired of having to play a part which doesn't fit. Jerkon is so worried
> about negativity: he should read William James' "Varieties of Religious
> Experience" for an interesting discussion of the via negativa.
mutters something about jesuschristsaveusall
>
> I am not about sweetness or light. I'm sorry I've let you have it a few
> times but you do tend to get on one's nerves here and there. Since 9/11
I've
here, there, everywhere, people seem to feel the same way about you at
times.
> had to reevaluate my thinking and outlook, and I'm just not going to play
> footsie with the appeasement oriented anymore. Contrary to popular belief,
> all of us don't have to have the exact same viewpoints and stances: it's
> okay to be angry at times and to dissent from accepted doctrine. As I told
At times... not all the fuckin' time.
> what's-his-name, we are not Borg drones, obedient to the collective, but
> individuals with individual beings and destinies. If I feel that
revisionism
> and liberalism is wrong and dangerous I'm going to say so...loudly.
Then go right ahead, but don't just point out the ugly without doing
something about it!! That's being a whiney bitch! Not standing up for your
beliefs... it's just whining..
>
> I promise I won't yell at you or be mean anymore. Maybe we can have good
> discussions like we used to. I'll start loving my enemies one at a time,
> starting with you. :-0
>
> [olive branch]
If you thought i was your enemy, you've never seen me with an enemy...
Snatches the brank and tries to plant it.
Leslie F. Terrell
"louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:8M0E8.213$
> >
> > > >
> > > Nope, just this newsgroup.
> > >
> > > btw: I wasn't insinuating anything about your sole purpose.
> > >
> > > And I did make a mistake in using the "friend" idea: I must've had a
> > > brainlock. I'm sorry I refered to it. I should have said "friendly."
> >
> > Oh, Louis, once upon a time you did have my friendship. You rejected
> that,
> > and if I do say so myself, that was pretty stupid. I may be a bitch,
but
> > I'm a really loyal bitch and worth keeping around.
>
> What was that song..."The Bitch is Back"?
Elton John I think
This bitch never left.
The Steel Wolf
scripsit:
>Another problem: why do the wicked prosper while the innocent suffer? Ah
>yes, I know, a mystery. I've heard the "free will" argument, but how much
>free will does an infant, blown to bits by a Palestinian bomb, have?
Just as much as the next infant. Unfortunately, the bomber also has
free will, and has used it to blow people up.
>Yes, I know, Christ suffered among and along with us, but why the
>necessity for suffering at all (cf, Dostoeyevsky's "Brothers
>Karamotsov" for an excellent discussion of this matter)?
I thought that was Karamazov. At any rate, I'd definitely second
that. It raises some very important questions with regard to the
problem of evil.
>> Btw, I would suggest maiming your attacker.. rather thoroughly so they
>> don't come back of course, but I'd stop at maiming if I could.
>The best way to keep them from coming back, ever, is to send them to
>Paradise.
And you're a lot less likely to be sued for crippling them.
>he should read William James' "Varieties of Religious
>Experience" for an interesting discussion of the via negativa.
Yeah, I need to get around to reading that as well. I've heard it's
very fascinating.
Zephon
This is the second time, "Father", that you have told me I got what I
deserved. In neither case can I figure out what exactly it is that I got.
Could you please enlighten me?
And what exactly did I "give" that you apparently object to (including the
context in which I was responding)?
And while you're at it, you might also enlighten me as to what a "Jerkon"
is, "Father". Both you and louis have a propensity to make up new words.
Zephon
FTT
made up Zephon.
Anyway I just love your "Oh I am so surprised......" gig.
All done I'm sure with fluttering sweet eyes and a coy smile.
And just get to the point of saying what you mean
when you write "Father" say what you mean without
"beating behind the bush" as the kindly jester.
Ay least Leslie is more honest in this respect.
FTT
Leslie F. Terrell
"FTT" <f...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:487E8.8038
> > > > > Fuck you, Jerkon.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for sharing.
> > > >
> > > > Zephon
> > > >
> > > Too bad Zephon, you got what you gave
> > > something like "you reap what you sow".
> > This is the second time, "Father", that you have told me I got what I
> > deserved. In neither case can I figure out what exactly it is that I
got.
> > Could you please enlighten me?
> >
> > And what exactly did I "give" that you apparently object to (including
the
> > context in which I was responding)?
> >
> > And while you're at it, you might also enlighten me as to what a
"Jerkon"
> > is, "Father". Both you and louis have a propensity to make up new
words.
> >
> > Zephon
> >
> And just enlighten me what new words I have
> made up Zephon.
>
> Anyway I just love your "Oh I am so surprised......" gig.
> All done I'm sure with fluttering sweet eyes and a coy smile.
>
> And just get to the point of saying what you mean
> when you write "Father" say what you mean without
> "beating behind the bush" as the kindly jester.
>
> Ay least Leslie is more honest in this respect.
Leslie is usually quite blunt and to the point with these matters because
that's what works. (when it works at all)
I lost my fear of priests years ago---about the time I spent a little *real
time with one and realized they're human beings and that when they screw up,
they need to be told just like everybody else.
While I'm at it, Father, why haven't you bothered to comment on the things
louis has done that has driven us to this point? His obviously over the top
negatively can't be healthy for him, spiritually or physically, and I fail
to see how you slapping Zephon's hand and not addressing the cause of the
argument is productive for either of them. No one likes to be singled out
for an ass chewing when they're not the only one to blame. I don't know
about you, but I don't mind getting it when I've got it coming, but when I
didn't do it--or didn't do it--alone, I get madder than hell and tell people
about it.
btw, leslie will never lie to you.
--
Pax,
Potty Mouth Les
maadh...@haha.yahoo.com
to email me take out haha
--
Priscilla Ballou
"louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Contrary to popular belief,
> all of us don't have to have the exact same viewpoints and stances: it's
> okay to be angry at times and to dissent from accepted doctrine. As I told
> what's-his-name, we are not Borg drones, obedient to the collective, but
> individuals with individual beings and destinies. If I feel that revisionism
> and liberalism is wrong and dangerous I'm going to say so...loudly.
Louis, I just came up with a sig line for you: "I am Marcus Borg:
Prepare to be infuriated."
;-)
Priscilla
--
When life hands you lemons, sometimes you make lemonade and sometimes you
need to just sit with those lemons.
Priscilla Ballou
stee...@mmcable.com (The Steel Wolf) wrote:
> anno Domini Tue, 14 May 2002 04:53:49 GMT, "louis" <l...@nowhere.net>
> scripsit:
> >he should read William James' "Varieties of Religious
> >Experience" for an interesting discussion of the via negativa.
>
> Yeah, I need to get around to reading that as well. I've heard it's
> very fascinating.
I read it in a seminar in college thirty years ago. I wish I remembered
more from it. I'm in the process of reorganizing my books, so maybe
I'll find it in the process. Dunno how good a bus book it would make,
but it would be interesting to dip into it again.
louis
>
> Anyway I just love your "Oh I am so surprised......" gig.
> All done I'm sure with fluttering sweet eyes and a coy smile.
Or like Claude Rains in "Casablanca" pocketing his gambling winnings while
proclaiming, "I'm shocked! Shocked to hear gambling is going on here!"
;-o
louis
But it kind of sours one on human beings: "A man can smile and smile and be
a villain."
>
louis
> anno Domini Tue, 14 May 2002 04:53:49 GMT, "louis" <l...@nowhere.net>
> scripsit:
>
> >Another problem: why do the wicked prosper while the innocent suffer? Ah
> >yes, I know, a mystery. I've heard the "free will" argument, but how much
> >free will does an infant, blown to bits by a Palestinian bomb, have?
>
> Just as much as the next infant. Unfortunately, the bomber also has
> free will, and has used it to blow people up.
>
> >Yes, I know, Christ suffered among and along with us, but why the
> >necessity for suffering at all (cf, Dostoeyevsky's "Brothers
> >Karamotsov" for an excellent discussion of this matter)?
>
> I thought that was Karamazov. At any rate, I'd definitely second
> that. It raises some very important questions with regard to the
> problem of evil.
Yes, I don't think Ivan's argument was really answered in the book, as it
hasn't been theologically or philosophically either. Evil remains the
unexplained bone-in-the-throat of religion. What impresses me about
Christianity (and one of the things which led me to embrace it, however
uncomfortably) is that it takes evil very seriously. The Asian religions try
to sweep it under the rug, as it were, and the modern, scientific
secularisms try to explain it away. Evil is so potent and toxic in
Christianity's that it takes God Himself to combat it, taking the surprising
course of becoming human to suffer its full force and defeat it. This is why
I oppose liberalism (influenced by scientific naturalist philosophies and
even Asianisms) and its attempts to water down the full force of Christian
doctrine. People may accuse me of being negative all the time, but it's just
recognizing reality and not averting one's eyes and pretending everything's
hunky-dory when it so obviously isn't.
>
>
> >he should read William James' "Varieties of Religious
> >Experience" for an interesting discussion of the via negativa.
>
> Yeah, I need to get around to reading that as well. I've heard it's
> very fascinating.
Interestingly, as I recall it, James concludes that the via negativa is
superior to the sunny outlook because it takes into account ~all~ of reality
and answers it.
l
Leslie F. Terrell
"louis" <l...@lorien.net> wrote in message news:GQaE8.464
snip
> > >he should read William James' "Varieties of Religious
> > >Experience" for an interesting discussion of the via negativa.
> >
> > Yeah, I need to get around to reading that as well. I've heard it's
> > very fascinating.
>
> Interestingly, as I recall it, James concludes that the via negativa is
> superior to the sunny outlook because it takes into account ~all~ of
reality
> and answers it.
I find it interesting that once again the via media is being replaced with
extremes on opposite ends on this issue as though there were no alternative
to those extremes. Once can embrace reality, sorrow, death, destruction,
EVIL, etc and still be a happy person recognizing that there is beauty,
goodwill, love and grace in the world.
--
Pax Christi,
Les
(a.k.a. sister sunshine)
FTT
As this post stands edited by the poster re the above
response I (FTT) did not say that to Zephon someone else did.
>
> I lost my fear of priests years ago---about the time I spent a little
*real
> time with one and realized they're human beings and that when they screw
up,
> they need to be told just like everybody else.
Why anyone is ever in "fear" of priests escapes me as one now for 33 years
and when I was in the laity - must be a "cradle Anglican" trait
>
> While I'm at it, Father, why haven't you bothered to comment on the things
> louis has done that has driven us to this point?
While I do not always agree with Louis I have no desire to pile on him
along with everyone else.
Can you not see the genuine struggle he isgoing through at the moment?
That I will respect and not add, as it were,"insult to injury".
> His obviously over the top
And his detractors haven't gone over the top in their responses to him?
> negatively can't be healthy for him, spiritually or physically,
For him for you, for me and for Zephon.
Remember when we (including myself) point a finger
at another that four other apendages point back at
ourselves
>.I fail to see how you slapping Zephon's hand and not addressing the cause
of the
> argument is productive for either of them.
Maybe Zephon who claims that he was hurt because of his
sexual identity should have some feeling for Louis. Can't get him
that a way then pick him out for his none "progressive" (whatever
the heck " progressive" means) church style. "
As Zephon says, "Oh, dear, did I do that?"
> No one likes to be singled out
True
> for an ass
Some make themselves asses
> chewing when they're not the only one to blame.
Personal behaviour,like dieting (picking up on chewing theme),
sometimes has to be restricted in someways to "lean down" -
in this case rhetoric and for peace among the brethren/sisterhood
Someone must do it ~first~.
> don't know
> about you, but I don't mind getting it when I've got it coming,
Me neither, if you give it then take it like a man or a woman.
> but when I didn't do it--or didn't do it--alone, I get madder
> than hell and tell people about it.
Good, but some like to do it by inuendo, by saying "Oh ! don't
know what you mean. " Oh, I really love you".
"Dear , oh dear , oh dear." Crying all the way home, "what a
good boy I was. Really !"
And that "bad old man is being soooo terrible to me".
>
> btw, leslie will never lie to you.
Nor I to you
>
> --
> Pax,
>
> Potty Mouth Les
There's always hope for
tomorrow - for all of us <grin>
In Christ
FTT
louis
>
> Mmm....hard is the way and narrow is the road?
> They probably prosper because they take the easy way out... they give in
to
> the world and dance in the devil's garden while they can... and it's all
> gone come the final reckoning. (either that or worked out in many years
of
> purgatory) It's easy to be a dickhead and kick all the people who kick
> you. It's a lot harder to be polite and yet at the same time not let let
> them walk all over you.
One could argue that it's the basic set-up which is too blame: why is
reality constructed so that it is possible to dance in the devil's garden
without being instantly zapped? This isn't my argument, mind, just one among
many.
> > > >
> >
> > The best way to keep them from coming back, ever, is to send them to
> > Paradise.
>
> Or hell. Think about it.
I was sort of refering to the Muslim terrorists, but I agree with your
alternative.
> > > >
I see good things...all
> you see is shit!!!!
Well, shit ~is~ part of life (and being clear-eyed about reality isn't being
nihilist or bi-polar). But you want sweetness and light? Here's my list:
The music of Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, and almost every other
classical composer.
The Beatles, U2, REM, Big Bad Voodoo Daddy.
Monet's haystacks, flower still-lifes, water lillies; Rembrandt's
self-portraits, Van Gogh's sunflowers, wheat fields & self-portraits; Da
Vinci's notebooks; Michelangelo's paintings and sculptures of the male form;
Cezanne's apples...
Isaiah, Ecclesiasties, the Psalms, John
The movies of Woody Allen, Marty Scorcese, Hitchcock, Polanski, Hawks,
Spielberg
Casablanca
The Wizard of Oz
Ben Hur
Manhatten
Citizen Kane
The Usual Suspects
Good Fellas
Babe
Shakespeare in Love
Star Wars
Lawrence of Arabia
Pulp Fiction
The Silence of the Lambs
The Iron Giant
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Shogun
I, Claudius
Amadeus
Sense and Sensibility
Aliens
The Edge
The movie music of Rachel Portman, Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner, John
Williams
The Phantom of the Opera, Evita, Les Miserables, The Pirates of Penzance,
Oklahoma, Rigoletto, Der Ring Des Nibelungen, The Marriage of Figaro, The
Barber of Seville, The Magic Flute
The moment when...
Anthony Hopkins tells Jody Foster about dining on the census taker...
Peter O'Toole tells Omar Sharif "Nothing is written."
John Travolta tells Lawrence Fishburn about McDonalds in Amsterdam and when
he dances with Uma Thurman...
Luke Skywalker refuses to kill Vader (his father) and declares he will never
turn to the Dark Side because "I am a Jedi, like my father before me."
Judy Garland sings in the barnyard...
Liza Minelli sings in the Cabaret...
Humphrey Bogart tells Claude Rains that "this looks like the beginning of a
beautiful friendship" and, to himself, "Of all the gin joints in all the
cities in the world she had to walk into mine."
Kevin Spacey, after getting into the car with Pete Postlethwaite, says (in
voice-over) "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the
world he didn't exist.")
James Cromwell tells Babe, "That'll do, Pig, that'll do."
Haley Joel Osment tells Bruce Willis, "I see dead people."
Sigourney Weaver confronts the Alien queen.
"Rosebud."
...and too many others to enumerate here.
Irises, daffodils
Thunderstorms, (mild) earthquakes
The works of Shakespeare, Dickens, Tolkien, Twain, Melville, Faulkner,
Shirley Jackson
The poetry of G.M. Hopkins, Emily Dickenson
Law & Order, The Simpsons & Futurama, the X Files, South Park, Jeopardy
Glenn Miller, Artie Shaw, Tommy Dorsey, Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong
The innocence of young children
My parents' faces
Pictures from the Hubble telescope
Leisurely mornings reading the paper at Starbucks
Rainy mornings spent in bed
The sound of waves crashing on the seashore
Browsing through bookstores and EBay
That moment the Priest breaks the bread
Watching muscular men workout and shower at the gym (well, what did you
expect?)
Downloading MP3's and burning them to disc
My cat (and cats in general - some dogs)
Sharing wicked jokes with friends
The summer I spent in England
Batman, the X Men, Thor
Merlot
Chocolate (dark)
London, San Francisco, Paris, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara
Ancient Greece, the Renaissance, the US Civil War era, the Victorian age
The haunting yet real feeling of the numinous.
Socrates, Elizabeth I, St. Peter, St. Paul, Alexander the Great, Judy Dench,
Anthony Hopkins, Harrison Ford, Michelle Pfeiffer, Bart Simpson, Abraham
Lincoln, George Patton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Haley Joel Osment, the
Beatles, Brad Pitt, Joe Montana, Bette Davis, Humphrey Bogart, Derek Jacobi,
Russell Crowe, Woody Allen, Vincent Van Gogh, Ludwig van Beethoven, Moses,
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Harvey Fierstein, Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson,
Steve Martin, Jesus, Lassie & Timmie, Frodo & Sam, Laurel & Hardy, Porgy &
Bess...
Brown paper packages wrapped up with string...
Perhaps my negativity seems so dark because I see the beautiful and the good
so intensely.
louis
Priscilla Ballou
Leslie F. Terrell
"FTT" <f...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:0pbE8.8409
> > > > > > > Fuck you, Jerkon.
>
>
>
> As this post stands edited by the poster re the above
> response I (FTT) did not say that to Zephon someone else did.
Yeah, it was louis. I think everyone understood that.
>
>
> >
> > I lost my fear of priests years ago---about the time I spent a little
> *real
> > time with one and realized they're human beings and that when they screw
> up,
> > they need to be told just like everybody else.
>
> Why anyone is ever in "fear" of priests escapes me as one now for 33 years
> and when I was in the laity - must be a "cradle Anglican" trait
I'm not sure why but when I first came to the church I had a fear of
ministers in general, in particular, my priest. Jerry Rankin could freeze
my blood in my veins by giving me an off look... I've noticed teachers have
"the look" too. Heh, I'm starting to develop my own version of "the look".
It's a fine art that must be honed, I'm suprised they don't give you guys
classes on it in seminary.
> >
> > While I'm at it, Father, why haven't you bothered to comment on the
things
> > louis has done that has driven us to this point?
>
> While I do not always agree with Louis I have no desire to pile on him
> along with everyone else.
>
> Can you not see the genuine struggle he isgoing through at the moment?
> That I will respect and not add, as it were,"insult to injury".
Well, his injury is injuring everyone else in this ng. He complains about
the overall toxic enviroment of this ng and then adds to it. Not bringing
to his attention the manifestations of his struggles is like avoiding
telling an alcoholic they drink a little to much.
There was a time he didn't act this. I used to like him.
>
> > His obviously over the top
>
> And his detractors haven't gone over the top in their responses to him?
Do you ever get to a point with somebody that the kid gloves just have to
come off and you just have to tell them what you think? I haven't told him
exactly what I think by any means, at times, I've kept my opinion rather in
check. I thought "boo hoo" coming from Zephon was a little to much of
repaying in kind, but I don't expect absolute maturity on the internet.
Louis DID "boo hoo" me, and that's where the line came from. It's not like
Zephon was pulling anything new.
>
> > negatively can't be healthy for him, spiritually or physically,
>
> For him for you, for me and for Zephon.
Yeah, I'm starting to dread reading this group precisely because of this
conflict.
>
> Remember when we (including myself) point a finger
> at another that four other apendages point back at
> ourselves
Rightly so in this case, but Zephon wasn't the only one at fault. I
probably have far to big of a mouth for church work. I don't shut up well,
and my euphamisms are weak... oh, well. (in the case of my little church,
no one else is going to do it) My way of trying to help louis (to no avail)
probably isn't as subtle as it should be, but I think half his problem is
that people have been to subtle with him. Someone who is running around
pulling the constant dispair routine (as a veteren of this, I should know)
really needs a good cold pail of water thrown in their face to wake them up.
The appropriate person to do this with him would probably be his priest, but
he doesn't *really have one that he trusts. I'm inappropriate becuase i'm
probably at least 20 years younger and don't have any authority to throw
around, in other words, he can easily write me off as a stupid kid who
doesn't know wtf she's talking about. I don't know who needs to dump the
well water on Louis, but somebody needs to do it! Believe me, I know this.
The only people who could EVER bring me out of moods like his (and I do get
them) are the people with the ice water. Will and my roomate both were/are
proficent at telling me to shut the hell up and do something about it.
>
> >.I fail to see how you slapping Zephon's hand and not addressing the
cause
> of the
> > argument is productive for either of them.
>
> Maybe Zephon who claims that he was hurt because of his
> sexual identity should have some feeling for Louis. Can't get him
1. It wasn't his sexual identity that hurt him, it was people's reaction to
his sexual identity that got him hurt.
2. I think at one time he did have some feeling for Louis. I may be wrong,
but I have a feeling we're talking about something worn away by time and
irritation.
> that a way then pick him out for his none "progressive" (whatever
> the heck " progressive" means) church style. "
> As Zephon says, "Oh, dear, did I do that?"
Pick Zephon out for it? Whaa?
*stupid light goes on
>
> > No one likes to be singled out
>
> True
>
> > for an ass
>
> Some make themselves asses
Probably me again.
>
> > chewing when they're not the only one to blame.
>
> Personal behaviour,like dieting (picking up on chewing theme),
> sometimes has to be restricted in someways to "lean down" -
> in this case rhetoric and for peace among the brethren/sisterhood
> Someone must do it ~first~.
So you can't come in and tell everyone to shut the fuck up instead of just
one screaming moron out of the whole bunch?
>
> > don't know
> > about you, but I don't mind getting it when I've got it coming,
>
> Me neither, if you give it then take it like a man or a woman.
>
>
> > but when I didn't do it--or didn't do it--alone, I get madder
> > than hell and tell people about it.
>
> Good, but some like to do it by inuendo, by saying "Oh ! don't
> know what you mean. " Oh, I really love you".
Creepy thing is if I didn't actually care a little bit about you people I
would have stopped posting here a long time ago and started work on a novel
or something instead.
>
> "Dear , oh dear , oh dear." Crying all the way home, "what a
> good boy I was. Really !"
I've heard that song from BOTH of them! The poor little queen routine has
come from both sides.
snip
> There's always hope for
> tomorrow - for all of us <grin>
Even for Louis who's consider the via negitive or whatever?
\
--
Pax Christi,
Leslie F. Terrell
>
> Leslie F. Terrell <Nos...@haha.com> wrote in message
> news:vh1E8.24470$Ru2.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:xL0E8.211
> > >
> > > Another problem: why do the wicked prosper while the innocent suffer?
Ah
> >
> > Mmm....hard is the way and narrow is the road?
> > They probably prosper because they take the easy way out... they give in
> to
> > the world and dance in the devil's garden while they can... and it's all
> > gone come the final reckoning. (either that or worked out in many
years
> of
> > purgatory) It's easy to be a dickhead and kick all the people who kick
> > you. It's a lot harder to be polite and yet at the same time not let
let
> > them walk all over you.
>
> One could argue that it's the basic set-up which is too blame: why is
> reality constructed so that it is possible to dance in the devil's garden
> without being instantly zapped? This isn't my argument, mind, just one
among
> many.
Probably because the sentient being needs the choice to be sentient. It's
like...you know how plants need certian conditions or they can't grow? I
think we're like that in a way. Yeah, we could be happy semi-mindless
simpletons in the enviroment you describe but we couldn't become gods (which
is the ultimate goal of creation unless I've missed my guess, please note
the small "g".) He wants sons, not talking monkeys.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > The best way to keep them from coming back, ever, is to send them to
> > > Paradise.
> >
> > Or hell. Think about it.
>
> I was sort of refering to the Muslim terrorists, but I agree with your
> alternative.
I knew exactly what you were thinking of.
>
> > > > >
> I see good things...all
> > you see is shit!!!!
>
> Well, shit ~is~ part of life (and being clear-eyed about reality isn't
being
> nihilist or bi-polar). But you want sweetness and light? Here's my list:
Snip
That's a start, now think on those things, beloved.
James Arnold
posted:
>:
>:"James Arnold" <arnoldjim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>:news:3cddd7cd....@news.sk.sympatico.ca...
>:
>:<snip>
>:>
>:> Louis is correct on this one. I'm sure this is both from personal
>:> experience and those of friends of his. As a psychologist, I can
>:> assure everyone that this personal experience is supported by the
>:> data. In situations where people are forced to live contrary to their
>:> sexuality (and other important dimensions of personhood), we see a
>:> dramatic increase in mental health issues - particularly depression
>:> and anxiety. These are clearly reactive in this sort of context.
>:
>:
>:Isn't that the reason for the higher suicide rate among gay and lesbian
>:teens? And I suspect there is a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse
>:among gays and lesbians. It's hard to accept oneself if one is constantly
>:barraged with condemnation. You end up living a live of fear and lies and
>:hiding things, which much of my life has been.
You're correct about the suicide rate and drug/alc abuse, and the
source (remember I am talking about the research, personal experience
is vital, and I don't have personal experience except in a
professional way, so when I say "correct" I am only referring to the
data. This may not have concerned you, but if has come up in other
forums for me.)
>:
>:Does anyone remember the Sam Manzie case in NJ a few years back? Even
>:though he (at 15) killed a younger boy (which I condemn), my heart went out
>:to Sam (and still does as he is in prison) because, just from the media
>:accounts, I got a sense of the unbearable pain and anger he felt being gay
>:in a homophobic environment and devout Catholic upbringing. (If you know
>:anything about the case, I encourage you to continue to pray for Sam and
>:both families.)
>:
I am not familiar with the case, but I know similar, though with less
violent outcome. I always think back to Mesmer's quote (c.f.
mesmerism), paraphrased: that a society should be evaluated by how it
treats the marginalized, the disenfranchised and the poor. I don't
think our Christian society stacks up very well. So I'm praying for
the specific and the general.
>:And that all brings back my own fears and anger as a teen, when I couldn't
>:openly express the feelings I had for other boys, yet had to date girls (to
>:be one of the boys) when I really wanted to be with the boys.
>:
>:And as far as "reactive" (if I follow you), I know that is why I have such a
>:chip on my shoulder toward fundamentalists and the "love the sinner, hate
>:the sin" types. In most cases they probably mean well, but they just cannot
>:grasp the depths of the ignorance in which they are wallowing and the
>:suffering they cause.
>:
Sorry, I'm using jargon. But, you have the sense of "reactive"
exactly. The alternative is "endogenous" or arising from some brain
chemistry or physical problem. There ain't no evidence for that.
>:> You can't do the "love the sinner and hate the sin" on this one. I
>:> also know what it is like personally to be in a committed relationship
>:> and can't imagine my life if my partner choice (Ich kann nicht anders)
>:> was looked on a sin by people in my church.
>:
>:
>:Of course in the gay-lesbian context, BOTH parties are looked upon as living
>:in sin. And even MORE SO than an unmarried straight couple living together.
>:Nicht wahr?
>:
Das is richtig. I get no pressure at all with a female partner. In
fact the stats say I will live longer b/c I am a married
hetereosexual. While I'm on this, I like the terms Homophilic and
Hetereophilic better than the "---sexual". I wonder if we adopted the
"love" suffix if this might be a good step? (I can't recall who
suggested this, but I like it).
>:> Re the Bible. Yes there are statements about homosexuality in the
>:> English versions and I am not skilled enough in the original languages
>:> to understand if the prohibitions that are oft cited are about
>:> homosexuality or about pedophilia - which I have heard stated by some
>:> making points about this. Frankly, I see no problem even if the Bible
>:> does prohibit homosexuality. It is not a psychology text, any more
>:> than it is an authority on geology, biology, the movement of stars
>:> and planets, We live with all sorts of other contradictions, I
>:> think we can live with this one too. The correct thing to do in all
>:> circumstances is to reverently and carefully consider all aspects of
>:> issues and come to a reasoned understanding with full knowledge of the
>:> implications. And please don't respond that that this ends up with
>:> situation ethics or "anything goes". I accept evolutionary biology
>:> and deep geological time the same way (though these have far, far
>:> less impact on the lives of people on a day to day basis). Committed
>:> relationships and those who take them seriously should be celebrated
>:> always in all ways.
>:> Blessing and peace on you all.
>:> -J. Arnold
>:>
>:
>:
>:How utterly reasonable (typical of you, I'm afraid).
>:
>:I have to confess, James, I don't have a high regard for psychologists in
>:general because of negative experiences I have had when I tried therapy, but
>:I have to tell -- you are renewing my faith in the profession.
>:
Some of us are idiots. Some of us are learned idiots with far too much
attention and respect paid just b/c we have advanced qualifications.
I know several (sometimes I probably am one). We are not careful
enough about who we allow to be psychologists (I do much much more in
my assessments of clergy applicants to the diocese here). So do be a
wise consumer. (I could go off on a tirade and tangent about how we
train people for various professions.)
Kind regards -
-J. Arnold
James Arnold
>:>
>:> I have difficulty understanding this attitude. Are you not a part of the
>:> larger Church?
>:
>:Are you? The larger Church (defined as the Anglican communion or the
>:Catholic church?) wants no part of us. Lambeth proved that. The only part
>:who does is revisionist and heretical.
>:
>:The club I want to be part of doesn't want me; the part that wants me I want
>:no part of.
>:
>:>Are you content to just be doing your own thing, just you
>:> and God?
>:
>:Sounds good.
>:>
There have been alot of sparks on this thread, in it's various
subthreads. Let me say that the larger church follows on some issues
and (may) lead on some others (do tell me what, perhaps I am assuming
too much). They are out of step - forgive me - they are mostly a
bunch of near-retirement-age men. For comparison, I have been
surprised to have older priests and parishoners assume younger folks
have trouble with the idea let alone reality of women priests: my
shock at realizing that this was their issue has led to some pretty
interesting conversations. So let me draw the parallel: There are a
large bunch of young people who are surprised with the issue of gay
versus straight is an issue at all.
The time cannot come soon enough where our society's unusual fixation
on sexuality is no longer reflected in the Church's "official
position". In the mean time, please do find a congregation who will
accept you, is not extreme and has canonical theology. I am in a
small Canadian city in a province with a pop density of less than 1
person per square mile, if there are some here, there must be some
nearly anywhere. If there ain;t one, find a sympathetic place to
being pushing and educating until there is one. In the meantime, if
it is just you and God, that's okay until. You have the support of
many of us, and there are many others who would come to support if
shown the way.
-J. Arnold
louis
l
Priscilla Ballou <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vze23t8n-DCFA25...@news.bellatlantic.net...
louis
>
> "louis" <l...@lorien.net> wrote in message news:GQaE8.464
> snip
> > > >he should read William James' "Varieties of Religious
> > > >Experience" for an interesting discussion of the via negativa.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I need to get around to reading that as well. I've heard it's
> > > very fascinating.
> >
> > Interestingly, as I recall it, James concludes that the via negativa is
> > superior to the sunny outlook because it takes into account ~all~ of
> reality
> > and answers it.
>
> I find it interesting that once again the via media is being replaced with
> extremes on opposite ends on this issue as though there were no
alternative
> to those extremes. Once can embrace reality, sorrow, death, destruction,
> EVIL, etc and still be a happy person recognizing that there is beauty,
> goodwill, love and grace in the world.
>
>
~psychology~ not theology. I'm talking about my temperment, not my
philosophy. It's not a matter we have complete control over.
l
Leslie F. Terrell
"louis" <l...@lorien.net> wrote in message news:3YeE8.1122
> > > > >he should read William James' "Varieties of Religious
> > > > >Experience" for an interesting discussion of the via negativa.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I need to get around to reading that as well. I've heard it's
> > > > very fascinating.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, as I recall it, James concludes that the via negativa
is
> > > superior to the sunny outlook because it takes into account ~all~ of
> > reality
> > > and answers it.
> >
> > I find it interesting that once again the via media is being replaced
with
> > extremes on opposite ends on this issue as though there were no
> alternative
> > to those extremes. Once can embrace reality, sorrow, death,
destruction,
> > EVIL, etc and still be a happy person recognizing that there is beauty,
> > goodwill, love and grace in the world.
> >
> >
> I think you're missing my point here. William James' book was a work of
> ~psychology~ not theology. I'm talking about my temperment, not my
> philosophy. It's not a matter we have complete control over.
Not complete... but we can choose to deal with things one way over another.
I should know--I have a negitive temperment myself, I just have it under
control.
--
Pax Christi,
Les
Zephon
>
> "Zephon" <Zep...@galaxy7.com> wrote in message
> news:nX5E8.13$Ec....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "FTT" <f...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:W8YD8.8586$t2.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > Too bad Zephon, you got what you gave
> > > something like "you reap what you sow".
> > > FTT
> >
> > This is the second time, "Father", that you have told me I got what I
> > deserved. In neither case can I figure out what exactly it is that I
got.
> > Could you please enlighten me?
> >
> > And what exactly did I "give" that you apparently object to (including
the
> > context in which I was responding)?
> >
> > And while you're at it, you might also enlighten me as to what a
"Jerkon"
> > is, "Father". Both you and louis have a propensity to make up new
words.
> >
> > Zephon
> And just enlighten me what new words I have
> made up Zephon.
"Fundamentalist liberal" and "liberal literalist", as I recall, or something
like that.
>
> Anyway I just love your "Oh I am so surprised......" gig.
> All done I'm sure with fluttering sweet eyes and a coy smile.
Well, I sure am smiling now. Because I have NO idea what you are talking
about. And since you neglected to clue me in on what I "gave" or "got"
(obviously ignoring my questions), there is not much I can say, is there?
And surprised at what? That a whining, immature valley boy cursed at me,
and called me a name that I don't know what it means?
> And just get to the point of saying what you mean
> when you write "Father" say what you mean without
> "beating behind the bush" as the kindly jester.
I thought it was obvious, "Father". From my prior conversation with you, in
which you started off attacking me and calling me a "fundamentalist liberal
twit", and proceeded to make further accusations and name-calling, and then
failed to back up ANYTHING you said despite my repeated requests (which you
are now doing again), I was left an impression of you. And that impression
is NOT one that I would consider a healthy representative of our Lord or a
man of God.
And as far as your preaching "sowing what you reap", did it ever cross your
mind that Louis also "reaped what he sowed"? Of course it didn't, "Father",
because you are just selectively using the Word of God to support your own
agenda. Again, not something I would expect of a priest.
Zephon
Zephon
<snip>
> Maybe Zephon who claims that he was hurt because of his
> sexual identity should have some feeling for Louis. Can't get him
> that a way then pick him out for his none "progressive" (whatever
> the heck " progressive" means) church style. "
> As Zephon says, "Oh, dear, did I do that?"
Where exactly did I say that, or even imply that? Making up lies now,
"Father"? You're some priest.
Listen, if you want to (mis) interpret my comments to suit your own agenda,
PLEASE have the decency NOT to put quotes around it.
And my beef with Louis has absolutely NOTHING to do with sexuality issues,
and you know that. Fact is I do have feelings for Louis, but they have been
squashed by his sarcasm and sharp tongue (well, keyboard).
Zephon
Zephon
<snip>
> Louis DID "boo hoo" me, and that's where the line came from. It's not like
> Zephon was pulling anything new.
I certainly hope everyone realized that. It absolutely was an (admittedly
sarcastic) allusion to louis's earlier "boo hoo hoo" to Leslie. Of course
NO ONE here said ANYTHING about it when louis said it. But now that one of
the "liberals" has repeated it, I get criticized. Go figure.
>
> Yeah, I'm starting to dread reading this group precisely because of this
> conflict.
If you really mean this, I will just ignore louis.
<snip>
> > >.I fail to see how you slapping Zephon's hand and not addressing the
> cause
> > of the
> > > argument is productive for either of them.
I see how. It's because "Father" is in louis's camp, so he criticize me and
call me a "fundamentalist liberal twit" because it suits his agenda. He
claims I "reaped what I sowed", but of course no mention was made of louis
"reaping what he sowed". How convenient.
<snip>
> 2. I think at one time [Zephon] did have some feeling for Louis. I may be
wrong,
> but I have a feeling we're talking about something worn away by time and
> irritation.
Correct.
>
> > that a way then pick him out for his none "progressive" (whatever
> > the heck " progressive" means) church style. "
> > As Zephon says, "Oh, dear, did I do that?"
>
> Pick Zephon out for it? Whaa?
No, made no sense to me either. Neither can he find where I ever said that.
"Father" made it up. Again, isn't that convenient?
Zephon
louis
>
>
> And surprised at what? That a whining, immature valley boy cursed at me,
> and called me a name that I don't know what it means?
>
l
btw: "Jerkon" was a rather silly play on our nom de guerre - Jerk-on for
Zeph-on, get it? ;-) I suppose I should have just settled for jerk.
PS - You're certainly indulging in a lot of whining here. Maybe we can both
quit, huh? Like, fer shur, dude. I can, like, get with a total ceasefire,
man.
Zephon
Okay. Peace, bro. <hugs and kisses>
And now I have a mental image of you smiling at last -- that's nice. And
alas, you DO have a sense of humor.
I really didn't get the jerkon thing -- I thought it had some connection to
jerkoff, but I couldn't make it. Looks like I was on the wrong track.
Shalom, dude,
Z-boy
FTT
>
> "FTT" <f...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:487E8.8038$TJ6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > "Zephon" <Zep...@galaxy7.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > And just enlighten me what new words I have
> > made up Zephon.
>
>
> "Fundamentalist liberal" and "liberal literalist", as I recall, or
something
> like that.
That's not too hard for anyone to figure out Zephon.
It's just a matter of 'knowing' the meaning (shades of meaning)
in our use of words. If you don't know them look them up in any or many
dictionaries to get a "broad" or "liberal" understanding of their
various meanings ( thus my above bracketed "shades of meaning").
Thus when, or if, we enter into conversation with others using
those/these ( or any other) terms of reference then we will have
some understanding of the conversation(s) at hand.
One does not have to be too bright to do this. There is so much
at hand today in this ~modern world~ to assist us - at home, in
libraries and on the internet - and not have to resort to upbraiding
others for one's lack of understanding.
A "fundamentalist" is one who applies the "fundamentals", that is
the important, basic or essential "points" or "major significance"
of the position they hold - religious or otherwise. Be he conservative,
liberal ,or liberal progressive, or any other imaginable "ism" that can
be dreamed up. To be worthwhile positions or arguments they must
have fundamentals to start with.
So in a ~real~ sense we all are fundamentalists to start with in
the "fundamental" meaning of the word "fundamentalist". Or we
are talking out of our hats - or out of thin air.
All these positions have basic "starting points" that are important or
basic or "primary" to their meaning. I guess it's the "philosophy" or
"world view" the position takes - I won't burden you with the German
term used for this.
A "liberal" is one who is not as ~cautious~ as a "conservative"
in expanding or allowing ~progressive change~ (oh, even I can
use that word !!) & in some cases ~any change~ to their basic or primary
starting point or "world View" or "philosophy" governing their position
or argument on any subject.
So being a "fundamentalist" when not used in a *derogatory* sense
(eg: in name calling or as an ad hominum in an argument to hit our
opponent below the belt - and win) is to "know" what we "talk" - where
we are "coming" from, rather than making irrational outbursts.
Liberals and conservatives worth their salt then have fundamental
principles they act on. Thus are in a proper sense of the word ( not
the derogatory sense so often used here and elsewhere) being
fundamentalists. Even scientists true to their profession act on
the fundamentals of the Scientific Theory that forms their basic
research.
A fundamenatist liberal is one who acts on the primary point
or world view of liberalism. Not as cautious in their approach
as a conservative is by their allowing for an expanded view
or understanding of a subject under discussion - religious or
otherwise.
Nothing wrong with that - only when they forget they act
on fundamentals too - but not so when some resort to the
derogatory use of "fundamenatist" for a conservative opponent.
When both act on "fundamental" positions !!!!
a "Literalist" is one who acts on "fundamentals" at face value
on the literal meaning of the words and combination of words
only - usually not allowing for any interpretation than that of their
own understanding or what the words or text says at "face value".
At first blush being a "literalist" would seem to be - and is -
inconsistent with being liberal. But in actual fact many liberals,
as conservatives, in battle with one an other, and in hard and
fast position holding, stick to the face value meaning of their
fundamentals or world view and won't budge an inch one way
or another on a misguided sense of "principle" - rather than on
"truth" and "knowledge" which the whole process is all about.
There are liberals who hold to a "literal" exposition of their liberal
position on any subject as a literalist conservative fundamentalist
would, say on The Seven Days of Creation that "seven" literally
means 7 and nothing else even in face of internal evidence in the
maybe there are other understandings.
We are all in various ways and on various subjects of interest
liberal and conservative - even literalist- in our positions.
I guess as someone said last century to the affect "inconsistency
is the spice of life".
>
>
> >
> > Anyway I just love your "Oh I am so surprised......" gig.
> > All done I'm sure with fluttering sweet eyes and a coy smile.
>
>
> Well, I sure am smiling now. Because I have NO idea what you are talking
> about. And since you neglected to clue me in on what I "gave" or "got"
> (obviously ignoring my questions), there is not much I can say, is there?
So am I smiling Zephon ,you are a "broken record" grinding out the same old
"I have no idea what you are talking about". Ho hummmm
>
> And surprised at what? That a whining, immature valley boy cursed at me,
> and called me a name that I don't know what it means?
Then be the mayure one and politely ask him what it means. Look it up.
Don't whine
>
>
> > And just get to the point of saying what you mean
> > when you write "Father" say what you mean without
> > "beating behind the bush" as the kindly jester.
>
>
> I thought it was obvious, "Father". From my prior conversation with you,
in
> which you started off attacking me and calling me a "fundamentalist
liberal
> twit",
Well "Zephon" I have no excuse for doing that other than doing it , and
doing it
maybe out of frustration - yes, no excuse either. But you know what I mean.
Oh well maybe not it seems.
> and proceeded to make further accusations and name-calling, and then
Well name calling is no excuse - but when are you going to take your own adv
ise?
> failed to back up ANYTHING you said despite my repeated requests (which
you
> are now doing again), I was left an impression of you. And that
impression
> is NOT one that I would consider a healthy representative of our Lord or
a
> man of God.
Whatever - I expected that from you. Ever think about yourself in this
manner?
Truth is a "two edged sword" it cuts both ways "Zephon". It called arguement
by
ad hominum - if you have one, look it up in a dictionary
>
> And as far as your preaching "sowing what you reap", did it ever cross
your
> mind that Louis also "reaped what he sowed"?
Zephon we ~ALL~ reap what we sow, don't we?
Of course it didn't, "Father",
Well "Zephon" just as you whine I don't understand at me and Louis
you've really reaped what you've sowed with abundance.
> because you are just selectively using the Word of God to support your own
> agenda.
Like you do in another thread re Father Moyer (obviously "bad" Fr. Moyer)
etc and the "good" Bishop Bennison? Come on "Zephon" get real.
Literalist liberalism and literalist conservatism at their worst and fodder
for your posts
Again, not something I would expect of a priest.
Expect nothing from a priest only expect something
from a Christian - whether priest or lay person.
Get out of your "box" into reality.
Anyway it seems you wouldn't expect anything from
anyone other than what you "expect" - determine
Well "Zephon" this will be my last response to you
because you "never" or better "won't" understand
what anyone says to you except what you want to hear
coyly fluttering you eyes saying "who me dear, dear dear
me"?
FTT
FTT
"louis" <l...@lorien.net> wrote in message
news:BZzE8.637$HE2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
FTT
FTT
Good move on your part too Zephon
No more responses on my part - as promised.
FTT
Leslie F. Terrell
"Zephon" <Zep...@galaxy7.com> wrote in message news:yPzE8.480
> <snip>
>
> > Louis DID "boo hoo" me, and that's where the line came from. It's not
like
> > Zephon was pulling anything new.
>
>
> I certainly hope everyone realized that. It absolutely was an (admittedly
> sarcastic) allusion to louis's earlier "boo hoo hoo" to Leslie. Of course
> NO ONE here said ANYTHING about it when louis said it. But now that one
of
> the "liberals" has repeated it, I get criticized. Go figure.
Okay, if you'll read his replies to me, Zephon, I think he is sincerely
trying to give Louis a break. Whether he needs that or a bucket of water
remains to be seen, but I think he's sincere.
>
>
> >
> > Yeah, I'm starting to dread reading this group precisely because of this
> > conflict.
>
>
> If you really mean this, I will just ignore louis.
It's not you, it's louis and others (priscilla) whom I've been arguing with
lately.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > >.I fail to see how you slapping Zephon's hand and not addressing the
> > cause
> > > of the
> > > > argument is productive for either of them.
>
>
> I see how. It's because "Father" is in louis's camp, so he criticize me
and
> call me a "fundamentalist liberal twit" because it suits his agenda. He
> claims I "reaped what I sowed", but of course no mention was made of louis
> "reaping what he sowed". How convenient.
Let me please declare that I am not in nor will I ever be in anyone's "camp"
in this newsgroup. I am a moderate if you want to label me... other than
that I'll be merely Christian, thank you, anglican tendencies will be
confessed eagerly.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > 2. I think at one time [Zephon] did have some feeling for Louis. I may
be
> wrong,
> > but I have a feeling we're talking about something worn away by time and
> > irritation.
>
>
> Correct.
I thought so.
>
>
> >
> > > that a way then pick him out for his none "progressive" (whatever
> > > the heck " progressive" means) church style. "
> > > As Zephon says, "Oh, dear, did I do that?"
> >
> > Pick Zephon out for it? Whaa?
>
>
> No, made no sense to me either. Neither can he find where I ever said
that.
> "Father" made it up. Again, isn't that convenient?
Methinks you're both over reacting.
Leslie F. Terrell
"louis" <l...@lorien.net> wrote in message
news:BZzE8.637$HE2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> news:VfzE8.425$Vq6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > And surprised at what? That a whining, immature valley boy cursed at
me,
> > and called me a name that I don't know what it means?
> >
> A "whining, immature valley boy"? LOL! That's great! Thanks, Z-boy.
Actually, I thought it was too, but I wasn't going to say that...
>
> l
>
> btw: "Jerkon" was a rather silly play on our nom de guerre - Jerk-on for
> Zeph-on, get it? ;-) I suppose I should have just settled for jerk.
>
> PS - You're certainly indulging in a lot of whining here. Maybe we can
both
> quit, huh? Like, fer shur, dude. I can, like, get with a total ceasefire,
> man.
please God....
Bruce K. Darling
>
> Like my straight friends who continue to make homophobic jokes when I'm
not
> around?
Louis -
People who make "homophobic" jokes behind your back are not your friends.
Regards