SODOMITES! or Homosexuals! are an "Abomination" to God.
Changeling
of the sons of Israel.
18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog,
[Homosexual male pervert whore] into the house of the LORD thy God for any
vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. "
Dolf Boek
news:pAVF8.3033$Nh.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a Sodomite of the
dog, [Homosexual male pervert whore] into the house of the LORD thy God for
any vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God."
DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
I thought the text was referring to the Fascist Conduct of the present Pope
and Archbishop Pell of Saint Marys {Rebellion, Gomorrah, Marriage} Sydney.
"The church's view on sexuality is clear and unequivocal and derives from
natural moral law which we believe is unchanging," he said. "Such moral law
governs all people everywhere, in precisely the same way." [May 20, 2002 --
Adam was with Eve, not Steve: Pell, By Jane Fraser Courtesy The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,4349610%255E27
02,00.html ]
We both know that Ev-'angel'-ical Christianity is adversarial to
Modernity-'Things or Institutions of the Present' as both a liberal
theological tendency in Protestantism which is opposed to fundamentalism and
a Roman Catholic movement which interpreted the teaching of the church in
light of the philosophy and science of the late 19th and early 20th
centuries; condemned by Pope Pius in 1907. [Ref: The Macquarie Dictionary, ©
1982 The Macquaire University ]
Very fascinating is the narrative on pages 48-5x [cf:
http://annwn.rutgers.edu/~tomryan/nuremberg.pdf ] concerning the social
outrage by proponents of what, till then was regarded by many as German
Democracy, to Bishop Dr. Sproll of Rottenburg who had not voted in the
elections of 10April, 1938, which neces sitated vacating his residence,
returning only on 15 July, 1938 under direct Papal Authority.
Frequent mention is made of the Bishop praying before (if not to) the
exposed Blessed Sacrament' which is so characteristic of Catholic mysticism
and Aten sun worship.
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/dolfboek/meta/time.html#PASSWORD
It is my considered opinion that the origins of the Australian Constitution
and particularly Section 116, shares a historical Hebrew/Christian and hence
a rationalistic bio-psychological connection whose religious anti-thesis as
Hitler's 4 Nuremberg Laws were later to play out as a tragedy on the world
stage during the first half of the twentieth century.
Is it not also written, "For if we sin wilfully after we have received the
knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a
certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will
devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without
mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses:
THE COMMONWEALTH (OF AUSTRALIA) SHALL NOT MAKE ANY LAW FOR ESTABLISHING ANY
RELIGION
1. NATURE contains NATURE {Remember the Sabbath?}
Psychology = Ended the right of {Jews, Homosexuals, Seventh-day Adventists,
et al} to marry freely
FOR IMPOSING ANY RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE
2. NATURE rejoices in its NATURE {Honor Parents}
Biology = Ended the right of {Jews, Homosexuals, Seventh-day Adventists, et
al} to have sexual intercourse freely
FOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF ANY RELIGION
3. NATURE surmounts NATURE {Intellect not Murder}
Sociology = Ended the right of {Jews, Homosexuals, Seventh-day Adventists,
et al} to employ or be employed freely
NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION FOR ANY OFFICE OR
PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE COMMONWEALTH
4. NATURE can only be amended in its own NATURE {Avoiding Spiritual
Adultery}
Theology = Ended the right of {Jews, Homosexuals, Seventh-day Adventists, et
al} to display/serve the nation's flag freely.
5. Act of NATURE
The first is fornication: [Theft of Nature {Act of Nature - Universal
Mercury v's Torah Sabbaths -- 72J 2W 1D}];
6. Form of NATURE
The second is wealth: [False Witness to the Form of Nature {Forma
Corporis/Body of Christos -- 10J = 490 years}];
7. Engendering NATURE
The third is defiling the sanctuary: [Covet Nature {Engendering Nature as
the Sacred Cosmic Law -- 6,000 years as 'telos' 122J 3W 1D = 'arch' 0J 0W 0D
+ c²} cf: [Dead Sea Scroll fragment: Geniza A4.12-19]
"Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who
has trampled the Son of God under-foot, counted the blood of the covenant by
which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of Grace?
For we know him who said, 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay,' says the Lord.
{Compare 'chosen-ekloge vessel-skeuos' [Acts 23:11-15] with each man
'possess-ktaomai his vessel-skeuos' and 'the Lord-Kurios is the
avenger-ekdikos' of those who oppress his covenant people. [1Thessalonians
4:3-9]}" [Hebrews 10:26-30]
Liebenfels was a renegade Cistercian monk who was excommunicated for being
homosexual. As a socio-biological crank of the first order, he founded in
1900, his own brotherhood--an 'Order of the New Templars', using the
Swastika as his sign. Beyond founding a journal called Ostara {Teutonic god
of beauty} in 1905, he authored a hermetically derived, philosophical book
on evolutionary human development "...with a somewhat long-winded title,
'Theozoologie, or the account of the apes of Sodom {their secret; their
cement} and the divine election--an introduction into the earliest and the
most modern world philosophy and a justification for the orders of princes
and the aristocracy', which appeared in 1904."
By 1918, Liebenfels mystical proposal of "a Law of Life [...] and for the
preservation of the race" earned him a reputation as a race-hygienist.
'Ariosophy' was largely a fusion of race-based Volkish thinking {'hymeneal
mysticism/occultism, volkisch nationalism, racism, and antisemitism'} with
the Theosophical idea that "Evolution is the law of Life, Number is the law
of the Universe and Unity is the law of God", popularized by Helena
Blavatsky and her followers. Theosophy itself included a good deal of racial
thinking--viz. Blavatsky's notion of the 'five root races' of mankind. From
such work we learn that the troubles of humanity are due to the
long-standing miscegenation of the god-men with the beast-men. Naturally the
Aryans were closest in form to the god-men of the past.
Liebenfels extended this analysis to 'frequently obscene and always radical'
interpretations of Scripture, ending with moral prescriptions for racial
hygiene which echoed that of the SS thirty years later. Doubtlessly the
evolutionary development of phrenological and philosophical thinking [cf:
Dr. Ruddock's 1926 Vitalogy Cure for Impotency] led to references on
homosexuality entering into the vocabulary of the Hebrew/Christian
Scriptures within the latter part of the 20th century: "And as Isaiah
said-proereo before-proereo {to say already, predict:-foretell, say (speak,
tell) before} :
'Unless-'ei-me' the LORD-kurios of Saboath {Lord of Hosts, Forces &
Authority over Chaos} had left-egkataleipo {to leave behind in some place,
that is, (in a good sense) let remain over, or (in a bad one) to
desert:-forsake, leave} us a seed-sperma {somethng sown, that is, seed
including the male 'sperm'; by implication offspring; specifically a
remnant; figuratively as if kept over for planting:-issue, seed}, we would
have become-ginomai {generate, come into being, to marry cf: [Romans 7:16]}
like Sodom {their secret; their cement}, and we would have been made-homoioo
{to assimilate, that is, compare; passively to become similar:-be make like,
in the likeness, resemble} like Gomorrah {rebellious {Mary} people}."
[Romans 9:22-29]
The Church then, as the invisible brotherhood, has in the furtherance of its
own social and political agenda as Divine Work, become the cultural
custodians of 'Theozoologie': "...Like natural-phusikos brutish-alogos [Jude
1:11] beasts-zoon made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things
they do not understand-agnoeo (through lack of information, intelligence and
disinclination), and will utterly perish in their own corruption." [2 Peter
2:12]
This rationale is readily observed in its continuing, present day antagonism
directed towards homosexuals and consideration of AIDS as Divine
retribution. But such a view, which is ostensibly religious
superstition-'deisidaimonia' {cf: kakodaimonia-unhappiness, misfortune,
possession by an evil spirit, to be tormented by an evil genius}, remains
incompatible to Jesus of Nazareth's gospel-euaggelion of the
kingdom-basileia pronouncements that were accompanied by healing-therapeuo
{to wait upon menially, that is, (figuratively) to adore (God), or
(specifically) to relieve (of disease-MALAKIA)} liberation for all-pas
sick-echo-kakos people.
There is a lack of moral ground and no accountability to history by which
Christians now use the same epithets as the Fascists of 20th Century Europe
and yet claim their conduct is all the more Christian. The Church's quest
for a final solution, as miso-genic prejudice directed against homosexuals
as a quotient of the population, is eagerly pursued under the veneer of
compassion for those afflicted by "diseases-nosos and torments-bananos, and
those-ho which were possessed-daimonizomai {to be deified; to be exercised
by a daemon:-have a (be vexed with, be possessed with) devil (-s)} with
devils-daimonizomai {nizomai: generally, purge, cleanse, washed off; Hence:
"allos kat' allên daimonizetai tuchên" each one has his own fate appointed},
and those which were lunatic-seleniazomai {to be moon struck i.e. epileptic,
to be sublunar, i.e. subject to change and decay, that is, crazy:-be
lunatic}" [cf: Matthew 4:23-24; Matthew 9:35-38]
To show no regard for the Sabbath day on which the 10 commandments are
established and yet claim to being Christian, is no humble opinion of self.
This cosmological model which is given at the link below is derived from the
perennial natural lunar and solar cycle as a micro 7-day chronological cycle
which is compatible with animastic/agricultural philosophy {earth, water,
sun, air, Act of Nature}, Hermetic Philosophy (Theory of Numbers/Letters) &
the Transcendental, Metaphysical and Theological Wisdom of the Hebrews.
Of the 7th and Sabbath day it is stated in our most sacred books that, "Thus
the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on
the seventh-day God ended his work which he had done, and he rested on the
seventh-day from all his work which he had done. Then God blessed the
seventh-day and sanctified it, because in it he rested from all his work
which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the
earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth
and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before
any herb of the field had grown..." [Genesis 2:1-5]
It is the day that Jesus of Nazareth {10J = 490 years}, filled with the Holy
Spirit shared with God the Father: "The word which God sent to the children
of Israel {who prevails with God}, preaching peace through Jesus Christ-He
is Lord of all-that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea
{the praise of the Lord; confession}, and began from Galilee {wheel;
revolution} after the baptism which John {the grace or mercy of the Lord}
preached: how God anointed JESUS {He is saved/A savior; a deliverer} OF
NAZARETH {one chosen or set apart; separated; crowned; sanctified} with the
Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who
were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of
all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem
{vision of peace}, whom they killed by hanging on a tree." [Acts 10:36-39]
'Telos' 122J3W1D = 'arch' 0J0W0D + c² {
1. - Adam in 22/7=3W1D {22 Hebrew letters/7th day}
Genealogy: 22 Generations Adam to Isaac: "This the order of the sons of Noah
to Abraham until he bore Isaac, ten generations {as an ontological esoteric
representation of the 10 Commandments} ..." [4Q180 - The Ages of the World,
Frag 1:1-5 + 4Q181 Frag. 2:1]
2. - Noah in {26J5W}
3. - Abraham in {40J4W}
4. - Law@Sinai = {50J}
At which time [2450 AM as 50J] "[Moses] went up to receive the stone
tablets, the Torah and the statute by the word of YHWH according to which he
told him: 'Go up to the top of the mountain. In the first year of the sons
of Israel leaving Egypt, in the third month, the sixteenth of this month
YHWH spoke to Moses saying, 'Come up to me on the mountain and I will give
you two tablets of stone, the Law and the statute which I have written in
order to teach them." [4QJulibees, 4Q216:3-7]
5. - Xerxes in 457 BCE {72J2W1D}
"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses-homologeo
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God:
6. - Jesus {10J=490 years - cryptic prophecy}
and every spirit that does not confess-homologeo {ie. a different date} that
Jesus has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the
Anti-Christ which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the
world." [1 John 4:2-3]
7. - Telos {Y6K = 122J3W1D & Y2K/Jubilee2000 myth}
6,000 / 666 = 9.009 ... [Eclipse 25/12/2000 + 6 remaining]
}
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/dolfboek
Hence the Kabbalas Ha-Torah's Axioms on Time {6,000 years as 'telos'
122J3W1D = 'arch' 0J0W0D + c²} as the two 'sacred cosmic fundamental laws'
of the Triamasikamno (Trinity) and the Heptaparaparschinoch (Sevenness). The
former as the threefold generative power consists of the powers:
Surp-Ortheor (Affirmation: Father), Surp-Skiros (Negation: Son) and
Surp-Athanatos (Reconciliation: Holy Spirit).
KABBALAS HaTORAH
Copyright © 2002 by Rabbi Heshy Grossman and Project Genesis, Inc.
http://www.torah.org
The author is the principal of Hanna Sacks Bais Yaakov High School in
Chicago, Illinois.
"....because the Torah is threefold, teaching us that it is eternal. For
all matters that have an interruption have an end, for when it
deteriorates, that it is its end. But when it is threefold, the middle
between them has no end at all, and a matter that has no end, will not
cease. Because the Torah is eternal, and it has no end, therefore it is
threefold....." (Maharal, Tiferes Yisrael, Ch. 50)
* * *
* *
The Torah is three, the nation of Israel is three, and Kabbalas HaTorah
takes place through three. Three is solid, consistent and eternal. In our
shiur this week, we will explain why the number three supports and defines
all of Klal Yisrael.
1
We are accustomed to using numbers as a means of arranging, counting or
categorizing groups of varied items. Understood thus, the numerical system
is an artificial construct, agreed upon by all men as a helpful convenience.
The Torah teaches however, that true numbers are actually concepts, with
each integer reflecting a different aspect of creation, one that is brought
into existence by G-d. It is the idea behind each number that forms the
basis of each subsequent worldly development, and these essential
characteristics define all worldly elements.
For example, G-d is One. This means more than attesting to the existence of
one G-d. Rather, it teaches that Hashem defines the very nature of One;
that His unity encompasses all of creation, and that all of existence is
part of His being. He is One, and there is nothing else - 'Ain Od Milvado'.
From here follows the number two - the creation of an other, and the
possibility of an alternative entity, one that is separate and distinct
from the Divine. Every number two touches this idea, the notion of two
disparate items that remain apart.
For this reason, the second day of creation is marked by the absence of
good, and is the onset of evil and dispute, for all troubles begin when the
world sees itself as an independent existence, surviving on its own and
apart from its Maker. Every couple must navigate this chasm, learning to
merge together in harmony rather than focusing upon their differing
identities.
Again, two is an idea, not a mere number.
All this underscores a well-known song, which was not intended for little
children: "Who knows One? I know One! One is our G-d of heaven and earth!"
Two are the Luchos HaBris - the tablets of the covenant. While one tablet
prescribes the behavior of man towards his Creator, the second tablet
governs all human interaction, defining the dimensions of a corporeal
existence. This is two, the dual aspect of creation, G-d and an other.
But two entities that co-exist side by side will forever be unable to
unite. This is the purpose of three.
In order for the two extremes to be reconciled, a third element must be
introduced that will consolidate the two entities into one amalgamated
whole. Three is a chain - hence, the word 'Shalsheles' - from the root
'Shalosh'. It strings together the past and the future, blending heaven and
earth; man's actions and G-d's will.
Let us explain.
2
The act of creation presents humanity with a choice, allowing for the
possibility that man may follow an errant path. To the extent that he
cleaves to the materialistic world, he loses all connection to the world of
the spirit.
Every side has an extremity, and every border has its edge. Were man to
follow either alternative, be it heaven or earth, his time would be
limited, bound by the two rims that frame his every move. Man's role is to
navigate his own middle way; to forge a path between left and right that
will incorporate all other directions.
Klal Yisrael is called 'Yeshurun' - as in 'Yashar' - straight and true: "The
Lord was revealed from Sinai {a bush; enmity
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/dolfboek/particular.html#KABBALAH }to give
the law to his people, the children of Israel {who prevails with God}; he
shone in his Glory on the Mount of Gabla {HT: Seir, Seirath, hairy; goat;
demon; tempest} to give the law to the sons of Esau {he that acts or
finishes}. And when they found written within it: 'You shall not be
murderers,' they did not accept it.
And he appeared in his Glory to give his law on the Mount of Paran {beauty;
glory; ornament} to the sons of Ishmael {God that hears}. And when the sons
of Ishmael found that it was written within it: 'You shall not be thieves,'
they did not accept it. He went back and was revealed on the Mount of
Sinai, and with him were myriads of holy angels.
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/dolfboek/yahad.html#ORACLES
The children of Israel said, 'We will do and obey all that the Memra of the
Lord {Word, Shekinah, Holy Spirit, Sabaoth (Lord of Hosts, Forces &
Authority over Chaos)} has spoken.' And he stretched out his right hand
from the midst of the flames of fire and gave the law to his people. Was it
not manifest and known before him that neither the sons of Esau nor the sons
of Ishmael were to accept the law?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/dolfboek/foreward.html#CONSTITUTION
Yet, all this was to show that he loved the people, the children of Israel;
myriads of holy angels descended; since, although he brought numerous
chastisements upon them, they neither rested nor reposed from the
instruction of the law, and were led and came to the foot of his clouds, and
set out, and encamped according to his commandments.
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/dolfboek/name.html#CAMP
The children of Israel said, 'Moses commanded us the law, he gave it as an
inheritance and a possession to the assembly of the tribes of the house of
Jacob {that supplants, undermines; the heel}. And a king shall arise from
those of the house of Jacob [HT: And he was King in Jeshurun]; when he
gathers the heads of the people together, all the tribes of the children of
Israel shall obey him." [© 1997 The Order of Saint Benedict Aramaic Targum
Neofiti 1:Deuteronomy 33:2-5]
While a circle has no identifiably unique area, and every point of
reference is similar to any other, a straight line, in contrast, has a
beginning, middle, and end.
When one's path is crooked, he may leap ahead with abandon, following any
direction he chooses, and stray farther and farther from his source and
origin. But to walk a straight line, one step must flow from another, and
with each succeeding stride, man actualizes all his energies, utilizing the
forces that pull in different directions to create his own way, in harmony
with his Creator.
This is the number three. A middle, with no rough edges. It is the
connecting glue that links heaven and earth. It is an internal compass, one
that has man aware of his innermost drives, and yet, at the same time, it
leads him to pursue his own path in the external world that surrounds him.
Two-legged chairs cannot stand on their own, but the addition of a third
pole solidifies its base. For this reason, the Torah validates the strength
of three: "On three things the world stands....." (Avos 1:2), or, in legal
terms: true ownership requires possession of three years to be accepted as
solid proof, a Chazakah.
"Who knows three? I know three! Three fathers!" - the three Avos are the
righteous men around whom G-d can build a holy, strong and everlasting
people.
The Torah is given here - on the third day.
The Torah is G-d's word directed towards man, and it enables man to
accomplish what angels cannot, the creation of a middle path, one that
encompasses all of creation to produce a new and independent line of
action. Connected to G-d, but deserving on its own, man actualizes his own
Torah, and recreates the world in a new form.
3
The man who observes the Torah does than more than behave properly, and
deserves more than credit for past performance. He is a Tzelem Elokim, and
he brings to life the will of G-d in a different dimension - not G-d alone,
and not man - a third way.
When Klal Yisrael receives the Torah at the foot of Har Sinai, they are not
merely expressing their acquiescence. Rather, they bring down to earth the
Dvar Hashem, and henceforth, their every experience must be measured in
threes. For them, each occurrence is threefold, and is a measured statement
of G-d, man, and Torah.
This is true on an individual level as well, where each man is made up of
three distinct elements - body, heart, and soul, or, alternatively, in the
language of Chazal: Nefesh, Ruach, Neshama. His life becomes a living
manifestation of Torah, and in this way, he manages to achieve a taste of
eternity.
Man is the center of the universe, and all of life revolves around his
words and deeds. He is the fulcrum of existence, and is the catalyst for
the Divine providence that mirrors his own relationship towards G-d.
This is the middle path, the power of three. Man has the ability to
assimilate this force into the very fiber of his being; to accept and
receive the capability of molding heaven's word to a physical world.
This is Kabbalas HaTorah - accepting the burden and responsibilies of the
center of existence.
--
- dolf
If Adam {Taken from 4 corners/ Earthy; red} was indeed the crowned glory of
God's creation then it was Adam & Steve {crowned}, to say otherwise is to
advocate non-jurisprudent forms of population control--Why then was the word
'homosexual' added to the bible?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/dolfboek/mind.html#HISTORY
This message doesn't constitute authorisation or acceptance by its author,
of the use of their email address for the purposes of unsolicited email
known as 'SPAM'.
--
- dolf
If Adam {Taken from 4 corners/ Earthy; red} was indeed the crowned glory of
God's creation then it was Adam & Steve {crowned}, to say otherwise is to
advocate non-jurisprudent forms of population control--Why then was the word
'homosexual' added to the bible?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/dolfboek/semen.html#SCIENCES
This message doesn't constitute authorisation or acceptance by its author,
of the use of their email address for the purposes of unsolicited email
known as 'SPAM'.
Bill Ramsay
Changeling, why don't you use your real name?
why don't you give this homosexual drive you are on a rest as it is
getting really boring
kind regards
bill.
S Campion
>Changeling, why don't you use your real name?
>why don't you give this homosexual drive you are on a rest as it is
>getting really boring
I think that he is having trouble coming to terms with his homosexual
side.
Ninure Saunders
"Changeling" <ulti...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
-"17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a Sodomite
-of the sons of Israel.
-18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog,
-[Homosexual male pervert whore] into the house of the LORD thy God for any
-vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. "
here does the word abomination come from, the one that is in the OT?
Do you know?
From the NIV Bible Dictionary:
ABOMINATION, ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION The word abomination occurs rarely
in the NIV (e.g., Prov 26:25; Isa 66:3; Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; cf.
Å‚abominable,Ë› Isa 66:17; Jer 32:34). The idea is, however, much more
widespread, most often expressed in the NIV by detest and the detestable.
Two main Hebrew words are involved: (1) shiqqutz, used of idols, of the
gods represented by idols, of forbidden practices, and generally of
anything contrary to the worship and religion of the Lord. The related
noun sheqetz is used of idols in animal form, forbidden foods, and
generally of anything bringing ceremonial defilement. (2) Toevah , often
synonymous with shiqqutz, is also used in wider areas of life‹things
related to idols, false gods themselves, forbidden sexual practices,
prophecy leading to the worship of other gods, offering blemished animals
in sacrifice, and heathen divination (or anything that challenges GodÄ…s
authority).
You either do not know know, or else to fail to realize that this
characterization in the OT relating to homogenital contact is also used
to describe many other practices, some of which are rather innocuous
today. The things that were *toevah* to the Hebrews include: sex with
menstruating women (Lev 18:26), the silver and gold of idols (Deut 7:25),
the rabbit, the pig and shellfish (Deut 14:3-21), psychics (Deut
18:9-12), unfair weights and measures (Deut 25:13-16), women who wear
men's clothes (Deut 22:5), a man who remarries his divorced wife (Deut
24:4), a women who defends her husband by crushing his opponent's
genitals (Deut 25:11-16), as well as any person who disobeys the law (Prov
28:9).
In addtion to this, the Levitical Code and the Moasic Law was part of the
covenant God had with His special/chosen people Israel, and never was
intended to apply to non-Israelites.
I am coninially amazed at the way so many "christians" have nothing
better do with their rime, than to attack other people, other
denominations, and homosexuality.
And they all do this, pulling a few verses out of the Bible, and claim
that every single word in the Bible is to be taken literally.
Since Å‚bible-literalist christiansË› claimsthat the Bible is to be taken
literally, I challenge them to take the words of Jesus literally and
obey HIM!!!
Jesus said:
Luke 14:33 In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything
he has cannot be my disciple. (NIV)
Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all
that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. (KJV)
Bible literalists when will you do so?
Why do preach "prosperoty Gospels", and "Pray it and Claim it Gospels",
and "God wants you rich Gospels", when Jesus
said:
Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet
lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the
poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And
when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And
when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they
that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a
camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the
kingdom of God. (KFV)
Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, Å‚You still lack one
thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.Ë› When he heard this, he became
very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. 24 Jesus looked at him
and said, Å‚How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!
25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.Ë› 26 Those who heard
this asked, Å‚Who then can be saved?Ë› (NIV)
Luke 6:
24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
25 Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that
laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.
26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their
fathers to the false prophets.
27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which
hate you,
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other;
and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy
goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners
also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for
sinners also do even the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye?
for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing
again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the
Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be
condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and
shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For
with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you
again.
Why are so eager to send people to hell, or to deny that they are
followeres of Christ, when He has clearly laid out on what basis He will
judge who is His?
Mathhew 25: 31 "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the
holy angels with him, then will he sit on the throne of his glory. 32
Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one
from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He
will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then
the King will tell them on his right hand, 'Come, blessed of my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35
for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave
me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; 36 naked, and you clothed
me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.'
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you
hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? 38 When did we see
you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? 39 When did
we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?' 40 The King will answer
them, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the
least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' 41 Then will he say also to
them on the left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire
which is prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and
you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't
clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.' 44 Then will
they also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty,
or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not help you?' 45
Then will he answer them, saying, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as
you didn't do it to one of these least, you didn't do it to me.' 46 These
will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal
life."
Christians who constantly claim that the Bible is to be taken literally
would be more convincing if they took the words of Him whom they call
"Lord", that is Jesus literally and actually obeyed Him!!!
It was Jesus who said:
John 14:15 If you love me, keep my commandments.
All the Commands of Jesus
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734/alljesus.html
If the Bible applies to me, does it apply to you?
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734/bible4.html
Bible Misuses
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734/bible-misuses.html
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure
The world's second most subversive document
http://www.geocities.com/ninure/declaration.html
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
starkravin
as it is to God. Murder and stealing are both
sins....but I'm not going to take it the same if you
murder someone in my family or if you steal my car. LIKE
IT OR NOT some acts/beliefs are repulsive to the
majority, and if the minority wants to flaunt their
particular deviation from the norm, they will suffer
criticism for it.
God accepts us where we are , not where Christians think
we ought to be. You seem to expect us sinners to accept
you the same way as God does......ain't gonna
happen........ and it's not just here....homosexuality
is unlawful in most cultures.
greg
S Campion
>You either do not know know, or else to fail to realize that this
>characterization in the OT relating to homogenital contact is also used
>to describe many other practices, some of which are rather innocuous
>today. The things that were *toevah* to the Hebrews include
....
> , as well as any person who disobeys the law (Prov
>28:9).
Good !
I am glad that the bible feels that homosexuality and parking for a
minute extra in a one hour parking zone are in the same category .
:-)
S Campion
>You either do not know know, or else to fail to realize that this
>characterization in the OT relating to homogenital contact is also used
>to describe many other practices, some of which are rather innocuous
>today. The things that were *toevah* to the Hebrews include
....
> , as well as any person who disobeys the law (Prov
>28:9).
S Campion
>
>I am coninially amazed at the way so many "christians" have nothing
>better do with their rime, than to attack other people, other
>denominations, and homosexuality.
>
>And they all do this, pulling a few verses out of the Bible, and claim
>that every single word in the Bible is to be taken literally.
And of course, they have no problems with eating bacon, ham , rabbit
or lobster ! Shock ! Horror !
And the Bible says that eating these are abominations !
Oh dear me !
S Campion
>
>I am coninially amazed at the way so many "christians" have nothing
>better do with their rime, than to attack other people, other
>denominations, and homosexuality.
>
>And they all do this, pulling a few verses out of the Bible, and claim
>that every single word in the Bible is to be taken literally.
dead...@rogers.com
over, and over....
What is the point of multiple posts with vairous subject headers. I
think everyone would have gotten your point the first time.
God Bless.
Tom.
Changeling
"Mark Tindall" <mb...@turboweb.net.au> wrote in message
> I'm a heterosexual who loves gay and lesbian Christians as fellow brothers
> and sisters in Christ. The tide is turning. Why are you full of so much
> hate for homosexuals? What are you afraid of?
>
> >ain't gonna happen........
>
> That's what racists, slave owners and sexists used to say. Save this post
> and reread it in 20 years time. You'll eat your words. :-)
> Mark
So will you Mark, so be very careful you do not 'choke' on them.
" Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers
nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers
will inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Cor 6:9-10 (NIV)
"Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those
who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy
and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers,
and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching"
1 Tim 1:9-10 (NASB)
Changeling
"S Campion" <fundamenta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1cdkeukjk8l3kfajb...@4ax.com...
> RainbowChri...@hotmail.com (Ninure Saunders) wrote:
>
> >I am coninially amazed at the way so many "christians" have nothing
> >better do with their rime, than to attack other people, other
> >denominations, and homosexuality.
Because such 'other people' lie and deceive others by stating they are
Christians and yet are proud of their evil perversion, instead of being
ashamed and confessing their fault and repenting of their wicked ways.
> >And they all do this, pulling a few verses out of the Bible, and claim
> >that every single word in the Bible is to be taken literally.
>
>
> And of course, they have no problems with eating bacon, ham , rabbit
> or lobster ! Shock ! Horror !
>
> And the Bible says that eating these are abominations !
>
> Oh dear me !
FYI, all foods have been cleansed under NT law for the Christian to eat.
Homosexual activity hasn't.
Such "Vile affection"( Rom. 1:26 onwards) being condemned, and only
permanent exclusion from God's kingdom for such corrupted perverts.
Therefore we continually warn others not to be taken in by such false
'brethren & sisters' who await punishment and then destruction for their
wicked ways, who know no shame for their fornicatory depravity.
"18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he
that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."
1 Cor 6:18 (KJV)
"Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual
immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the
punishment of eternal fire."
Jude 1:7 (NIV)
S Campion
>> >And they all do this, pulling a few verses out of the Bible, and claim
>> >that every single word in the Bible is to be taken literally.
>> And of course, they have no problems with eating bacon, ham , rabbit
>> or lobster ! Shock ! Horror !
>> And the Bible says that eating these are abominations !
>> Oh dear me !
>
>FYI, all foods have been cleansed under NT law for the Christian to eat.
You mean that Paul the Heretic said that eating any old rubbish was
ok.
The remaining apostles were shocked when Saul of Tarsus took it upon
his deluded self to abandon the Jewish practices that they still
followed.
dead...@rogers.com
Actually, you may want to refer to Acts chapter 10 verse 9-16.
Act 10:9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh
unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth
hour:
Act 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while
they made ready, he fell into a trance,
Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto
him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let
down to the earth:
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth,
and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any
thing that is common or unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What
God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Act 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again
into heaven.
Here we have the Apostle Peter being told by God that all things are
now lawful to eat, as told by the Apostle Luke. Now, surely you don't
feel that these two are heretics as well.
God Bless.
Tom.
Fr James.
<fundamenta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>And of course, they have no problems with eating bacon, ham , rabbit
>or lobster ! Shock ! Horror !
>
>And the Bible says that eating these are abominations !
>
>Oh dear me !
Since you do not hold to the New Testament then it is obvious you do
not include God's own explanation of the eating rules to St Peter in
Acts, However, rather than adapt the teachings re gross sin he
re-inforced them continually throughout the New Testament.
Truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Peace.
Peace and grace,
Fr James.
St Athanasius Orthodox Mission,
Brisbane, QLD.
To reply via email remove NOSPAM from email addie.
Dr. Speedbyrd:>
We'll let God decide that for Herself
Dr. Speedbyrd®
S Campion
Moira de Swardt
Fr James. <fr_james...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> Since you do not hold to the New Testament then it is obvious you
do
> not include God's own explanation of the eating rules to St Peter
in
> Acts, However, rather than adapt the teachings re gross sin he
> re-inforced them continually throughout the New Testament.
> Truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Including the bit about God being love. And the bit about the most
important commandment being to love God with all our hearts and
minds and souls, and the bit about the next most important
commandment being to love our neighbour as ourselves? And the bit
about sharing our possessions? And the bit where Jesus said He did
not come to do away with the law but to fulfil it?
> Peace.
Father James, I wish the Bible and it's practical application to the
conditions in which we live in the twenty first century *were* as
simple as the fundamentalists make out it is.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Fr James.
<moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>> Truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>
>Including the bit about God being love.
Amen.
>And the bit about the most
>important commandment being to love God with all our hearts and
>minds and souls, and the bit about the next most important
>commandment being to love our neighbour as ourselves?
Amen.
> And the bit
>about sharing our possessions?
Amen.
> And the bit where Jesus said He did
>not come to do away with the law but to fulfil it?
Amen.
Fulfilling the Law by the way does -not- mean abolishing it or
pretending it does not exist. It means to complete it. The food laws
were completed in the New Testament (bar blood), the moral
requirements of the law were also completed in Christ and definitely
not abolished, as a cursory reading of the complete New Testament will
attest to.
>
>> Peace.
>
>Father James, I wish the Bible and it's practical application to the
>conditions in which we live in the twenty first century *were* as
>simple as the fundamentalists make out it is.
I agree nothing is simple. I agree we should not target any particular
sin. I agree we should hate no one. I agree that we should love each
other. I agree that we should not call sin nothing. I agree that the
teachings in the Bible condemn a number of human traits including
lying, adultery, murder, hatred, fornication....and homoszexuality, to
name but a few.
>
>Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Peace to the elect of God. Peace on earth to men of good will.
Padre
<ulti...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
Where did you get this?
Rev 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this
book: If anyone adds anything to them, God
will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if
anyone takes words away from this book of
prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of
life and in the holy city, which are described in
this book.
I've always wondered that since the Bible is inspired if this was to
cover the whole of the Bible. If it doesn't it should for to change
the word of God to fit your need is a bigger sin than any other.
Padre
>
>
>
>
Padre
Seems again the word Homosexual was added to the Bible this is what it
was
1 Corinthians 6 KJV
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Actually the 2 different verses you put up there don't even say the
same thing NIV doesn't mention anything about killing mother and
fathers as the NASB does,sure they both came from the Gods Bible.
Padre
>
>
>
>
>
>
Padre
Why was it a sin then but not now ? This does not say PORK or pigs.
Many 4 legged beast were OK to eat in the old days. This does not
change what you can eat. .
>
>God Bless.
>
>Tom.
Moira de Swardt
> Fulfilling the Law by the way does -not- mean abolishing it or
> pretending it does not exist. It means to complete it. The food
laws
> were completed in the New Testament (bar blood), the moral
> requirements of the law were also completed in Christ and
definitely
> not abolished, as a cursory reading of the complete New Testament
will
> attest to.
Then why, especially in the light of the fact that Jesus did not
condone the breaking of the law, do we so happily toss the law out
of the window, secure that we can justify ourselves contextually?
And why do we, especially in the light of the fact that Jesus
nowhere condemns homosexuality, so easily proclaim it a sin without
due regard for the context of the Word?
> >Father James, I wish the Bible and it's practical application to
the
> >conditions in which we live in the twenty first century *were* as
> >simple as the fundamentalists make out it is.
> I agree nothing is simple. I agree we should not target any
particular
> sin. I agree we should hate no one. I agree that we should love
each
> other. I agree that we should not call sin nothing. I agree that
the
> teachings in the Bible condemn a number of human traits including
> lying, adultery, murder, hatred, fornication....and
homoszexuality, to
> name but a few.
Homosexuality is an orientation and *cannot* be equated with lying,
adultery, murder, hatred or fornication.
> Peace to the elect of God. Peace on earth to men of good will.
Why only peace to the elect of God and men of good will? Surely
people who are godless need peace even more than the elect of God?
Surely people of good will do not need peace more than people of ill
will?
And the "men" used here is no longer regarded as a politically
correct way of referring to all humanity. I'm apologising in advance
for this crack, but you have a computer now, so do try and drag
yourself into the twenty first century in other ways. The use of
"men" as a generic term has been frowned upon since the sixties.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Changeling
"Padre" <nos...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:3ceb8fd7...@news.bs.webusenet.com...
> On Sun, 19 May 2002 23:26:11 +0100, "Changeling"
> <ulti...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>
> >"17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a
Sodomite
> >of the sons of Israel.
> >18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog,
> >[Homosexual male pervert whore] into the house of the LORD thy God for
any
> >vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. "
> Where did you get this?
Search the Bible and find out, it is there........
> Rev 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this
> book: If anyone adds anything to them, God
> will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if
> anyone takes words away from this book of
> prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of
> life and in the holy city, which are described in
> this book.
>
> I've always wondered that since the Bible is inspired if this was to
> cover the whole of the Bible. If it doesn't it should for to change
> the word of God to fit your need is a bigger sin than any other.
I haven't changed God's Word, you just cannot find the Scripture.
House of Rock
Changeling
In Proverbs 6 it's mentions seven things the Lord hates,
and gay people are not one of them.
Proverbs 6.16 There are six things which Yahweh
hates; Yes, seven which are an abomination to him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, Hands that shed
innocent blood;
18 A heart that devises wicked schemes, Feet that
are swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness who utters lies, And he who sows
discord among brothers.
Why do you fight so hard against homosexuality?
Do you fight as hard about how men treat their wives?
Do you fight as hard about adulterers?
I was just wondering why you choose a certain group
to be your scapegoat.
--
Lisa R.
_______________________
I don't pretend to know
what ignorant men are sure of.
~~ Clarence Darrow
Dr. Speedbyrd:>
God's Bible? What makes it 'God's Bible'?
Dr. Speedbyrd®
Costa
Two different translations does not mean words have been added to the bible.
You need to understand where the new translations come from. Each
translation is from the original scrolls, and therefore the most recent
translations are the most accurate. Newer translations are not older
translations rewritten, rather exactly what they say they are ... new
translations.
Steve
Fr James.
<moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>Then why, especially in the light of the fact that Jesus did not
>condone the breaking of the law, do we so happily toss the law out
>of the window, secure that we can justify ourselves contextually?
Who tosses the Law out of the window? I certainly do not!
>And why do we, especially in the light of the fact that Jesus
>nowhere condemns homosexuality, so easily proclaim it a sin without
>due regard for the context of the Word?
You seperate Jesus from God and the Church by your assumption above.
Both are error.
>Homosexuality is an orientation and *cannot* be equated with lying,
>adultery, murder, hatred or fornication.
God who created us all has clearly equated it with such and He ought
to know! I am simple agreeing with His decision. You of course are
free to debate it with Him when you meet Him.
>
>> Peace to the elect of God. Peace on earth to men of good will.
>
>Why only peace to the elect of God and men of good will? Surely
>people who are godless need peace even more than the elect of God?
Yes they need peace but rejecting it freely necessitate the state of
godlessness which you spoke of. You may choose to bless that which is
cursed knowingly, but I do not, especially when I speak to those on
the internet with so varied states of Godliness and godlessness.
>Surely people of good will do not need peace more than people of ill
>will?
You may care to meditate on the fact that ill will is self inflicted.
>
>And the "men" used here is no longer regarded as a politically
>correct way of referring to all humanity. I'm apologising in advance
>for this crack, but you have a computer now, so do try and drag
>yourself into the twenty first century in other ways. The use of
>"men" as a generic term has been frowned upon since the sixties.
Political correctness and I are not bedfellows.:-)
>
>Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Peace.
Moira de Swardt
> >Then why, especially in the light of the fact that Jesus did not
> >condone the breaking of the law, do we so happily toss the law
out
> >of the window, secure that we can justify ourselves contextually?
> Who tosses the Law out of the window? I certainly do not!
In your tradition priests usually marry. If you are married, do you
insist that your wife sleep outside the house in her own separate
quarters while she is "unclean"?
> >And why do we, especially in the light of the fact that Jesus
> >nowhere condemns homosexuality, so easily proclaim it a sin
without
> >due regard for the context of the Word?
> You seperate Jesus from God and the Church by your assumption
above.
> Both are error.
Jesus is separate from the Church except in the context that the
Church is the body of Christ. The Church is not, however, a fourth
entity of the Trinity. I do not separate Jesus from God. The fact
that Jesus chose not to address the question of homosexuality speaks
volumes about God's attitude to the subject.
> >Homosexuality is an orientation and *cannot* be equated with
lying,
> >adultery, murder, hatred or fornication.
> God who created us all has clearly equated it with such and He
ought
> to know! I am simple agreeing with His decision. You of course are
> free to debate it with Him when you meet Him.
Where did God equate homosexuality with the above. We are not
referring to the apostle Paul as being God, are we? I reject that
as blasphemy.
> >> Peace to the elect of God. Peace on earth to men of good will.
> >Why only peace to the elect of God and men of good will? Surely
> >people who are godless need peace even more than the elect of
God?
> Yes they need peace but rejecting it freely necessitate the state
of
> godlessness which you spoke of. You may choose to bless that which
is
> cursed knowingly, but I do not, especially when I speak to those
on
> the internet with so varied states of Godliness and godlessness.
The Prince of Peace came for the "whosoever".
> >Surely people of good will do not need peace more than people of
ill
> >will?
> You may care to meditate on the fact that ill will is self
inflicted.
I'll give it some thought, but Job and the psalmists both
contemplated it longer and more adequately than I and drew some
interesting conclusions about God's attitudes in this regard.
> >And the "men" used here is no longer regarded as a politically
> >correct way of referring to all humanity. I'm apologising in
advance
> >for this crack, but you have a computer now, so do try and drag
> >yourself into the twenty first century in other ways. The use of
> >"men" as a generic term has been frowned upon since the sixties.
> Political correctness and I are not bedfellows.:-)
That much is obvious. However, you should consider not deliberately
alienating half the human population by something that is within
your power and completely lacking in negative theological
implication to change.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Padre
<ulti...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>"17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a Sodomite
>of the sons of Israel.
>18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog,
>[Homosexual male pervert whore] into the house of the LORD thy God for any
>vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. "
Where did you get this?
Rev 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this
book: If anyone adds anything to them, God
will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if
anyone takes words away from this book of
prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of
life and in the holy city, which are described in
this book.
I've always wondered that since the Bible is inspired if this was to
cover the whole of the Bible. If it doesn't it should for to change
the word of God to fit your need is a bigger sin than any other.
Padre
>
>
>
>
Padre
<ulti...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
Seems again the word Homosexual was added to the Bible this is what it
Padre
Why was it a sin then but not now ? This does not say PORK or pigs.
Fr James.
<moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>> Who tosses the Law out of the window? I certainly do not!
>
>In your tradition priests usually marry. If you are married, do you
>insist that your wife sleep outside the house in her own separate
>quarters while she is "unclean"?
Of course, we have a little tin shed down the back corner just for the
purpose. Doesn't everybody?
Might I clarify your statement which presupposes the validity of
differing traditions. In the 'Christian tradition' priests may be
married men. One large section of the Church about a thousand years
ago decided it knew whats what and changed the Christian tradition. Of
course they are suffering some problems now relating to that matter.
The Christian tradition remains the same though.
>> >And why do we, especially in the light of the fact that Jesus
>> >nowhere condemns homosexuality, so easily proclaim it a sin
>without
>> >due regard for the context of the Word?
>
>> You seperate Jesus from God and the Church by your assumption
>above.
>> Both are error.
>
>Jesus is separate from the Church except in the context that the
>Church is the body of Christ.
Jesus is seperate from His Body? Hmmmmmmm.....
> The Church is not, however, a fourth
>entity of the Trinity.
Thanks for claryfying that for me. These matters are deep and beyond
the scope of many western Christians. Are you a Christian by the way?
> I do not separate Jesus from God. The fact
>that Jesus chose not to address the question of homosexuality speaks
>volumes about God's attitude to the subject.
Obviously you have a block between what God has revealed and what you
think Jesus has revealed.
>
>> >Homosexuality is an orientation and *cannot* be equated with
>lying,
>> >adultery, murder, hatred or fornication.
>
>> God who created us all has clearly equated it with such and He
>ought
>> to know! I am simple agreeing with His decision. You of course are
>> free to debate it with Him when you meet Him.
>
>Where did God equate homosexuality with the above. We are not
>referring to the apostle Paul as being God, are we? I reject that
>as blasphemy.
You are free to reject your own statements any time you wish to.
>
>> >> Peace to the elect of God. Peace on earth to men of good will.
>
>> >Why only peace to the elect of God and men of good will? Surely
>> >people who are godless need peace even more than the elect of
>God?
>
>> Yes they need peace but rejecting it freely necessitate the state
>of
>> godlessness which you spoke of. You may choose to bless that which
>is
>> cursed knowingly, but I do not, especially when I speak to those
>on
>> the internet with so varied states of Godliness and godlessness.
>
>The Prince of Peace came for the "whosoever".
Yes true. The 'whosoever' relates to an action, not a
'everybodywhodoeswhatshethinksfit' Whosoever shall!
>
>> >Surely people of good will do not need peace more than people of
>ill
>> >will?
>
>> You may care to meditate on the fact that ill will is self
>inflicted.
>
>I'll give it some thought, but Job and the psalmists both
>contemplated it longer and more adequately than I and drew some
>interesting conclusions about God's attitudes in this regard.
Neither Job nor the Psalmist were lost due to any self ill will. The
analogy falls over with active and unrepentent homosexuality amongst
other gross sins.
>
>> >And the "men" used here is no longer regarded as a politically
>> >correct way of referring to all humanity. I'm apologising in
>advance
>> >for this crack, but you have a computer now, so do try and drag
>> >yourself into the twenty first century in other ways. The use of
>> >"men" as a generic term has been frowned upon since the sixties.
>
>> Political correctness and I are not bedfellows.:-)
>
>That much is obvious. However, you should consider not deliberately
>alienating half the human population by something that is within
>your power and completely lacking in negative theological
>implication to change.
You should consider that half the human race is male and the other
half is female. Political correctness does not affect that truth
either.
>
>Moira, the Faerie Godmother
dead...@rogers.com
>Why was it a sin then but not now ? This does not say PORK or pigs.
>Many 4 legged beast were OK to eat in the old days. This does not
>change what you can eat. .
It certainly does. If you read the following verses again, you will
notice that "all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild
beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air" are mentioned.
ALL! How could you have missed it?
>>Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto
>>him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let
>>down to the earth:
>>Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth,
>>and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
>>Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
>>Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any
>>thing that is common or unclean.
>>Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What
>>God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
>>Act 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again
>>into heaven.
We also see God saying, after showing Peter this vision of ALL things
edible, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."
And this was done not once, but three times, as an emphasis on the
message He was sending Peter.
God Bless.
Tom.
Ninure Saunders
by Paul Thomas Cahill
Most protagonists against the gay experience begin with a simple premise:
Gay people are miserable, whether they know it or not; the life style(s)
of gay people run the gamut of everything that is tawdry, seamy and
nefarious; and most gay people live lives of quiet desperation.
Sad to say, this is sometimes true, but it is by no means universal or
anywhere near a majority. That it is at all true can be and usually is
ascribed to the social environment in which those of us who happen to be
gay were nurtured. When the weight of society ranges against you and
yourinnermost desires, is it any wonder that negative self-esteem is the
end result?
A life of promiscuous sexuality and the debauchery that attaches there to
is not a mystery when viewed in this light.
Where in this society are gay relationships or gay sexuality supported? Of
course, the answer is obvious, else we wouldn't be presenting this study.
The point is just that. It is a catch twenty-two situation. There would be
less promiscuity and debauchery if there were more support; there cannot
be more support because society, through its dependence on the traditions
of historic Judeo-Christianity, refuses to offer such support; therefore,
since gay sexuality has been largely driven underground, there will be
promiscuous sexuality and debauchery.
When a man or woman surfaces, however briefly, from a life of debasement,
be it drugs or alcohol, bathhouse/public park/bookstore promiscuity,
sadomasochistic behavior, etc., it is no wonder that many will begin a
search for answers to the ensuing depression? The superficial response of
the Church is to offer mystical bandages to real-life emotional
hemorrhages. Through insensitive application of biblical injunctions, seen
through the lens of tradition, hurting and vulnerable people are exhorted
to "come out" of the lifestyle, without regard to the human being behind
the behavior. "If only you just stop doing what you're doing, you'll be on
the road to recovery," is often the admonition. But it isn't quite that
simple. While the Gospel is so simple that little children can understand,
the principles of Christian living are not so simplistic. Ex-gay
ministries are quick to proffer their statistics of their "success"
stories, of conversions from gay to straight, or at least, to the
uninvolved middle ground, asexuality. What they do not report is the
number of human tragedies for which they are responsible, for those who
attempted to change, or at least be subjugated to the change ethic, only
to heap failure upon failure. And they most definitely do not report the
chilling statistics of the number of suicides, especially among the young,
who out of sheer desperation after longing for release, can no longer face
the prospect of their inability to harmonize their unchangeable
orientation with the desired spirituality.
"In the Beginning..."
The starting point in the path towards a new "evangelical" understanding
of homosexuality begins where it all began, the Garden of Eden. It is a
given that God, in His act of human creation, created one human male and
one human female. Further, He created them in such a manner as to preclude
any alternative other than that they be for each other. However, to
extrapolate from Adam and Eve and their circumstance to a blueprint for
each and every human man and woman ignores a very important fact: These
ancestors of the human race, by an exercise of the free will God had given
them, caused to enter into that perfect Garden the evil of willful
disobedience. This in turn began the deterioration of creation which
numbered the days of the creation. As the human race progressed, more and
more results of sin became manifest. First, Cain committed fratricide. It
only got worse after that, until eventually, God felt compelled to destroy
almost the entire human race, save eight souls. But this did not eliminate
the results of sin. And to this day, we see its results around us.
Sickness, deformity, warfare, cruelty, murder, strife. All that is wrong
with this world can be laid at the foot of the Tree of the Knowledge of
Good and Evil. God's Perfect Plan for His creation, as far as its human
inhabitants were concerned, was clear. Sin put an asterisk in that plan.
As study after study is completed, the genetic/biological component for
the predilection for homosexuality becomes increasingly more certain. We
may decry this information, but we can no longer deny it. Even Jesus, when
instructing his disciples, told them, "Not everyone can accept this word,
but only those to whom it has been given. For some are "eunoukos" because
they were born that way; others were made that way by men and others have
renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can
accept this should accept it." (Matt. 19:12 NIV, emphasis added) A
thinking, open-minded person might be inclined to say that the
possibilities are very interesting. What makes it even more interesting is
the fact that "eunoukos" in biblical times and Middle-Eastern cultures did
not always mean what the Romans later called the "castrati." In other
words, not all keepers of hareems were males who no longer possessed their
testicles, but merely were incapable of cohabitation with females. There
have been many accounts of such men in hareem circumstances who were known
to be homosexuals, not "castrati." Could the Lord be instructing his
disciples in this instance that there were males who were incapable of
being full participants in the propagation of the species precisely
because they were not orientationally inclined to comply? The story of
Sodom as being a tale of divine punishment for homosexuality is woven of
far less sturdy fiber.
The "Sin" of Sodom
The next stop in the panoply of the evangelical argument is Sodom. Yes,
the men of Sodom attempted to sexually violate the "male" strangers Lot
was boarding. Much is made of the Hebrew word, "yadha" which is translated
"know." The word occurs 943 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in only
ten occurrences is it used to indicate some kind of sexual intercourse.
The context would indicate that something other than social information is
being sought in this case. This would have, if successful, resulted in
gang rape by anal penetration. This was a practice by, among others,
Middle-Eastern people to totally humiliate those males they desired to
subjugate, be they captives, slaves, or, in this instance, strangers.
Without doubt, this was a wanton act of gross inhospitality, and no amount
of evangelical waffling on this issue will color it differently. Holding
that this single verse clearly demonstrates that every male resident of
Sodom (forget about Gomorrah and the other cities of the plain for the
moment) was a homosexual as the term is understood today is a stretch of
biblical proportions. If Sodom was destroyed because of rampant
homosexuality, where is the evidence of it. No mention of Lesbianism
amongst the female residents. And what of the children. If all the males
were gay, they crossed the line, and often. Lot offered his daughters in
lieu of the strangers, something that would hardly have made much of an
impact on males inclined to sexual behavior with other males, but
certainly would have relevance to a mob bent on rape! Always allowing
Scripture to interpret Scripture, here is what the prophet Ezekiel has to
say about the matter "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and
her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned, they did not help
the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.
Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Eze. 16:49,50, NIV).
Further, Ezekiel is telling the Jews that they are doing more detestable
things than even the Sodomites did, yet no one has ever claimed that all
the Jews at the time were actively homosexual. It is obvious that what
ever the sin of Sodom was, universal homosexuality was most definitely not
it. The Authorized Version translators of the Bible notwithstanding,
"Sodomy" is not a legitimate English word to describe the sin of Sodom as
equivalent to homosexuality.
"It Is an Abomination"
Next we come to the Law Code of Leviticus. This will pose several problems
for us, mistranslation being not the only one. First, the Hebrew. Two
words are involved: "toevah" and "kadesh." In Lev. 18:22, the KJV has,
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
The NIV translators have it "detestable." The word "toevah" does not
usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft, but
something which is ritually unclean for Jews, involving ethnic
contamination or idolatry (John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance
and Homosexuality, pg. 100). In Lev. 20:13, the proscription against "man
lying with a man as one lies with a woman" appears, on the surface to be a
blanket condemnation of homosexual behavior, until one views the verse in
the context, not only of the Law Code, but the cultural environment as
well. The Lord God called the Hebrews (the Children of Jacob/Israel) out
from among the indigenous population of Canaanitic peoples, which were
worshipers of other gods and rituals. The Decalogue stated that they were
to have no other gods before them, and that was first and foremost. In
Deuteronomy 23:18, we read, "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or
the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for
even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God." "The price of a
dog" refers to the Hebrew "keleb, keh'-leb" from an unused root meaning to
yelp, or else to attack, a dog, hence (by euphemism) a, male prostitute.
In 1 Kings 15:12, we read, "And he took away the sodomites out of the
land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made." The Hebrew
word the translators ascribed "sodomites" to, is "qadesh," a (quasi)
sacred person, i.e. (techn.) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to
licentious idolatry, unclean.
Among the practices of the Canaanites, temple prostitution, male and
female, was part and parcel of ecstatic worship. It is difficult in the
extreme for we products of 20th Century civilization to envisage sexual
intercourse as part of ritualistic acts of worship, but for many
centuries, mankind believed that in the transmission of the "seed" coupled
with fertility mysticism, good thing were bound to happen. But the
behavior was in conjunction with "other gods" and so was to be proscribed.
No doubt that male homosexual behavior received a less than favorable
acceptance in the patriarchal society of the Hebrews. However, the
so-called "blanket condemnation of all forms of homosexual behavior that
is crystal clear to our understanding" is not borne out in the texts in
question. They are specific and direct, dealing only with ritual
prostitution used in conjunction with worship of the divine, and not to be
tolerated because of the idolatrous aspects. That is the only thing
certain.
David and Jonathan
I want to say something in passing regarding David and Jonathan. I am not
going to make a case for either David's or Jonathan's orientation as being
homosexual. Since constitutional homosexuality was not even conceptualized
until the mid 1800's, pre-exhilic Hebrews and other Middle-Eastern peoples
cannot be faulted if they didn't have hard and fast concepts of sexuality.
That there was a lack of cultural stigma against male-to-male sexual
behavior (in a non-ritualistic sense) can be claimed as the result of
anthropological investigation into the behaviors and mores of the times.
Could David and Jonathan have had an erotic relationship conjointly with
their intensely stated love for each other that surpassed that of the love
of a woman (2 Sam. 1:26) Only myopic evangelicals and Orthodox Jews insist
that there could not have been any eroticism between them, because they
would not have violated God's commands. Yet, David's life is replete with
willful disobedience in other areas, so why not here as well, assuming
that they had the same view towards Leviticus as contemporary evangelicals
do. Rather, if we see that male-to-male non-ritualistic eroticism could be
considered apart from the Levitical Code, David's and Jonathan's possible
sexual liaisons become possible and understandable. This takes nothing
away from David's later escapades with Bathsheba and others. One may read
the same words of description of David and Jonathan's love for each other
and find in them a love story between two men who were capable of
fulfilling that love in every way. Only blind adherence to a traditional
view refuses to admit of the possibility.
"Malokoi and Arsenokoitai"
The remainder of the Biblical record revolves around the Apostle Paul and
his thoughts and pronouncements. I will first deal with 1 Corinthians/l
Timothy, and then deal with the first chapter of Romans.
The cultural environment of the Greek world of the 1st Century, as far as
homosexual behavior was concerned dealt with two major areas. First, there
was the refined temple prostitution activity. Only now, it had taken on a
significant self-mutilation aspect that made it particular detestable. In
the course of ritual worship, temple prostitutes, male and female, would
have sexual intercourse with worshipers during drunken orgiastic excesses,
often including self-emasculation. The Temple of Diana at Ephesus was
notorious for such practices, and Paul, first as a Pharisee of the
Pharisees and then as the Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ to the gentile
world, would have been utterly appalled at such spectacles. Paul spent
some considerable time in Ephesus and Corinth, also a center of Grecian
temple worship, including the afore mentioned prostitution. Secondly,
Hellenistic society practiced the institution of male mentorship of older
established man to younger protg. This often included anal intercourse by
the older upon the younger, usually until the young boy reached puberty.
It was not unheard of for the relationship to continue beyond puberty, but
this did not receive universal social approval. In fact, many of the
leaders of Athens wrote extensively against the practice, out of a sense
of the betrayal of the younger man's right to progress into a proper
manhood. This practice was called "paiderastes," from which we get the
word identifying anal intercourse, "pederasty," losing to some degree the
identification with children, except in the term, "pederast" or
"pedophile." Paul would have certainly known of the "paiderastes" and
would no doubt not have approved, in view of the problems with adult/child
power inequities. But he failed to mention this in any of his letters.
What he did mention, on two occasions, was "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai,"
which were enigmatic for the Church for the first 400 years. "Malakoi,"
meaning soft, in fabric or morality, is not as clear in meaning in the
vice lists Paul includes in his letters to the Corinthian Church or to his
star pupil, Timothy. There has been much speculation as to his exact
meaning, but there is no positive evidence to indicate his meaning beyond
this speculation. He could have meant the morally lax or the sexually
impure, but anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. "Arsenokoitai"
poses a slightly different problem. It is a compound word, composed of the
roots "arsen," man or male, and "koitai," beds, usually the marriage bed,
from which the English word "coitus" is derived. Since there existed a
better descriptive word, "paiderastes" to describe more general homosexual
behavior, Paul must have had something else in mind. In view of his
attitudes toward the ritualistic practices in the temples, including the
prostitution, this could have been what he had in mind, there being no
specific word in existence to describe it. An alternative may be indicated
by the fact that the compound word itself is in the plural form. It may
mean nothing more complex than "male sexual beds" and be Paul's coining of
a word signifying a promiscuous heterosexual male. There is another clue
which we might take some comfort in. Referring back to the passage in 1
Kings, it is reported that the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the
Septuagint, translated the Hebrew "quadesh" with the Greek "arsenokoitai."
Since we have already seen that the "quadesh" was a temple ritual
prostitute, "arsenokoitai" could very well have been meant to convey this
meaning to Greek-speaking Jews. We cannot know for certain, but what
"arsenokoitai" most definitely doesn't mean is "homosexuals" which many
modern English Bible translations make it mean. This is not some hopeless,
wild-eyed attempt at Scripture-twisting to suit the homosexually committed
justify their Biblical approval, or at the least, non-condemnation. It is
rather an honest attempt to understand the "clear" intent and meaning of
Biblical passages in light of the culture and environment of the 1st
Century.
It is interesting to note that Paul further admonishes that "so were some
of you." Since in another part he plainly states that all have sinned and
fallen short of the glory of God, the "some" is not meant to be
exclusionary of others. Rather, Paul is indicating that the unregenerate
will not inherit the kingdom, and he gives examples. The malakoi and
arsenokoitai were placed in the same category as thieves, the greedy or
covetous, drunkards, slanderers or revilers and swindlers. Since Paul was
a precise writer, does it stand to reason that he would strain at the gnat
of a rather insignificant portion of the population, the homosexuals, and
ignore the much more populous heterosexually promiscuous?
Against Nature
Next, we come to Paul's letter to the Roman Churches. It is considered to
be the best and most concise compendium of Christian theology ever done by
one man and published in one work. And as such, Paul goes to great lengths
to lay out the ground work for his system of theology. Naturally, just as
John does when he describes Jesus Christ as the Word Incarnate, Paul
begins by describing the state of humankind, from the creation to the
incarnation. In view of the fact that Paul's Bible was the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint, which contained the
Apocrypha, and he, being a trained Pharisee in the law and Scriptures, he
would have been very familiar with the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon,
especially the 13th and 14th chapters which have close parallels to the
1st chapter of Romans. Keeping in mind that Paul is not far away from the
consciousness of the real world he resides in, his basic understanding of
the human condition is one of idolatry, and all human moral activity
revolves around the worship of the gods. Paul is not writing about human
beings, in their rebellion and wickedness, willfully and voluntarily
converting themselves from heterosexuals into homosexuals; rather, he is
talking about idolatrous ritual worship practices in the temples of the
civilized world he knows only too well. He is most certainly not
condemning an innate homosexual orientation that he could not have
conceived. He probably would not have approved of "paiderastes," but we do
not have his thoughts on the subject. We don't know what he would have
thought about homosexuality as it is understood by most of the medical and
psychological practitioners of today, other than those who are also
evangelicals and wear permanent blinders.
A Positive Word
As recorded in the eighth chapter of Matthew, Jesus is called upon to go
to the aid of a Roman Centurion of faith. The Centurion tells Jesus that
his "servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." (Matt.
8:5-6 NIV). Normally, the Greek word for servant used in the New Testament
is "doulos" and is quite clearly meaning slave or indentured servant. In
this instance, the word used is "pais," which means beloved boy. Not son,
which would be "uios." There are some scholars who believe that the person
being described as the Centurion's "pais" is in fact his young, male
lover. Again, the evangelical/fundamentalist mind recoils at such a
suggestion, because Jesus would never condone a homosexual relationship,
certainly not by healing an illness probably brought on by detestable
homosexual behavior. No, this is nothing more than a faithful Roman
officer who has a sick attendant or something like that, who Jesus heals.
That is all, they would say. We on the other hand hold out the possibility
that this Centurion, full of faith in Jesus, is asking for ministry for
his beloved, as any lover would do. And Jesus, who never uttered one word
against homosexuals or homosexuality in any clearly identifiable way,
healed the boy and blessed the Centurion. This is as it should be and
great hope can be derived from the telling.
The Bottom Line
Finally, there is the small matter of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, Son of
the Most High God and the Perfect, unblemished Lamb of God, Who takes away
the sin of the world. He came, not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill the
Law. But what does that mean? Are we above the Law? As Paul said,
"Absolutely not!" (Rom. 6:15 7:7) Rather, he said that we would not have
known what sin was except for the Law it pointed the way. But it could
never produce righteousness or salvation it took the atoning sacrifice of
the Lamb to provide for salvation. We are absolved from the penalty for
transgressing the Law, which we cannot help doing. The Law leads to only
one destiny death. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law by taking our place in
death as the penalty for sin. Each and every one of us, man and woman,
black and white, Jew and Gentile, gay and straight, fail to hit the mark
of God's perfect standard ("hamartia"), even willfully missing the mark!
God doesn't demand perfection of us prior to our becoming His adopted
children. Jesus's righteousness covers us. Our lives are records of our
path to perfection, as God purifies us for His presence through trials and
testings. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one
comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6, NIV) Paul told us how
to achieve it when he wrote, "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus
is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you
will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are
justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."
(Rom. 10:9,10, NIV) Evangelical Christians spend so much time and energy
trying to find ways how to exclude people from the "koinonia" (fellowship)
of the Church, yet Jesus ate and fellowshipped with outcasts and sinners:
lepers, tax collectors, prostitutes and (yeech!) Samaritans! He even had
kind words to say for eunuchs made that way from birth (eunuchs were more
than men without testicles, but men incapable of marriage and/or fathering
children). Will the Church ever pull its head out of the traditional sands
of ignorance? I fear, with the wagon train mentality of "us v. them," the
answer is not favorable. I plead for tolerance and openness, for
understanding and an end to hatred. And some are even daring to practice
true agape love, bereft of the hatred and fear that comes from an
inability to divorce "hating the sin" from the sinner. In the meantime,
hundreds of thousands of gay men and women are rushing into an eternity
without the knowledge of the Savior. They will pay the ultimate price for
unbelief, but can the Church avoid censure and sanction for their willful
disobedience? I submit that the answer is in the negative.
P.S. This is by no means an exhaustive study of the Biblical record
regarding the so-called "clear" condemnation of homosexuality.
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure
The world's second most subversive document
http://www.geocities.com/ninure/declaration.html
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Padre
What you say is true. Seems God can change his mind on things. But
this still doesn't answer why so many Christians are focused on
Homosexuality when Murder, stealing and Adultery are equal Sins but so
many in the Churches do these things they are known to do these things
and yet still remain in the church.
For that manner many Preachers do these thing Pat Robertson for one
yet many still send him money to buy more Diamond mines.
Lets face it Homosexuality is a sin but Christian attack it because it
is easier. If they attacked all sin equally they would have to clean
their own house and this would bring in less money for the churches.
It would also make them look to their own sins and that is never easy.
I know this from doing it to myself.
Padre
>
>God Bless.
>
>Tom.
Dr. Speedbyrd:>
Give me a bacon cheeseburger and a hot man anytime!
Dr. Speedbyrd®
dead...@rogers.com
The problem is that so many Christians have fallen away from the truth
of grace, and have added works to their salvation. This quite often
includes a percieved hierarchy of sin. They forget the simple fact
that "There but for the grace of God go I!" And that includes many
different kinds of sin. It is just that the things they are repulsed
by, they percieve as especially heinous. In God's eyes, all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We all require His grace
in allowing us mercy and forgiveness.
Also, not all who profess they are of Christ, actually know the Lord.
They may know of Him, but when you examine the fruit they bear, it is
quickly evident that they do not know the One who the claim they know.
God Bless.
Tom.
Padre
I agree with this. I do works but I do it because it makes me feel
good to do so. God might look at what I do but he also looks at what
I am.more. Gods grace makes my helping others feel good to me so it
is right in my eyes and I hope His. I no longer give a dime to a
chruch the very thought of money I gave going to either the
republicans or democrats sickens me. If any went to the Christian
Coalition think I'll be sick.
Go with God
Padre
>
>God Bless.
>
>Tom.
dead...@rogers.com
And this too is part of Christianity, for faith without works is dead.
But we don't do those works because they will earn us any favour with
God, but because we are greatful for the grace He has extended to us,
and because we know it pleases Him, to extend grace to others.
Giving money to a church, or any organization, for that matter, is a
personal thing. I too balk at the way the church uses money these
days, and have trouble giving cheerfully. However, the sad reality is
that there is a cost involved in running a church. I have never
tithed 10%. I simply give as I am led, where I am led. Sometimes
that is my home church, sometimes that is to other ministries by whom
I am blessed. To be perfectly honest, I am on a pension, and the
dollars are few and far between. I have never subscribed to the "give
so that God will multiply what you have left" theory. Sounds too much
like, "Look God! See what I gave! Now I expect you to give me ten
times that amount. Make me rich Lord!" I do know that He will meet
my needs however, and when He leads me to give, I do my best to obey.
God Bless.
Tom.
Moira de Swardt
> >In your tradition priests usually marry. If you are married, do
you
> >insist that your wife sleep outside the house in her own separate
> >quarters while she is "unclean"?
> Of course, we have a little tin shed down the back corner just for
the
> purpose. Doesn't everybody?
:-)
> Might I clarify your statement which presupposes the validity of
> differing traditions. In the 'Christian tradition' priests may be
> married men. One large section of the Church about a thousand
years
> ago decided it knew whats what and changed the Christian
tradition. Of
> course they are suffering some problems now relating to that
matter.
Duly ticked off. In the "Orthodox" tradition...
> The Christian tradition remains the same though.
The Roman Catholics would disagree with you.
> >Jesus is separate from the Church except in the context that the
> >Church is the body of Christ.
> Jesus is seperate from His Body? Hmmmmmmm.....
I referred to it in the context in which we discussed the matter.
There is no automatic linkage between the "essence" and the body
even in our mortal states. This is the principle which allows us to
experience joy and peace in times of great adversity. .
> > The Church is not, however, a fourth
> >entity of the Trinity.
> Thanks for claryfying that for me. These matters are deep and
beyond
> the scope of many western Christians. Are you a Christian by the
way?
Yes.
> > I do not separate Jesus from God. The fact
> >that Jesus chose not to address the question of homosexuality
speaks
> >volumes about God's attitude to the subject.
> Obviously you have a block between what God has revealed and what
you
> think Jesus has revealed.
Perhaps this is true. Perhaps, though, it is you who has a block
between what has been revealed and what has been scribed by mortals
and interpreted by mortals?
> >Where did God equate homosexuality with the above. We are not
> >referring to the apostle Paul as being God, are we? I reject
that
> >as blasphemy.
> You are free to reject your own statements any time you wish to.
You make a better opponent than many with whom I have attempted
debate. :-)
Touché.
> >The Prince of Peace came for the "whosoever".
> Yes true. The 'whosoever' relates to an action, not a
> 'everybodywhodoeswhatshethinksfit' Whosoever shall!
Actions are verbs. The "whosoever" is the object of the sentence
in the original Greek as I observe it in my interlinear New
Testament in all of the cases where I found it used. Greek was
never my strongest suit. Why not check it out for yourself? The
same is true of the translation "whomsoever" which makes pretty good
sense. I used the Crudens Concordance for the basic references as I
was looking for a KJV half remembered quote, and the Jay P. Green
Interlinear New Testament.
> Neither Job nor the Psalmist were lost due to any self ill will.
The
> analogy falls over with active and unrepentent homosexuality
amongst
> other gross sins.
I'm not sure I follow you here. Neither Job nor the psalmists (no
capitals required) made any reference to homosexuality as being
either ill will or to being self-inflicted. The context of the
ill-will relates to your refusal to bless such people. I merely
point out that both Job and the psalmists contemplated what they
perceived to be the blessing of God and the prospering of people
they determined to have ill will.
> >That much is obvious. However, you should consider not
deliberately
> >alienating half the human population by something that is within
> >your power and completely lacking in negative theological
> >implication to change.
> You should consider that half the human race is male and the other
> half is female. Political correctness does not affect that truth
> either.
So why use terms that exclude, by implication, the female half of
the human race?
I l find it irritating to be addressed in terms which relate
exclusively to the masculine. The number of times I have been
called "Father" while wearing a clerical collar! I never used to
be sensitive to the concept of "mankind" referring to all humanity,
but seing as there are some women who are sensitive to the issue I
prefer to make use of inclusive language. Curiously this has had an
effect on my ministry to women who have probably never given the
issue a moment's thought. Little old ladies who wouldn't know a
theological concept or a politically correct thought if they tripped
over one recognise that my ministry gives women a dignity which is
lacking in the ministry of people who do not regard these women as
important enough to address in female gender specific or gender
unspecific terms. "Brethren" doesn't make women feel included as a
broad concept. Nor does "all men". Even though we *know* it's
supposed to include sisters and women.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Fr James.
Forgive me moira you refer in this post to wearing a clerical collar
and being called'father' yet you are a woman (I guess from your name
and tag).
Are you an ordained lady minister of a Christian based religion?
If so pleased to make your acquaintance. What church are you with?
Why also do you refer to yourself as a 'fairie godmother'?
On Thu, 23 May 2002 23:10:22 +0200, "Moira de Swardt"
<moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>> Might I clarify your statement which presupposes the validity of
>> differing traditions. In the 'Christian tradition' priests may be
>> married men. One large section of the Church about a thousand
>years
>> ago decided it knew whats what and changed the Christian
>tradition. Of
>> course they are suffering some problems now relating to that
>matter.
>
>Duly ticked off. In the "Orthodox" tradition...
Which of course -is- Christian. :-)
>
>> The Christian tradition remains the same though.
>
>The Roman Catholics would disagree with you.
Not the Roman Catholics of the first millenium. :-)
>
>> >Jesus is separate from the Church except in the context that the
>> >Church is the body of Christ.
>
>> Jesus is seperate from His Body? Hmmmmmmm.....
>
>I referred to it in the context in which we discussed the matter.
>There is no automatic linkage between the "essence" and the body
>even in our mortal states. This is the principle which allows us to
>experience joy and peace in times of great adversity. .
I agree there is no sharing of the Essence but there most certainly
-is- a sharing of the attributes. :-)
>
>> > The Church is not, however, a fourth
>> >entity of the Trinity.
>
>> Thanks for claryfying that for me. These matters are deep and
>beyond
>> the scope of many western Christians. Are you a Christian by the
>way?
>
>Yes.
Thanks. I am up to speed with the Christian understanding of the Holy
Trinity.
>
>> > I do not separate Jesus from God. The fact
>> >that Jesus chose not to address the question of homosexuality
>speaks
>> >volumes about God's attitude to the subject.
>
>> Obviously you have a block between what God has revealed and what
>you
>> think Jesus has revealed.
>
>Perhaps this is true.
I admire honesty. :-)
>Perhaps, though, it is you who has a block
>between what has been revealed and what has been scribed by mortals
>and interpreted by mortals?
_ONLY_ if your assumption that the revelation has been changed by
mortals is founded on facts. Please feel free to now prove your
assumption. Until then I shall hold to the faith if that is okay.
>
>> >Where did God equate homosexuality with the above. We are not
>> >referring to the apostle Paul as being God, are we? I reject
>that
>> >as blasphemy.
>
>> You are free to reject your own statements any time you wish to.
>
>You make a better opponent than many with whom I have attempted
>debate. :-)
>Touché.
Thanks. :-)
I usually answer the foundational premises underpinning assumptions
and not the presumption that flows from it.
>
>> >The Prince of Peace came for the "whosoever".
>
>> Yes true. The 'whosoever' relates to an action, not a
>> 'everybodywhodoeswhatshethinksfit' Whosoever shall!
>
>Actions are verbs. The "whosoever" is the object of the sentence
>in the original Greek as I observe it in my interlinear New
>Testament in all of the cases where I found it used. Greek was
>never my strongest suit. Why not check it out for yourself?
Whoseoever 'will' whosoever 'shall' The whosoever is not alone but
requires an act, response, agreement, repentance etc etc.
> The
>same is true of the translation "whomsoever" which makes pretty good
>sense. I used the Crudens Concordance for the basic references as I
>was looking for a KJV half remembered quote, and the Jay P. Green
>Interlinear New Testament.
Again, the whomsoever has attached the required 'will' or 'shall',
without that you ain't got a whosoever or whomsoever.
>
>> Neither Job nor the Psalmist were lost due to any self ill will.
>The
>> analogy falls over with active and unrepentent homosexuality
>amongst
>> other gross sins.
>
>I'm not sure I follow you here. Neither Job nor the psalmists (no
>capitals required) made any reference to homosexuality as being
>either ill will or to being self-inflicted.
And -thus- have -no- relevancy to the topic at hand. But -you-
introduced them into it??? I am wondering what for?
> The context of the
>ill-will relates to your refusal to bless such people.
I have some -issues- with this assumption. Rather I would re-state
your words to become accurate as follows...
"The context of the (perceived/alleged) ill-will (by you) relates to
your refusal to bless such people WHO attempt to forcefully change the
teaching of the Church by acts, words or behaviour (ie: rainbow sash
wearers).
You and I both know thousands of homosexuals receive Holy Communion,
but none of them is attempting to make a public statement or to force
a bishops hand to change the faith.
Now as to me blessing others, there are many forms of blessings. A
priest blesses a whole congregation any number of times during a holy
liturgy. The congregation is made up of those who have committed gross
sin as well as those who have not. So your assumption does not ring
true in reality.
Yet if an adulterer walks up to the altar wearing some identification
that they are a practicing adulterer and are not repenting of it, you
can be very sure they shall not receive a blessing or approval of that
act, nor shall they receive the Holy Communion.
> I merely
>point out that both Job and the psalmists contemplated what they
>perceived to be the blessing of God and the prospering of people
>they determined to have ill will.
Noted.
>> You should consider that half the human race is male and the other
>> half is female. Political correctness does not affect that truth
>> either.
>
>So why use terms that exclude, by implication, the female half of
>the human race?
Because the term is understood to mean all of humanity unless it is
used in the context of male only.
Exclusion is not the intent of the words use.
>
>I l find it irritating to be addressed in terms which relate
>exclusively to the masculine. The number of times I have been
>called "Father" while wearing a clerical collar!
I have been known to call ordained women 'priestesses'. :-)
> I never used to
>be sensitive to the concept of "mankind" referring to all humanity,
>but seing as there are some women who are sensitive to the issue I
>prefer to make use of inclusive language. Curiously this has had an
>effect on my ministry to women who have probably never given the
>issue a moment's thought. Little old ladies who wouldn't know a
>theological concept or a politically correct thought if they tripped
>over one recognise that my ministry gives women a dignity which is
>lacking in the ministry of people who do not regard these women as
>important enough to address in female gender specific or gender
>unspecific terms. "Brethren" doesn't make women feel included as a
>broad concept. Nor does "all men". Even though we *know* it's
>supposed to include sisters and women.
I am very sure you feel you have served the needs of women by this
inclusiveness. I have no desire to offend you nor disagree with your
above words. I am aware of the end result of the thinking but you have
not (yet) espoused it here so I am happy to be at peace with what you
-have- said.
>
>Moira, the Faerie Godmother
What type of signature is that for a Christian woman?
Peace and grace.
Moira de Swardt
> Forgive me moira you refer in this post to wearing a clerical
collar
> and being called'father' yet you are a woman (I guess from your
name
> and tag).
Yes, I am a woman. And I *hate* being called "Father".
> Are you an ordained lady minister of a Christian based religion?
Yes.
> If so pleased to make your acquaintance. What church are you with?
Metropolitan Community Church
> Why also do you refer to yourself as a 'fairie godmother'?
Nick name earned by long association with the gay community.
> >Duly ticked off. In the "Orthodox" tradition...
> Which of course -is- Christian. :-)
> >The Roman Catholics would disagree with you.
> Not the Roman Catholics of the first millenium. :-)
Well, the latter part of the first millenium may have been a bit
problematic.
> >I referred to it in the context in which we discussed the matter.
> >There is no automatic linkage between the "essence" and the body
> >even in our mortal states. This is the principle which allows us
to
> >experience joy and peace in times of great adversity. .
> I agree there is no sharing of the Essence but there most
certainly
> -is- a sharing of the attributes. :-)
Only in the nicest churches.
> Thanks. I am up to speed with the Christian understanding of the
Holy
> Trinity.
> > > Obviously you have a block between what God has revealed and
what
> > > you think Jesus has revealed.
> >Perhaps this is true.
> I admire honesty. :-)
> >Perhaps, though, it is you who has a block
> >between what has been revealed and what has been scribed by
mortals
> >and interpreted by mortals?
> _ONLY_ if your assumption that the revelation has been changed by
> mortals is founded on facts. Please feel free to now prove your
> assumption. Until then I shall hold to the faith if that is okay.
It's OK with me if you don't want to bother to use the brain God
obviously gave you.
> I usually answer the foundational premises underpinning
assumptions
> and not the presumption that flows from it.
I'm not so sure you do. Have you read any of Ninure's posts in this
context. There were some earlier in this thread.
> >Actions are verbs. The "whosoever" is the object of the
sentence
> >in the original Greek as I observe it in my interlinear New
> >Testament in all of the cases where I found it used. Greek was
> >never my strongest suit. Why not check it out for yourself?
> Whoseoever 'will' whosoever 'shall' The whosoever is not alone
but
> requires an act, response, agreement, repentance etc etc.
I have just thought of other scriptural grounds for withholding the
blessing of peace from someone you may judge on whatever grounds to
be unworthy, so I don't need to tax my brain on any shaky Greek
grounds. Although purely on the grounds of the "whosoever", I may
have been able to make a point.
> >> Neither Job nor the Psalmist were lost due to any self ill
will.
> >The
> >> analogy falls over with active and unrepentent homosexuality
> >amongst
> >> other gross sins.
> >I'm not sure I follow you here. Neither Job nor the psalmists
(no
> >capitals required) made any reference to homosexuality as being
> >either ill will or to being self-inflicted.
> And -thus- have -no- relevancy to the topic at hand. But -you-
> introduced them into it??? I am wondering what for?
No, we were dealing with the topic of the blessing. Threads get off
topic so easily.
> > The context of the
> >ill-will relates to your refusal to bless such people.
> I have some -issues- with this assumption. Rather I would re-state
> your words to become accurate as follows...
> "The context of the (perceived/alleged) ill-will (by you) relates
to
> your refusal to bless such people WHO attempt to forcefully change
the
> teaching of the Church by acts, words or behaviour (ie: rainbow
sash
> wearers).
Hey! I was thinking of buying a rainbow sash! :-)
> You and I both know thousands of homosexuals receive Holy
Communion,
> but none of them is attempting to make a public statement or to
force
> a bishops hand to change the faith.
Thousands of homosexuals receive Holy Communion only if the person
administering it is not confronted with the knowledge that the
person concerned is gay. If someone came in to your Easter service
and went to receive Holy Communion and they happened to be wearing a
rainbow badge with the clear sign underneath saying "I am a gay
Christian" would you be willing to administer the sacrament? Link
that to the statement below about adulterers.
The truth is that homosexuality itself cannot be a sin. Whether
homosexual genital behaviour is or is not, I'm not going to go there
for the time being, but let's examine whether homosexuality per se
is a sin.
> Now as to me blessing others, there are many forms of blessings. A
> priest blesses a whole congregation any number of times during a
holy
> liturgy. The congregation is made up of those who have committed
gross
> sin as well as those who have not. So your assumption does not
ring
> true in reality.
> Yet if an adulterer walks up to the altar wearing some
identification
> that they are a practicing adulterer and are not repenting of it,
you
> can be very sure they shall not receive a blessing or approval of
that
> act, nor shall they receive the Holy Communion.
There is no doubt that a practicing unrepentant adulterer is a
sinner. However I am not sure that a practicing unrepentant
adulterer is any more guilty in God's eyes than the person who
regularly returns to his or her parking meter five minutes after the
meter would have expired in the hope that no ticket would have been
issued in that short space of time. Both are sinful.
> >So why use terms that exclude, by implication, the female half
of
> >the human race?
> Because the term is understood to mean all of humanity unless it
is
> used in the context of male only.
The meaning is now changing. It now refers to the above concept
only in the minds of people who don't wish to make the effort to use
the more inclusive language preferred by many women.
> Exclusion is not the intent of the words use.
> >I l find it irritating to be addressed in terms which relate
> >exclusively to the masculine. The number of times I have been
> >called "Father" while wearing a clerical collar!
> I have been known to call ordained women 'priestesses'. :-)
I have no argument with the term priestess, although I prefer to be
called a priest. Priestesses conjure up pagan religions for me,
although I consciously attribute this too two millenia of
patriarchal domination of the priesthood.
> I am very sure you feel you have served the needs of women by this
> inclusiveness. I have no desire to offend you nor disagree with
your
> above words. I am aware of the end result of the thinking but you
have
> not (yet) espoused it here so I am happy to be at peace with what
you
> -have- said.
I'm not sure where you think the end result of this thinking is.
> >Moira, the Faerie Godmother
> What type of signature is that for a Christian woman?
As I said, a nick-name earned which identifies me in one of the
largest communities which I serve. For quite a long time I used
another signature, and at the reasonable objection of just one
poster who justified his objection to me I changed it. If you lay
before me good and valid reasons why I, as a Christian, should
change my signature, I will do so. Even one reason would do, but I
would prefer an honestly thought out argument than a hastily devised
condemnation. A friendly challenge for you to exercise Christian
ministry to a colleague.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Fr James.
<moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>Yes, I am a woman. And I *hate* being called "Father".
Then I shall not call it to you. :-)
>
>> Are you an ordained lady minister of a Christian based religion?
>
>Yes.
>
>> If so pleased to make your acquaintance. What church are you with?
>
>Metropolitan Community Church
I have heard of that one. You are the first minister of that Church
whom I have met.
>
>> Why also do you refer to yourself as a 'fairie godmother'?
>
>Nick name earned by long association with the gay community.
Ok.
>
>> >Duly ticked off. In the "Orthodox" tradition...
>
>> Which of course -is- Christian. :-)
>
>> >The Roman Catholics would disagree with you.
>
>> Not the Roman Catholics of the first millenium. :-)
>
>Well, the latter part of the first millenium may have been a bit
>problematic.
Touche'
>
>> >I referred to it in the context in which we discussed the matter.
>> >There is no automatic linkage between the "essence" and the body
>> >even in our mortal states. This is the principle which allows us
>to
>> >experience joy and peace in times of great adversity. .
>
>> I agree there is no sharing of the Essence but there most
>certainly
>> -is- a sharing of the attributes. :-)
>
>Only in the nicest churches.
Only in the ones who are 'little christs's' enlivened by the Most Holy
Spirit.
"Nice churches' are a dime a dozen.
>> >Perhaps, though, it is you who has a block
>> >between what has been revealed and what has been scribed by
>mortals
>> >and interpreted by mortals?
>
>> _ONLY_ if your assumption that the revelation has been changed by
>> mortals is founded on facts. Please feel free to now prove your
>> assumption. Until then I shall hold to the faith if that is okay.
>
>It's OK with me if you don't want to bother to use the brain God
>obviously gave you.
Ad hominum already? That was quick!
>
>> I usually answer the foundational premises underpinning
>assumptions
>> and not the presumption that flows from it.
>
>I'm not so sure you do.
Oh, I am quite sure of it.
> Have you read any of Ninure's posts in this
>context. There were some earlier in this thread.
I have read many of Ninure's posts and I admire her tenacity in
posting them and her bravery (misplaced though I believe it to be). I
have -never- been rude to her nor attacked here posts. They stand
unmolested on the newsgroups by me, although I disagree with her
chosen lifestyle and defense of it.
>
>> >Actions are verbs. The "whosoever" is the object of the
>sentence
>> >in the original Greek as I observe it in my interlinear New
>> >Testament in all of the cases where I found it used. Greek was
>> >never my strongest suit. Why not check it out for yourself?
>
>> Whoseoever 'will' whosoever 'shall' The whosoever is not alone
>but
>> requires an act, response, agreement, repentance etc etc.
>
>I have just thought of other scriptural grounds for withholding the
>blessing of peace from someone you may judge on whatever grounds to
>be unworthy, so I don't need to tax my brain on any shaky Greek
>grounds. Although purely on the grounds of the "whosoever", I may
>have been able to make a point.
I am glad we came to an agreement on that matter. :-)
>
>> >> Neither Job nor the Psalmist were lost due to any self ill
>will.
>> >The
>> >> analogy falls over with active and unrepentent homosexuality
>> >amongst
>> >> other gross sins.
>
>> >I'm not sure I follow you here. Neither Job nor the psalmists
>(no
>> >capitals required) made any reference to homosexuality as being
>> >either ill will or to being self-inflicted.
>
>> And -thus- have -no- relevancy to the topic at hand. But -you-
>> introduced them into it??? I am wondering what for?
>
>No, we were dealing with the topic of the blessing. Threads get off
>topic so easily.
Ok true enough.
>
>> > The context of the
>> >ill-will relates to your refusal to bless such people.
>
>> I have some -issues- with this assumption. Rather I would re-state
>> your words to become accurate as follows...
>
>> "The context of the (perceived/alleged) ill-will (by you) relates
>to
>> your refusal to bless such people WHO attempt to forcefully change
>the
>> teaching of the Church by acts, words or behaviour (ie: rainbow
>sash
>> wearers).
>
>Hey! I was thinking of buying a rainbow sash! :-)
Then you won't be able to receive holy communion from His Eminence
George Pell.
>
>> You and I both know thousands of homosexuals receive Holy
>Communion,
>> but none of them is attempting to make a public statement or to
>force
>> a bishops hand to change the faith.
>
>Thousands of homosexuals receive Holy Communion only if the person
>administering it is not confronted with the knowledge that the
>person concerned is gay.
Not so and quite untrue. The lifestyle choices are usually well known
by the administering ministers in the protestant churches where they
attend (like yours). I also note my objection of the word 'gay' to
mean homosexual.
> If someone came in to your Easter service
>and went to receive Holy Communion and they happened to be wearing a
>rainbow badge with the clear sign underneath saying "I am a gay
>Christian" would you be willing to administer the sacrament?
No, without a moments hesitation.
> Link
>that to the statement below about adulterers.
No need to.
>
>The truth is that homosexuality itself cannot be a sin. Whether
>homosexual genital behaviour is or is not, I'm not going to go there
>for the time being, but let's examine whether homosexuality per se
>is a sin.
I wish to commend you for your bravery and dedication to your
convictions (however misplaced they may be).
I will not declare a state of non-desire and non-act as sinful.
I will declare a state of homosexual desires and acts -as- sinful.
What you are asking me is (I believe) the 'inclination' to become a
homosexual, or the confusion over whether one actually is or is not a
homosexual and whether that state is inherently evil or seperated from
the grace of God. I can only answer that it is not to the best of my
ability and understanding.
Once the persons has moved from the inclination/confusion to the
actual desiring, formulating or acting out of homosexual
contact/behaviour then the line has been crossed for sure.
>
>> Now as to me blessing others, there are many forms of blessings. A
>> priest blesses a whole congregation any number of times during a
>holy
>> liturgy. The congregation is made up of those who have committed
>gross
>> sin as well as those who have not. So your assumption does not
>ring
>> true in reality.
>
>> Yet if an adulterer walks up to the altar wearing some
>identification
>> that they are a practicing adulterer and are not repenting of it,
>you
>> can be very sure they shall not receive a blessing or approval of
>that
>> act, nor shall they receive the Holy Communion.
>
>There is no doubt that a practicing unrepentant adulterer is a
>sinner.
We are agreed.
> However I am not sure that a practicing unrepentant
>adulterer is any more guilty in God's eyes than the person who
>regularly returns to his or her parking meter five minutes after the
>meter would have expired in the hope that no ticket would have been
>issued in that short space of time. Both are sinful.
Yes that is right -you- are not sure -because- you do not regard or
listen to the witness of the Church you claim to represent. Those of
us who -do listen to what the Spirit has to say to the churches- "DO"
know that there is a difference between overparking and adultery. I
would posit most men know there is a difference between overparking
and having a quickie with the lass down the road. Maybe even most
wives would know the difference as well. I would guess most Christians
know there is a difference between overparking and adultery. That
leaves me a little confused as to why -you- are a little confused by
it and you claim to be a teacher in Israel!
> > >So why use terms that exclude, by implication, the female half
>of
>> >the human race?
>
>> Because the term is understood to mean all of humanity unless it
>is
>> used in the context of male only.
>
>The meaning is now changing. It now refers to the above concept
>only in the minds of people who don't wish to make the effort to use
>the more inclusive language preferred by many women.
Yes the meanings of words do change over time. Look at the use of the
word priest in the context you have used it today. I posit that that
is a remarkeable change from the last two thousand years of Christian
history.
>
>> Exclusion is not the intent of the words use.
>
>> >I l find it irritating to be addressed in terms which relate
>> >exclusively to the masculine. The number of times I have been
>> >called "Father" while wearing a clerical collar!
>
>> I have been known to call ordained women 'priestesses'. :-)
>
>I have no argument with the term priestess, although I prefer to be
>called a priest. Priestesses conjure up pagan religions for me,
>although I consciously attribute this too two millenia of
>patriarchal domination of the priesthood.
Me I just attribute it to God. :-)
>
>> I am very sure you feel you have served the needs of women by this
>> inclusiveness. I have no desire to offend you nor disagree with
>your
>> above words. I am aware of the end result of the thinking but you
>have
>> not (yet) espoused it here so I am happy to be at peace with what
>you
>> -have- said.
>
>I'm not sure where you think the end result of this thinking is.
I will let you know when and if I see it.
>
>> >Moira, the Faerie Godmother
>
>> What type of signature is that for a Christian woman?
>
>As I said, a nick-name earned which identifies me in one of the
>largest communities which I serve. For quite a long time I used
>another signature, and at the reasonable objection of just one
>poster who justified his objection to me I changed it. If you lay
>before me good and valid reasons why I, as a Christian, should
>change my signature, I will do so. Even one reason would do, but I
>would prefer an honestly thought out argument than a hastily devised
>condemnation. A friendly challenge for you to exercise Christian
>ministry to a colleague.
How about Rev. Moira?
>
>Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Jack Rudd
> >And the "men" used here is no longer regarded as a politically
> >correct way of referring to all humanity. I'm apologising in advance
> >for this crack, but you have a computer now, so do try and drag
> >yourself into the twenty first century in other ways. The use of
> >"men" as a generic term has been frowned upon since the sixties.
>
> Political correctness and I are not bedfellows.:-)
It is indeed "politically correct" to refrain from using "men" to mean
"people". It is also good manners and good English.
Jack Rudd
Paul Duca
House of Rock wrote:
Mainly to distract those who would otherwise be on THEIR
backs about one thing or another...
Paul
S Campion
> Mainly to distract those who would otherwise be on THEIR
>backs about one thing or another...
Yeah, but think of all the gay priest that you will disturb.
Spontaneous Combustion
"S Campion" <fundamenta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kijueuoumcv5aft8e...@4ax.com...
All those Roman Catholic ones.......
Moira de Swardt
> >It's OK with me if you don't want to bother to use the brain God
> >obviously gave you.
> Ad hominum already? That was quick!
It wasn't meant as ad hominum, actually. Merely that absolute
refusal to examine the texts contextually because of "faith" is
incompatible with people who are actually thinking about things,
including the fact that there is probably not a Christian alive who
is equally comfortable with all parts of the Bible for whatever
reason. The fact that something is problematic for our faith should
not be a reason to refuse to examine it. My faith is refined by
those passages which I find most difficult - and many of these
passages become non-issues at other times in the development of my
faith. Christianity which cannot stand close examination is not
worth having.
> >Hey! I was thinking of buying a rainbow sash! :-)
> Then you won't be able to receive holy communion from His Eminence
> George Pell.
I'm not sure I know who George Pell is, but I'm quite sure I won't
have unconditional approval for his ministry ethos.
> >Thousands of homosexuals receive Holy Communion only if the
person
> >administering it is not confronted with the knowledge that the
> >person concerned is gay.
> Not so and quite untrue. The lifestyle choices are usually well
known
> by the administering ministers in the protestant churches where
they
> attend (like yours). I also note my objection of the word 'gay' to
> mean homosexual.
MCC is the exception, not the rule. It never ceases to amaze me
what lifestyle choices are continually made by people who consider
themselves to be entirely worthy to receive the sacrament of Holy
Communion. I come from a fundamentalist background and I'm still
"shocked" when people walk out of a Eucharist Service and light up a
cigarette.
Your objection to the term "gay" as meaning "homosexual" is noted.
You may, of course, use any term you please, but those of us who
exercise ministry to a group in the name of Jesus have worked out
that it is best to use the terms they choose for themselves. I
prefer my ministry to be as inclusionary as possible.
> > If someone came in to your Easter service
> >and went to receive Holy Communion and they happened to be
wearing a
> >rainbow badge with the clear sign underneath saying "I am a gay
> >Christian" would you be willing to administer the sacrament?
> No, without a moments hesitation.
It wouldn't occur to you that being a gay Christian has *nothing*
whatsoever to do with having sex? I know one gay Christian who has
never had sex in his entire life and he is now in his seventies. He
doesn't have a vocation which calls for him to be celibate either.
He merely cannot equate the practice of homosexuality with
Christianity. You would deny such a man the sacrament of Holy
Communion simply because he is gay? You would give an unmarried
mother the right to have her child baptised into the fellowship of
believers?
> >The truth is that homosexuality itself cannot be a sin. Whether
> >homosexual genital behaviour is or is not, I'm not going to go
there
> >for the time being, but let's examine whether homosexuality per
se
> >is a sin.
> I wish to commend you for your bravery and dedication to your
> convictions (however misplaced they may be).
> I will not declare a state of non-desire and non-act as sinful.
Non-desire. Are sexual desires inherently sinful?
> I will declare a state of homosexual desires and acts -as- sinful.
As I said let's leave the question of acts out of the issue until
further notice.
> What you are asking me is (I believe) the 'inclination' to become
a
> homosexual, or the confusion over whether one actually is or is
not a
> homosexual and whether that state is inherently evil or seperated
from
> the grace of God. I can only answer that it is not to the best of
my
> ability and understanding.
> Once the persons has moved from the inclination/confusion to the
> actual desiring, formulating or acting out of homosexual
> contact/behaviour then the line has been crossed for sure.
I'm uncertain as to what you visualize in your separation of
inclination and desire.
> > However I am not sure that a practicing unrepentant
> >adulterer is any more guilty in God's eyes than the person who
> >regularly returns to his or her parking meter five minutes after
the
> >meter would have expired in the hope that no ticket would have
been
> >issued in that short space of time. Both are sinful.
> Yes that is right -you- are not sure -because- you do not regard
or
> listen to the witness of the Church you claim to represent. Those
of
> us who -do listen to what the Spirit has to say to the churches-
"DO"
> know that there is a difference between overparking and adultery.
I
> would posit most men know there is a difference between
overparking
> and having a quickie with the lass down the road. Maybe even most
> wives would know the difference as well. I would guess most
Christians
> know there is a difference between overparking and adultery. That
> leaves me a little confused as to why -you- are a little confused
by
> it and you claim to be a teacher in Israel!
The difference is in our eyes. All sin is hateful in God's eyes and
causes separation from Him. The reason we think adultery is worse
than over parking is because adultery hurts at least one other, and
we acknowledge that it also hurts the foundations on which our
society is built.
The apostle Paul wrote of homosexuality in the same sentence as
gossiping. He didn't see a difference in the gravity of the sins.
Think of your congregation. That gossip ... do you give her the
sacrament of Holy Communion or do you deny her the sacrament of Holy
Communion?
> >The meaning is now changing. It now refers to the above concept
> >only in the minds of people who don't wish to make the effort to
use
> >the more inclusive language preferred by many women.
> Yes the meanings of words do change over time. Look at the use of
the
> word priest in the context you have used it today. I posit that
that
> is a remarkeable change from the last two thousand years of
Christian
> history.
True. And the beauty of the Church of Christ is that it is
resiliant enough to change where to do so is no threat to the purity
of the Good News that Jesus Christ died for all (not just those we
like and are comfortable with) and paid a redemptive price for all.
> >I have no argument with the term priestess, although I prefer to
be
> >called a priest. Priestesses conjure up pagan religions for me,
> >although I consciously attribute this too two millenia of
> >patriarchal domination of the priesthood.
> Me I just attribute it to God. :-)
I fear that people attribute many of their personal prejudices to
God. I sometimes do it myself. The Holy Spirit seldom lets me get
away with it for long - at least that I know of. And there is no
smiley emoticon here.
> How about Rev. Moira?
You haven't justified why it shouldn't be ", the Faerie Godmother".
I wouldn't use "Rev. Moira" though. I might just drop the signature
altogether. I've been posting to Usenet for about four years now,
and am known on most newsgroups in which I have an interest.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Fr James.
<moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>> >It's OK with me if you don't want to bother to use the brain God
>> >obviously gave you.
>
>> Ad hominum already? That was quick!
>
>It wasn't meant as ad hominum, actually.
It assumes I haven'y used the brain God gave me to arrive at the
position I now hold. It is a demeaning comment and intended as a put
down or insult. Your choice.
> Merely that absolute
>refusal to examine the texts contextually because of "faith" is
>incompatible with people who are actually thinking about things,
>including the fact that there is probably not a Christian alive who
>is equally comfortable with all parts of the Bible for whatever
>reason.
Another assumption. You assume I haven't looked at the texts and don't
already know the way they are dealt with by opposing sides. Been there
done that. The fact that I can deal with the issues instead of argue
the toss about hermeneutical rules of engagement should let you know I
-have- used my brain with this one. :-)
> The fact that something is problematic for our faith should
>not be a reason to refuse to examine it.
The matter is -neither- problematice nor not examined by me. Those
assumptions are flying thick at present.
> My faith is refined by
>those passages which I find most difficult - and many of these
>passages become non-issues at other times in the development of my
>faith.
Thats nice.
>Christianity which cannot stand close examination is not
>worth having.
The words "Christianity" and 'not worth having" do not belong in the
same sentence together. Another straw man as Christianity has been
the most sifted religion on the face of the earth. You -assume- these
matters have not been examined before...they have!
>
>> >Hey! I was thinking of buying a rainbow sash! :-)
>
>> Then you won't be able to receive holy communion from His Eminence
>> George Pell.
>
>I'm not sure I know who George Pell is, but I'm quite sure I won't
>have unconditional approval for his ministry ethos.
He is the ruling bishop of the Roman Catholics in Australia, a very
conservative man as well.
>> I also note my objection of the word 'gay' to
>> mean homosexual.
>
>MCC is the exception, not the rule. It never ceases to amaze me
>what lifestyle choices are continually made by people who consider
>themselves to be entirely worthy to receive the sacrament of Holy
>Communion. I come from a fundamentalist background and I'm still
>"shocked" when people walk out of a Eucharist Service and light up a
>cigarette.
Me too, especially if he is a priest as happened recently with me.
>
>Your objection to the term "gay" as meaning "homosexual" is noted.
Thank you.
>You may, of course, use any term you please, but those of us who
>exercise ministry to a group in the name of Jesus
Do you -presume- that you are the only group that ministers to
homosexuals? Some minister to homosexuals with no need to change the
'term' as received through the church's tradition.
> have worked out
>that it is best to use the terms they choose for themselves. I
>prefer my ministry to be as inclusionary as possible.
I suppose if we rather represent mankind to mankind instead of God to
mankind and mankind to God then you are quite welcome to use any
epitaph anyone chooses. It was no big deal for me and I don't want to
get into whether you should use it or not, thats none of my buisness.
I just wanted to note my disagreemtnt in changing the Church's word
for the lifestyle to that as you say the community have assumed to
themselves. There really is -nothing- -gay- about
homosexuality/lesbianism.
>
>> > If someone came in to your Easter service
>> >and went to receive Holy Communion and they happened to be
>wearing a
>> >rainbow badge with the clear sign underneath saying "I am a gay
>> >Christian" would you be willing to administer the sacrament?
>
>> No, without a moments hesitation.
>
>It wouldn't occur to you that being a gay Christian has *nothing*
>whatsoever to do with having sex?
Again you are making assumptions to attempt to lay a false foundation.
I have well and truly -numerous times- stated what is objectional to
the church and myself. Your definitions do not interest me in the
slightest if they are not in accordance to Christian faith.
> I know one gay Christian who has
>never had sex in his entire life and he is now in his seventies. He
>doesn't have a vocation which calls for him to be celibate either.
The issue of a non-desiring of homosexual practices has been well and
truly covered by myself previously and I feel no need ton repeat
myself.
>He merely cannot equate the practice of homosexuality with
>Christianity. You would deny such a man the sacrament of Holy
>Communion simply because he is gay?
You know neither what I would or would not do, but assume a position
just for the sake of your assumptions. I really find your story
telling a little -immature- really. This kind of selling technique
went out with Tom Hopkins. But hey if it makes -you- feel justified go
ahead and continue to make up stories about me. :-)
> You would give an unmarried
>mother the right to have her child baptised into the fellowship of
>believers?
You make a statement with a question mark. Again better to ask -me-
what I would do in any given situation rather than try to guess. Your
church and ministry are -so- seperated from my lifestyle that I hazard
to guess you -really- are unable to even come close to understanding
the way I would consider any of these matters.
>
>> >The truth is that homosexuality itself cannot be a sin. Whether
>> >homosexual genital behaviour is or is not, I'm not going to go
>there
>> >for the time being, but let's examine whether homosexuality per
>se
>> >is a sin.
>
>> I wish to commend you for your bravery and dedication to your
>> convictions (however misplaced they may be).
>
>> I will not declare a state of non-desire and non-act as sinful.
>
>Non-desire. Are sexual desires inherently sinful?
Desires for homosexual sex most certainly are, whether they eventuate
or not.
>
>> I will declare a state of homosexual desires and acts -as- sinful.
>
>As I said let's leave the question of acts out of the issue until
>further notice.
Of course you want to do that, as if the facts have no issue here.
Well Moira, if you hadn't noticed in the world, Church history and the
Bible, that desires LEAD to actions. Not in all cases but in very
many. You are unable to seperate desires to do from the doing. Christ
didn't, the Bible doesn't and the Church doesn't. Your red herring of
a gay who has never had sex is -IRRELEVANT-. And is used by you simple
to confuse the ignorant. The whole matter spins on -desire-, if the
desire is there to -BE- homosexual or to -do- homosexual then -there-
IS sin. If the desire is not there to -be- or -do- then I have
-already- derclared I will NOT condemn it as sinful nor refuse for
Holy Communion (subject to the other Orthodox requirements of course).
>
>> What you are asking me is (I believe) the 'inclination' to become
>a
>> homosexual, or the confusion over whether one actually is or is
>not a
>> homosexual and whether that state is inherently evil or seperated
>from
>> the grace of God. I can only answer that it is not to the best of
>my
>> ability and understanding.
>
>> Once the persons has moved from the inclination/confusion to the
>> actual desiring, formulating or acting out of homosexual
>> contact/behaviour then the line has been crossed for sure.
>
>I'm uncertain as to what you visualize in your separation of
>inclination and desire.
Thats because you are unsure of what Christianity teaches regarding
sin. I suggest a course of catechumen classes by a Christian priest to
gain some understanding in this area.
Nope. No, negative, absolutely not.
> All sin is hateful in God's eyes and
>causes separation from Him.
Nope. No, negative, absolutely not. See above recomendation for how to
resolve your misunderstanding in this area.
> The reason we think adultery is worse
>than over parking is because adultery hurts at least one other, and
>we acknowledge that it also hurts the foundations on which our
>society is built.
You have -absolutely- no idea of what you are talking about here.
>
>The apostle Paul wrote of homosexuality in the same sentence as
>gossiping. He didn't see a difference in the gravity of the sins.
Nice for you to share with me what -you- think St Paul -thought-. Of
course most people wouldn't notice that blooper. I do. :-)
>Think of your congregation. That gossip ... do you give her the
>sacrament of Holy Communion or do you deny her the sacrament of Holy
>Communion?
I give -no one- Holy Communion who has not confessed their sins. So
you have your answer. :-)
Keep trying though, maybe one of these hooks might stick. :-)
>
>> >The meaning is now changing. It now refers to the above concept
>> >only in the minds of people who don't wish to make the effort to
>use
>> >the more inclusive language preferred by many women.
>
>> Yes the meanings of words do change over time. Look at the use of
>the
>> word priest in the context you have used it today. I posit that
>that
>> is a remarkeable change from the last two thousand years of
>Christian
>> history.
>
>True.
"earnestly contend for the faith which was ONCE delivered unto the
saints."
"If its new, it aion't true"
Your ideas are new and they are definitely not true (with respect to
Christianity that is).
> And the beauty of the Church of Christ is that it is
>resiliant enough to change where to do so is no threat to the purity
>of the Good News that Jesus Christ died for all (not just those we
>like and are comfortable with) and paid a redemptive price for all.
Ignoring the straw man in brackets which is unrelating to myself or
Christianity and is another immature attempt at point scoring. Yes
Christ died for all. All shall NOT be saved. EITHER Christ died for
only those God forechose through election (not my view) or He died for
those He foreknew would respond, trust, obey, repent etc etc (my
view). Either way your idea of all are justified irregardless of their
lives is not to be found in the "Christ died for all". Christ also
died for Attila the Hun, Herod the Great, Caligula, Stalin and Hitler,
Ted Bunday and Jack the Ripper as well for -they- are included in the
-all-.
>> >I have no argument with the term priestess, although I prefer to
>be
>> >called a priest. Priestesses conjure up pagan religions for me,
>> >although I consciously attribute this too two millenia of
>> >patriarchal domination of the priesthood.
>
>> Me I just attribute it to God. :-)
>
>I fear that people attribute many of their personal prejudices to
>God.
Especially the one that says gross sin is irrelevant in the Kingdom of
God.
> I sometimes do it myself. The Holy Spirit seldom lets me get
>away with it for long - at least that I know of. And there is no
>smiley emoticon here.
I really don't get into the 'holy spirit told me this or that' with
people. Everyones holy spirit tells them to do opposing things on any
given day. BUT, I sense your genuineness in that comment so I cxan
empathise with you in it.
>
>> How about Rev. Moira?
>
>You haven't justified why it shouldn't be ", the Faerie Godmother".
I did not want to. That would be me telling you to do something and I
have no buisness telling you to do anything as we are not in the same
faith. I rather made a positive suggestion.
>I wouldn't use "Rev. Moira" though. I might just drop the signature
>altogether. I've been posting to Usenet for about four years now,
>and am known on most newsgroups in which I have an interest.
Don't change your name just because I queried it, I was not meaning
that. You do whatever you think is best.
>
>Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Nice chatting.
Just a short note here. Some of the topics we have bordered around are
pretty intensive of which I have no fear debating. In this post and
the previous I have been basically answering your questions, noting
your assumptions and attempt at straw man erecting to make a point and
have not really preoffered any new information. But I have a -long
standing- rule not to get into debate with ladies/women. I have
enjoyed our chatting, but if it is okay with you I would like to break
it off here as I have gone about as far as I wish to go on these
matters with you. Any further and I would be in debate and counter
mode and I do not wish to do that with a woman. So if its okay with
you I'll let you post a response and let that be without response by
me.
Peace.
Jack Rudd
> On Fri, 24 May 2002 12:19:57 +0200, "Moira de Swardt"
> <moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
> >It's OK with me if you don't want to bother to use the brain God
> >obviously gave you.
>
> Ad hominum already? That was quick!
The word is "hominem", not "hominum". The preposition "ad" must always
be followed by a noun in the *accusative* case, which for "homo" is
either "hominem" (singular) or "homines" (plural). "Hominum" is a
perfectly good Latin word, but it's a *genitive* plural.
Jack Rudd
Fr James.
wrote:
Thank you Jack.
English grammar and comprehension are not my strongest areas.
Moira de Swardt
Fr James. <fr_james...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > My faith is refined by
> >those passages which I find most difficult - and many of these
> >passages become non-issues at other times in the development of
my
> >faith.
> Thats nice.
That's patronising.
> >Christianity which cannot stand close examination is not
> >worth having.
> The words "Christianity" and 'not worth having" do not belong in
the
> same sentence together. Another straw man as Christianity has
been
> the most sifted religion on the face of the earth. You -assume-
these
> matters have not been examined before...they have!
I don't assume these matters have remained unexamined. I know they
have, because I have done so, and in doing so I have "sat at the
feet" of many learned people who have wrested with the same problems
and drawn conclusions from which I have taken comfort or found
despair. I also know that people who have truly and honestly
examined these issues, regardless of the positions they choose to
adopt, can see what theological wealth they expose and can see what
academic validity and human pain lies in both sides of the question.
> >Your objection to the term "gay" as meaning "homosexual" is
noted.
> Thank you.
I wasn't complimenting you on same.
> >You may, of course, use any term you please, but those of us who
> >exercise ministry to a group in the name of Jesus
> Do you -presume- that you are the only group that ministers to
> homosexuals? Some minister to homosexuals with no need to change
the
> 'term' as received through the church's tradition.
No, MCC is certainly not the only group of people that ministers to
homosexuals. But I will say that there is no group that ministers
*effectively* to homosexuals which doesn't recognise that the term
"gay" is the chosen term by the group themselves. I include groups
like "Exodus" in this - and I certainly don't approve of their
method of ministry to gay people.
> > have worked out
> >that it is best to use the terms they choose for themselves. I
> >prefer my ministry to be as inclusionary as possible.
> I suppose if we rather represent mankind to mankind instead of God
to
> mankind and mankind to God then you are quite welcome to use any
> epitaph anyone chooses. It was no big deal for me and I don't want
to
> get into whether you should use it or not, thats none of my
buisness.
> I just wanted to note my disagreemtnt in changing the Church's
word
> for the lifestyle to that as you say the community have assumed to
> themselves. There really is -nothing- -gay- about
> homosexuality/lesbianism.
More exclusionary terminology. There is also no "lifestyle"
involved in homosexuality. My wealthy doctor friends have a
lifestyle which involves driving to and from work and other
engagements in expensive vehicles. Their home is most upmarket.
They are able to take frequent holidays overseas, often paid for in
part by drug companies as they lecture or attend seminars. They
enjoy classical music and theatre in their very limited free time.
My artist friend has a simple vegetarian frugal lifestyle at home.
He walks most places he wants to be. He keeps several cats and dogs
and enjoys listening to community radio. My IT executive friend has
a social lifestyle and eats out at exclusive restaurants three or
more times a week, often with a group of like-minded people. He
attends as many concerts and theatrical productions as he can cram
into his week. He would never eat vegetarian food by choice. He
also never walks when he can drive, stands when he can sit, or sits
when he can lie down. On the other hand my chartered accountant
friend rises early to go to gym, then he cycles to work day at the
office, he then cycles home. He eats meat, but everything is low
fat and filled with fibre, and vitamins and balance. Once he
arrives home he'll soon be off to the squash courts to meet with
some friends. At weekends he will go hiking or cycling or perhaps
spend a "lazy" afternoon at social tennis. He never stays out late
or attends the theatre or ruins his carefully balanced eating
programme by going to restaurants.
You may be able to determine from the above that there is no "gay
lifestyle". All the above are men who choose to have sex with men
(except the one who has been celibate for about thirteen years now
for reasons unrelated to theological ones). All identify as gay.
> >It wouldn't occur to you that being a gay Christian has *nothing*
> >whatsoever to do with having sex?
> Again you are making assumptions to attempt to lay a false
foundation.
> I have well and truly -numerous times- stated what is objectional
to
> the church and myself. Your definitions do not interest me in the
> slightest if they are not in accordance to Christian faith.
I acknowledge that it was an assumption. However it was also
questioning the assumption I have made. Where in the Christian
faith is there a definition of homosexuality? And what is that
definition? I have definitions of homosexuality, but they have been
ones made by secular organisations and/or dictionaries.
> > I know one gay Christian who has
> >never had sex in his entire life and he is now in his seventies.
He
> >doesn't have a vocation which calls for him to be celibate
either.
> The issue of a non-desiring of homosexual practices has been well
and
> truly covered by myself previously and I feel no need ton repeat
> myself.
Well, I haven't read your previous treatises. This is a new debate.
> >He merely cannot equate the practice of homosexuality with
> >Christianity. You would deny such a man the sacrament of Holy
> >Communion simply because he is gay?
> You know neither what I would or would not do, but assume a
position
> just for the sake of your assumptions. I really find your story
> telling a little -immature- really. This kind of selling technique
> went out with Tom Hopkins. But hey if it makes -you- feel
justified go
> ahead and continue to make up stories about me. :-)
Once again I wasn't telling stories but exploring assumptions. I'm
not selling anything. This is a debate.
> > You would give an unmarried
> >mother the right to have her child baptised into the fellowship
of
> >believers?
> You make a statement with a question mark. Again better to
ask -me-
> what I would do in any given situation rather than try to guess.
Your
> church and ministry are -so- seperated from my lifestyle that I
hazard
> to guess you -really- are unable to even come close to
understanding
> the way I would consider any of these matters.
Your guess may well be accurate. I only know two priests from the
Orthodox tradition, and both were lecturers at the university where
I studied. While I was a studen I got to know the one who was a
church history professor somewhat better than the one who was in the
missiology department because one of my majors was church history.
Later I became involved with the one who was in the missiology
department as a fellow poster to one of the newsgroups to which I
subscribe. I attended an Easter service at his church by special
invitation - and I remain in e-mail communication to this day. I
have a particularly soft spot for both of them as they made valuable
imput into my development as a Christian from the point of a
tradition very different to any to which I have been exposed.
> >Non-desire. Are sexual desires inherently sinful?
> Desires for homosexual sex most certainly are, whether they
eventuate
> or not.
> >As I said let's leave the question of acts out of the issue until
> >further notice.
> Of course you want to do that, as if the facts have no issue here.
> Well Moira, if you hadn't noticed in the world, Church history and
the
> Bible, that desires LEAD to actions. Not in all cases but in very
> many.
A desire for chocolate, however, is not fattening, while the action
of eating chocolate is.
I would extrapolate the above for homosexuality and sin purely for
the benefit of examining desire except that it would inherently
involve declaring the genital expression of homosexuality sinful,
and I wanted to leave that out of this particular equation.
> You are unable to seperate desires to do from the doing. Christ
> didn't, the Bible doesn't and the Church doesn't. Your red herring
of
> a gay who has never had sex is -IRRELEVANT-.
It is *not* irrelevant. It is an expression of the basic nature of
the problem.
> And is used by you simple
> to confuse the ignorant.
The ignorant are easily confused. I'm debating the matter with you,
and not the ignorant. You don't however seem to want to deal with
this matter which is not irrelevant. It touches the lives of many
gay people, particularly at that age where they have not yet become
sexually active, and at a stage where they are seeking counselling
from people who should be able to address issues which will have
far-reaching effects on the relationship between that young person
and his or her Saviour and the Church Universal.
> The whole matter spins on -desire-, if the
> desire is there to -BE- homosexual or to -do- homosexual
then -there-
> IS sin. If the desire is not there to -be- or -do- then I have
> -already- derclared I will NOT condemn it as sinful nor refuse for
> Holy Communion (subject to the other Orthodox requirements of
course).
Homosexuality appears to be an involuntary orientation in most
people. At about the age when children become sexually aware some
children become sexually aware of people of the same sex. Now I am
straight and cannot imagine this process fully, because when my
hormones rampaged they did so in ways which society found
acceptable, and for which there was a degree of amused tolerance.
Gay people tell me that they had no such luck. Their hormones
rampaged towards people of the same sex, causing a lot of confusion
and pain. Most gay people who had strongly religious home
backgrounds sought religious counselling from their
priests/ministers etc. In each case that I have explored as part of
later counselling, bar two, the result was that the person concerned
chose to pray to God to remove their homosexuality. God chose not
to do so. In some of these cases the person concerned has chosen to
reject God. One of the two exceptions was propositioned by the
married minister. The other was referred to proper religious
counselling by a gay Roman Catholic priest who most certainly did
not abuse his position of authority, and who gave such counsel
(calling for life long celibacy) that the person could accept but
not act upon.
> >I'm uncertain as to what you visualize in your separation of
> >inclination and desire.
> Thats because you are unsure of what Christianity teaches
regarding
> sin. I suggest a course of catechumen classes by a Christian
priest to
> gain some understanding in this area.
I find your assumption that I am unaware of what Christianity
teaches as sin. Christianity is broader than the Orthodox Church,
however much you may (or may not) be in denial about that.
Different denominations have different takes on the issue. I have a
reasonably comprehensive overview of the Christian Church as my
theological education was undertaken at a predominantly secular
university where the theological department was not linked to any
one denomination or another. My lecturers in systematic theology,
theological ethics, church history, missiology etc were from a
diverse Christian tradition and one from comparitive religion study
was Jewish while another was a Hindu. MCC gives me the freedom to
examine these issues from any tradition and to come up with answers
which are workable for me. I don't have to toe any particular
denominational line.
> >The difference is in our eyes.
> Nope. No, negative, absolutely not.
> > All sin is hateful in God's eyes and
> >causes separation from Him.
> Nope. No, negative, absolutely not. See above recomendation for
how to
> resolve your misunderstanding in this area.
Seeing as you're not planning to respond to this anyway I may as
well make the crack about "your sins being more acceptable to God
than the sins of others", Orwellian "All animals are equal but some
animals are more equal than others" style.
.
> > The reason we think adultery is worse
> >than over parking is because adultery hurts at least one other,
and
> >we acknowledge that it also hurts the foundations on which our
> >society is built.
> You have -absolutely- no idea of what you are talking about here.
That's your perception. I'm very aware of the social consequences
of the various sins. I actually deal with real people in real
situations. I don't live in some kind of ivory theological tower.
I'm not saying that you do. Only pointing out that I have a very
real working knowledge of the pain that is caused by infidelity,
refusal to pay maintenance for children, the abuse of one of the
partners, the break down of family life because of substance abuse.
> >The apostle Paul wrote of homosexuality in the same sentence as
> >gossiping. He didn't see a difference in the gravity of the
sins.
> Nice for you to share with me what -you- think St Paul -thought-.
Of
> course most people wouldn't notice that blooper. I do. :-)
Blooper? St Paul is the probably the single most "difficult" source
of comment on the question of homosexuality for gay people.
However, he equates it with gossiping. Check out the references for
yourself.
> >Think of your congregation. That gossip ... do you give her the
> >sacrament of Holy Communion or do you deny her the sacrament of
Holy
> >Communion?
> I give -no one- Holy Communion who has not confessed their sins.
So
> you have your answer. :-)
It isn't amusing. These are serious matters. As the church heads
into the twenty first century we need to be aware that there are
people out there who are dealing with matters of gossiping quite,
quite seriously, as being harmful to society and individuals while
viewing homosexual sex between consenting adults as being their own
business. I'm inclined to see their point.
> Keep trying though, maybe one of these hooks might stick. :-)
You are not planning to enter any further debate with me.
> Your ideas are new and they are definitely not true (with respect
to
> Christianity that is).
Interesting. In my study of church history I looked at a lot of
heresies, as I'm sure you did at the same point in your studies. I
have looked at the heresies of the present with which I have come
into contact and most of them merely rehash old material, often
under a new name. My ideas are not new. They have been found in
church material - orthodox church material (as opposed to Orthodox)
many times, and at the examination of many people. They have been
posed of many different things, not only homosexuality.
> > And the beauty of the Church of Christ is that it is
> >resiliant enough to change where to do so is no threat to the
purity
> >of the Good News that Jesus Christ died for all (not just those
we
> >like and are comfortable with) and paid a redemptive price for
all.
> Ignoring the straw man in brackets which is unrelating to myself
or
> Christianity and is another immature attempt at point scoring.
Did it score points?
> Yes
> Christ died for all. All shall NOT be saved. EITHER Christ died
for
> only those God forechose through election (not my view) or He died
for
> those He foreknew would respond, trust, obey, repent etc etc (my
> view). Either way your idea of all are justified irregardless of
their
> lives is not to be found in the "Christ died for all". Christ also
> died for Attila the Hun, Herod the Great, Caligula, Stalin and
Hitler,
> Ted Bunday and Jack the Ripper as well for -they- are included in
the
> -all-.
Not all will be saved. It is, however, not your place nor mine to
determine who will be among that number. The controversy
surrounding the doctrine of predestination vs free will is not
designed to be some kind of catch-all for Christians who wish to
avoid dealing with the genuine and hideously difficult issues which
face people every day.
> >I fear that people attribute many of their personal prejudices to
> >God.
> Especially the one that says gross sin is irrelevant in the
Kingdom of
> God.
We haven't established that there is any difference in the eyes of
God between gross sin and other (what would the opposite of gross
be?) sin. Just because you and I don't have any temptation to same
sex relationhips doesn't make the things we are tempted to do any
better or worse than those who are homosexual.
> > I sometimes do it myself. The Holy Spirit seldom lets me get
> >away with it for long - at least that I know of. And there is no
> >smiley emoticon here.
> I really don't get into the 'holy spirit told me this or that'
with
> people. Everyones holy spirit tells them to do opposing things on
any
> given day. BUT, I sense your genuineness in that comment so I cxan
> empathise with you in it.
"Holy Spirit" gets capitals. The person of the Holy Spirit. Part
of the Godhead. Not some "I feel like doing something so I'll claim
the holy spirit laid it on my heart" rubbishy religious practice of
people who try to make others feel guilty because they aren't so "in
tune" with God's will for their lives.
> Nice chatting.
> Just a short note here. Some of the topics we have bordered around
are
> pretty intensive of which I have no fear debating. In this post
and
> the previous I have been basically answering your questions,
noting
> your assumptions and attempt at straw man erecting to make a point
and
> have not really preoffered any new information. But I have a -long
> standing- rule not to get into debate with ladies/women. I have
> enjoyed our chatting, but if it is okay with you I would like to
break
> it off here as I have gone about as far as I wish to go on these
> matters with you. Any further and I would be in debate and counter
> mode and I do not wish to do that with a woman. So if its okay
with
> you I'll let you post a response and let that be without response
by
> me.
You may, of course, withdraw from the discussion. It probably isn't
going anywhere anyway. However, your refusal to debate should not
be based on my sex. It is quite irrelevant to the question. It is,
however, in keeping with the patriarchal, sexist and unyielding
nature of your tradition. It deserves no accolades.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Changeling
"Moira de Swardt" <moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote in message
> You may, of course, withdraw from the discussion. It probably isn't
> going anywhere anyway. However, your refusal to debate should not
> be based on my sex. It is quite irrelevant to the question. It is,
> however, in keeping with the patriarchal, sexist and unyielding
> nature of your tradition.
Which is the determined Will of God, irrespective of either man or a woman's
opinion.
>It deserves no accolades.
It does from God, and that is all that matters.
House of Rock
> "Moira de Swardt" wrote in message
> > You may, of course, withdraw from the discussion.
> > It probably isn't going anywhere anyway. However,
> > your refusal to debate should not be based on my
> > sex. It is quite irrelevant to the question. It is,
> > however, in keeping with the patriarchal, sexist and
> > unyielding nature of your tradition.
>
> Which is the determined Will of God, irrespective of
> either man or a woman's opinion.
If I may stick my nose in here for just a moment.....
Your "patriarchal, sexist and unyielding nature" is
"THE determined Will of God"? tsk, tsk...
I don't think so.
Jesus never condemned anyone who was willing to
learn... only the "patriarchal, sexist, and unyielding"
pharisee's did he condemn.
Lisa R.
______________________________
I don't pretend to know what
ignorant men are sure of.
~~ Clarence Darrow
Changeling
"House of Rock" <nospam_no...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fvhI8.26532$Kp.32...@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >Changeling
> > Which is the determined Will of God, irrespective of
> > either man or a woman's opinion.
>
> If I may stick my nose in here for just a moment.....
>
> Your "patriarchal, sexist and unyielding nature" is
> "THE determined Will of God"? tsk, tsk...
> I don't think so.
I no so, woman.
[Oxford P. Dictionary
Patriarch n. 1 male head of a family or tribe.]
"22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the HEAD [Strong's Supreme: Chief : Master :Lord] of
the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of
the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to
their own husbands in every thing."
Eph 5:22-24 (KJV)
One down, two to go.
[Sexism n. Prejudice or Discrimination, esp. against women, on the grounds
of sex. ]
"11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,
but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was FIRST formed, THEN Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
transgression."
1 Tim 2:11-14 (KJV)
"1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of
them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the
behavior of their wives,
2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair
and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a
GENTLE and QUIET spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.
5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God
used to make themselves beautiful. They were SUBMISSIVE to their own
husbands,
6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her MASTER. You are her
daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear."
1 Peter 3:1-6 (NIV)
"And the wife see that she REVERENCE her husband.
Eph 5:33 (KJV)
Woman is also the "Weaker vessal" 1 Peter 3:7
Two down, one to go.
[Unyielding adj. 1 NOT yielding. 2 firm, obstinate.]
"58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye STEDFAST, UNMOVABLE, [Strong's
Firmly persistent ] always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as
ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord."
1 Cor 15:58 (KJV)
I could go in much deeper, but that has qualified my previous statement.
> I don't pretend to know what
> ignorant men are sure of.
> ~~ Clarence Darrow
"27 ,28 This is my conclusion, says the Preacher. Step by step I came to
this result after researching in every direction: One tenth of one percent
of the men I interviewed could be said to be wise, but not one woman!"
Eccl 7:27 (LB)
Moira de Swardt
Changeling <ulti...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
> "22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the
Lord.
> 23 For the husband is the HEAD [Strong's Supreme: Chief : Master
:Lord] of
> the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the
saviour of
> the body.
> 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the
wives be to
> their own husbands in every thing."
> Eph 5:22-24 (KJV)
> One down, two to go.
Except that this is interpreted to mean that women must be subject
to men to whom they are not married. Please note that I am not
married to anyone. I am an independent woman who has no male
relatives whatsoever, no living father no living uncles no living
grandfather. In what way does the Bible suggest that the church has
a right to be patriarchal and sexist in my case.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Fr James.
Thats one of the reasons why Priests are called 'fathers'.
There should be no orphans in the Church.
House of Rock
> "House of Rock"
> "27 ,28 This is my conclusion, says the Preacher. Step by step I came
to
> this result after researching in every direction: One tenth of one
percent
> of the men I interviewed could be said to be wise, but not one woman!"
> Eccl 7:27 (LB)
All written or translated by "men." Find me something a
woman wrote from the Bible that supports your
"patriarchal, sexist and unyielding nature." and I'll talk to ya.
Lisa R.
______________________________
Patrick Dunford
nz.soc.religion on Tue, 28 May 2002 08:47:23 GMT, Fr
James.(fr_james...@yahoo.com.au) said...
> On Tue, 28 May 2002 09:24:37 +0200, "Moira de Swardt"
> <moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>
> >
> >Changeling <ulti...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> "22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the
> >Lord.
> >> 23 For the husband is the HEAD [Strong's Supreme: Chief : Master
> >:Lord] of
> >> the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the
> >saviour of
> >> the body.
> >> 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the
> >wives be to
> >> their own husbands in every thing."
> >> Eph 5:22-24 (KJV)
> >> One down, two to go.
> >
> >Except that this is interpreted to mean that women must be subject
> >to men to whom they are not married. Please note that I am not
> >married to anyone. I am an independent woman who has no male
> >relatives whatsoever, no living father no living uncles no living
> >grandfather. In what way does the Bible suggest that the church has
> >a right to be patriarchal and sexist in my case.
>
> Thats one of the reasons why Priests are called 'fathers'.
Only in Catholic churches
Fr James.
Catholic Churches are Christian Churches. Which of course includes the
Roman and Orthodox. There -never- was a time when there was -not-
priests who were 'fathers' in Christianity.
I realise of course some reforming churches threw out/rejected the
episcopacy and priesthood.
Peace.
Patrick Dunford
nz.soc.religion on Tue, 28 May 2002 10:49:08 GMT, Fr
They threw out the non-biblical Catholic traditions about episcopacy and
the priesthood. The bible says all Christians are priests. There is no
bible justification for the existence of a special priestly caste and
ministers or priests have no special authority or powers above any
ordinary believer.
Fr James.
<to....@ct.me.see.signature> wrote:
>> >> Thats one of the reasons why Priests are called 'fathers'.
>> >
>> >Only in Catholic churches
>>
>> Catholic Churches are Christian Churches. Which of course includes the
>> Roman and Orthodox. There -never- was a time when there was -not-
>> priests who were 'fathers' in Christianity.
>>
>> I realise of course some reforming churches threw out/rejected the
>> episcopacy and priesthood.
>
>They threw out the non-biblical Catholic traditions about episcopacy and
>the priesthood.
Non-Biblical mmmmmmmm?
St Paul declared himself to be a priest.
Judas had the office of the Episcopacy.
Priest is simply the latinised form of the Greek word -presbyter-.
Which is abundent in the New Testament.
>The bible says all Christians are priests.
Sure does we agree as were all Jews under the Old Covenant. Try making
any non-levites serve the Temple though. :-)
The bible does -not- say we are all -presbyters-. :-) Or Episcopates
for that matter either. In fact it clear references to a few (not even
all men) number of men in certain places only and NOT ALL by virtue of
their baptism/faith.
> There is no
>bible justification for the existence of a special priestly caste and
>ministers or priests have no special authority or powers above any
>ordinary believer.
That would cause some problems with the following -teachings- of the
Bible then if it were true (which it isn't so the Bible is safe-phew).
:-)
"Is anyone among you sick call the -elders- of the church" Note not
call -anyone as we are all elders-. :-)
"Appoint 'elders' in every place, men who are able to teach etc etc'
Note not 'all are elders in every place'.
"A bishop shall be then the husband of one wife etc." Note not all are
bishops etc.
"Those that rule over you shall have double honour"
"Do not receive an accusation against an -elder- but by two or three
witnesses."
And a whole host of others.
I understand your view on this though.
It is quite mistaken -according- to the Bible. (and the Church).
Changeling
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the
HEAD of the woman [Strong's Chief: Prominent : Supreme ] is the man; and
the head of Christ is God". 1 Cor 11:3 (KJV)
Women also are forbidden to speak in the assembles of the saints, by the
Lord's absolute command, showing a Divine sexist orientation. Women being
from the start the "Weaker vessel" both spiritually and physically .
".33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the
congregations of the saints,
34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to
speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own
husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has
reached?
37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him
acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's COMMAND."
1 Cor 14:33-37 (NIV)
No defence or excuse for any women whether married or not.
The Lord's commandment cannot be countermanded or ignored by his faithful
followers.
Ninure Saunders
fr_james...@yahoo.com.au (Fr James.) wrote:
-On Tue, 28 May 2002 09:24:37 +0200, "Moira de Swardt"
-<moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
-
->
->Changeling <ulti...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
->
->> "22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the
->Lord.
->> 23 For the husband is the HEAD [Strong's Supreme: Chief : Master
->:Lord] of
->> the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the
->saviour of
->> the body.
->> 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the
->wives be to
->> their own husbands in every thing."
->> Eph 5:22-24 (KJV)
->> One down, two to go.
->
->Except that this is interpreted to mean that women must be subject
->to men to whom they are not married. Please note that I am not
->married to anyone. I am an independent woman who has no male
->relatives whatsoever, no living father no living uncles no living
->grandfather. In what way does the Bible suggest that the church has
->a right to be patriarchal and sexist in my case.
-
-Thats one of the reasons why Priests are called 'fathers'.
Inviolation of Christ's explict command to call NO MAN FATHER. (yes I
meant to shout).
-
-There should be no orphans in the Church.
There aren't.
God, and God alone is our Abba.
-
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure
The world's second most subversive document
http://www.geocities.com/ninure/declaration.html
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Ninure Saunders
fr_james...@yahoo.com.au (Fr James.) wrote:
-
-"Is anyone among you sick call the -elders- of the church" Note not
-call -anyone as we are all elders-. :-)
Elders are not priests.
-
-"Appoint 'elders' in every place, men who are able to teach etc etc'
-Note not 'all are elders in every place'.
Elders are not priests.
-
-"A bishop shall be then the husband of one wife etc." Note not all are
-bishops etc.
It doesn't say that Bishops are priests.
In fact, the Greek word translated Bishop means nothing more than "overseer"
-
-"Those that rule over you shall have double honour"
Again, saus mpthing about "priests{
-
-"Do not receive an accusation against an -elder- but by two or three
-witnesses."
Elders are not priests.
-
-And a whole host of others.
-
-I understand your view on this though.
None of which says anything about a special class of MEN who would be
called priests.
-
-It is quite mistaken -according- to the Bible. (and the Church).
Quite frankly, you are still wrong......
Moira de Swardt
Fr James. <fr_james...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> Thats one of the reasons why Priests are called 'fathers'.
> There should be no orphans in the Church.
From that point they could equally be called "mothers".
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
Patrick Dunford <to....@ct.me.see.signature> wrote in message
> They threw out the non-biblical Catholic traditions about
episcopacy and
> the priesthood. The bible says all Christians are priests. There
is no
> bible justification for the existence of a special priestly caste
and
> ministers or priests have no special authority or powers above any
> ordinary believer.
Not so. While the Bible speaks of the priesthood of all believers,
there is much written by Paul about the authority of spiritual
leaders. It's merely not clear that this should be inherently
patriarchal in nature.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
Fr James. <fr_james...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> Thats one of the reasons why Priests are called 'fathers'.
> There should be no orphans in the Church.
One assumes that it's spiritual in its relationship. I think of the
very difficult situation which the African church finds itself in
now, where the church cannot actually, with the best will in the
world, cope with all the AIDS orphans.
There is no person, independent or otherwise, that is beyond the
need of a spiritual director.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
House of Rock <nospam_no...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> All written or translated by "men." Find me something a
> woman wrote from the Bible that supports your
> "patriarchal, sexist and unyielding nature." and I'll talk to ya.
Lisa, it is thought by some scholars, that the reason the author of
Hebrews remained anonymous was because she was a woman. :-)
Seriously, it has been suggest that it may have been someone like
Priscilla. Of course, this is just conjecture, but it appealed to
me at the time.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Brenda G. Kent
Art Bedolla
God did not create woman from the man's foot so man can step on her.
God created woman from the side of man to go as a companion and partner.
Please ask for somebody to help you to interpret the Bible. Everybody
needs help in understanding the Bible. Remember, those are the words
of God not from man.
The part you are reading is the old testament (before Jesus). Try the
New Testament (after Jesus).
Changeling
"Art Bedolla" <bed...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3CF3CCA3...@lucent.com...
> God did not create woman from the man's head to go over him.
> God did not create woman from the man's foot so man can step on her.
> God created woman from the side of man to go as a companion and partner.
>
> Please ask for somebody to help you to interpret the Bible. Everybody
> needs help in understanding the Bible. Remember, those are the words
> of God not from man.
So hearken to God's Words then, and renounce your pride and bigotry
forthwith.
"I will" said He, "Greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow
thou shalt bring forth children: and thy desire shall be subject to thy
husband, and he shall RULE over thee." Gen 3:16 (KJV)
This being her portion as the consequence of Eve's own sin, the reverse
would have
been her condition, so long as her animal nature should have continued
unchanged, if she had remained obedient.
She would have bought forth children without pain, and would have had fewer
of them; nor would she have been deprived of that equality she enjoyed in
the garden, and consequently she would have escaped that degradation she has
experienced in all the countries of the world.
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the
HEAD of the woman [Strong's Chief: Prominent : Supreme ] is the man; and
the head of Christ is God". 1 Cor 11:3 (KJV)
Women also are forbidden to speak in the assembles of the saints, by the
Lord's absolute command, showing a Divine sexist orientation. Women being
from the start the "Weaker vessel" both spiritually and physically.
Women of God are to "Learn in silence with ALL SUBJECTION" or obedience.
So obey God's Word and comply. Thanks.
Fr James.
Indeed, (apart from the priests for the sacramentals) there has also
been spiritual mothers in the church as well. May we never loose them.
Peace.
Fr James.
(Ninure Saunders) wrote:
>In article <3cf3663b...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
>fr_james...@yahoo.com.au (Fr James.) wrote:
>
>-
>-"Is anyone among you sick call the -elders- of the church" Note not
>-call -anyone as we are all elders-. :-)
>
>Elders are not priests.
Do you think 'elders' in these references means 'old people'?
>-
>-"Appoint 'elders' in every place, men who are able to teach etc etc'
>-Note not 'all are elders in every place'.
>
>Elders are not priests.
>-
>-"A bishop shall be then the husband of one wife etc." Note not all are
>-bishops etc.
>
>It doesn't say that Bishops are priests.
All bishops are already priests/presbyters.
>
>In fact, the Greek word translated Bishop means nothing more than "overseer"
Pray tell what does 'overseeing' mean to you if not authority in the
Church.
>-
>-"Those that rule over you shall have double honour"
>
>Again, saus mpthing about "priests{
Says there are those who 'rule' and that was -my- original point.
>-
>-"Do not receive an accusation against an -elder- but by two or three
>-witnesses."
>
>Elders are not priests.
Ditto above.
>-
>-And a whole host of others.
>-
>-I understand your view on this though.
>
>None of which says anything about a special class of MEN who would be
>called priests.
Every verse affirms it, the fact that you do not does not surprise me
in the slightest.
Fr James.
Of course it is -recent- conjecture and -not- in accordance with the
received tradition that St Paul is the author as is announced in every
apostolic Church when any passage from Hebrews is read out.
Rather look to why the author had to remain anonomous to the audience
he was writing to.
Fr James.
<moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>There is no person, independent or otherwise, that is beyond the
>need of a spiritual director.
Amen and amen.
>
>Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Brenda G. Kent
heh.
christianpastorD
"Brenda G. Kent" <wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3cf4...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
> just keep telling yourself that Changeling.
> heh.
>
Go from the presence of a foolish man,
When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
Proverbs 14:7
christianpastorD
> heh..just keep telling yourself that....if it makes you feel happy.
Not to Brenda but to the original post:
Brenda G. Kent
> Re: Women must "Learn in silence with ALL SUBJECTION" [was Eating bacon and
> homosexuality
>
> From: "christianpastorD" <christia...@hotmail.com>
> Reply to: [1] "christianpastorD"
> Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 02:22:19 GMT
> Organization: Road Runner - Texas
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.bible,
> [3] alt.christnet,
> [4] alt.christnet.christianlife,
> [5] alt.religion.christian,
> [6] alt.religion.clergy,
> [7] aus.religion.christian,
> [8] nz.soc.religion
> Followup to: [9] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [10] <3cf4...@news.victoria.tc.ca>>[11] news:3cf4...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
>> just keep telling yourself that Changeling.
>> heh.
>>
>Go from the presence of a foolish man,
> When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
> Proverbs 14:7
***I tend to usually.
thanks.
Brenda
Ninure Saunders
fr_james...@yahoo.com.au (Fr James.) wrote:
-On Tue, 28 May 2002 14:51:17 GMT, RainbowChri...@hotmail.com
-(Ninure Saunders) wrote:
-
->In article <3cf3663b...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
->fr_james...@yahoo.com.au (Fr James.) wrote:
->
->-
->-"Is anyone among you sick call the -elders- of the church" Note not
->-call -anyone as we are all elders-. :-)
->
->Elders are not priests.
-
-Do you think 'elders' in these references means 'old people'?
I think it refers to people with spiritual and emotional maturity.
->-
->-"Appoint 'elders' in every place, men who are able to teach etc etc'
->-Note not 'all are elders in every place'.
->
->Elders are not priests.
->-
->-"A bishop shall be then the husband of one wife etc." Note not all are
->-bishops etc.
->
->It doesn't say that Bishops are priests.
-
-All bishops are already priests/presbyters.
->
->In fact, the Greek word translated Bishop means nothing more than "overseer"
-
-Pray tell what does 'overseeing' mean to you if not authority in the
-Church.
Overeeing in the church does not equal "priest".
->-
->-"Those that rule over you shall have double honour"
->
->Again, says nothing about "priests"/clergy
-
-Says there are those who 'rule' and that was -my- original point.
->-"Do not receive an accusation against an -elder- but by two or three
->-witnesses."
->
->Elders are not priests.
-
-Ditto above.
Unless I'm mistaken, your poinr is that this special catregory or office
-- "priests"/clegy have some special divine rights and authority over the
body of Christ....was it not?
There is NO Bibical sooprt for that position is my point.
->-
->-And a whole host of others.
->-
->-I understand your view on this though.
->
->None of which says anything about a special class of MEN who would be
->called priests.
-
-Every verse affirms it, the fact that you do not does not surprise me
-in the slightest.
No verse affirms it.
No verse in the Bible singles out part of the "Body od Christ" to be priests.
Anymore than it singles out especially and uniquely holy people to be "saints".
Tge fact that a person who choses to call himself "Father" in defiance of
Christ's command would claim that there is. shouldn't be surprising.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
So when did Paul become our Lord ?
Changeling
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3cf538c7....@news.ev1.net...
>
> So when did Paul become our Lord ?
Who has stated he has?
-------------------------------------
Changeling
"Ninure Saunders" <RainbowChri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> I think it refers to people with spiritual and emotional maturity.
Certainly not cursed, unbalanced Homosexual perverts, who only have a
god-forsaken "depraved mind" Romans 1:28.
"7 Also remember the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other towns around
them. In the same way they were full of sexual sin and people who desired
sexual relations that God does not allow. They suffer the punishment of
eternal fire, as an example for all to see.
8 It is the same with these people who have entered your [news]group. They
are guided by dreams and make themselves filthy with sin."
Jude 1:7-8 (NCV)
Especially those who disgrace and trash Christ's name by boasting of their
own brand of Homosexual 'christianity.
"They are guided by dreams and make themselves filthy with sin."
"9 ,10 Don't you know that those doing such things have no share in the
Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are
idol worshipers, adulterers or Homosexuals--will have no share in his
Kingdom."
1 Cor 6:9 (LB)
s campio
>> I think it refers to people with spiritual and emotional maturity.
>
>Certainly not cursed, unbalanced Homosexual perverts, who only have a
>god-forsaken "depraved mind" Romans 1:28.
I guess that excludes you.
Moira de Swardt
> >There is no person, independent or otherwise, that is beyond the
> >need of a spiritual director.
> Amen and amen.
Common ground. :-)
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
> >Lisa, it is thought by some scholars, that the reason the author
of
> >Hebrews remained anonymous was because she was a woman. :-)
> >Seriously, it has been suggest that it may have been someone like
> >Priscilla. Of course, this is just conjecture, but it appealed
to
> >me at the time.
> Of course it is -recent- conjecture and -not- in accordance with
the
> received tradition that St Paul is the author as is announced in
every
> apostolic Church when any passage from Hebrews is read out.
The tradition that St Paul is the author has been trounced by modern
scholarship. The styles are different. Paul's other work is
clearly labelled.
> Rather look to why the author had to remain anonomous to the
audience
> he was writing to.
There can be no reason why St Paul would wish to remain anonymous
for the writing of the Hebrews. He wrote several other things which
were designed for Jewish believers and if they accepted him, then so
would a pure letter to the Hebrews have been accepted.
It appears to be clear that the writer was known to the target
audience and that the supression of the name of the author came
later. That doesn't sit with the authour being our misognynist, St
Paul, but rather with someone else who was not in favour at the time
of the selection of the canon at the Council of Nicea. The
speculation must remain exactly that, because we really don't know.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
Fr James. <fr_james...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> <moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
> >Fr James. <fr_james...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >> Thats one of the reasons why Priests are called 'fathers'.
> >> There should be no orphans in the Church.
> >From that point they could equally be called "mothers".
> Indeed, (apart from the priests for the sacramentals) there has
also
> been spiritual mothers in the church as well. May we never loose
them.
Women are not allowed to administer the sacraments? Colour me
unsurprised. The truth is that if women are strong, brave true,
clever, skilled etc. enough to deal with the hassles life so often
hands them, then they are strong etc. enough to administer the
sacraments.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
<ulti...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote in message
>news:3cf538c7....@news.ev1.net...
>>
>> So when did Paul become our Lord ?
>
>Who has stated he has?
Whoever wrote...
Fr James.
<moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
Its not a matter of 'rights' or 'ability' as the majority of men are
not authorised to perform the sacraments either. For what its worth,
most men and women and children are quite able to administer the
sacraments.
It is rather, the -will of God- and clear declarations of Scriptures
and clear tradition in the Church that most men, women and children do
-not- administer the sacraments.
We can agree to disagree.
Fr James.
<moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>
>Fr James. <fr_james...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>> <moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>
>> >Lisa, it is thought by some scholars, that the reason the author
>of
>> >Hebrews remained anonymous was because she was a woman. :-)
>> >Seriously, it has been suggest that it may have been someone like
>> >Priscilla. Of course, this is just conjecture, but it appealed
>to
>> >me at the time.
>
>> Of course it is -recent- conjecture and -not- in accordance with
>the
>> received tradition that St Paul is the author as is announced in
>every
>> apostolic Church when any passage from Hebrews is read out.
>
>The tradition that St Paul is the author has been trounced by modern
>scholarship. The styles are different. Paul's other work is
>clearly labelled.
Not good enough to dismiss the view of St Paul's authorship.
Styles can differ due to age, since Paul was old and blind he could
also have had a scribe write for him.
Then there is the -issue- we do -not- have the original script of
Hebrews and your literacy criticism is based on -later translations-
that assume a different style in the original which they do not have.
Then there is also the possibility that St Paul purposely wrote
different to hide his identity from the Jews to whom he was writing
the letter.
Overall, on this one, i'll stick with the majority opinion, but let
bygones be bygones.
>
>> Rather look to why the author had to remain anonomous to the
>audience
>> he was writing to.
>
>There can be no reason why St Paul would wish to remain anonymous
>for the writing of the Hebrews.
Wrong. There were very many reasons why an ex-Jes, ex-rabbi,
ex-student of Gamaliel writings would nmot even been held by a
faithful Jew, let alone read and considered. That was reason enough.
>He wrote several other things which
>were designed for Jewish believers and if they accepted him, then so
>would a pure letter to the Hebrews have been accepted.
No he wrote rather several other epistles to -CHRISTIAN- believers who
were apostasizing back into the Law (Galatians) but this epistle was
NOT written to the Hebrews/Jews but to Christians. Big difference.
>
>It appears to be clear that the writer was known to the target
>audience and that the supression of the name of the author came
>later.
It appears now that your asumption is illfounded on no evidence and
theories against the clear reasons and facts that do exist.
>That doesn't sit with the authour being our misognynist, St
>Paul,
Of course the Christian Church and the Christians know St Paul as a
saintly apostle. What freligion are you in again?
> but rather with someone else who was not in favour at the time
>of the selection of the canon at the Council of Nicea. The
>speculation must remain exactly that, because we really don't know.
You do not know that is quite correct. I have suggested a Christian
catechumen course to assist you when you wish to consider the
Christian Church.
>
>Moira, the Faerie Godmother
woz
29Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the
Scriptures nor the power of God. 30"For in the resurrection they neither
marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31
"But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was
spoken to you by God, saying, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
33And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.
and angels are what sex????????????????
you can cling to your petty argumants over sex and rights of men or women
and you can bash each other black and blue til one or t'other submits to
your despot views
yet
the facts are
when you are resurrected
you shall know
nothing of these matters
so begin
now
or you shall be ill prepared
"Fr James." <fr_james...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3cf6a5d...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Fr James.
wrote:
>
>29Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the
>Scriptures nor the power of God. 30"For in the resurrection they neither
>marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31
>"But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was
>spoken to you by God, saying, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
>and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
>33And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.
It is -not yet- the resurrection and we still have sex, childbirth,
pain in childbirth, men working by the swreat of their broughs, people
still die because of sin. All this still happens and shows the
-resurrection- Jesus spoke of is not yet woz. When it comes, there
will be no longer a need for priests, until then, the need exists as
much as marriage does.
>
>and angels are what sex????????????????
Neuter.
>
>you can cling to your petty argumants over sex and rights of men or women
>and you can bash each other black and blue til one or t'other submits to
>your despot views
Neither arguing nor bashing. :-) Read my post again, especially the
bit about "we can agree to disagree" :-)
>
>yet
>the facts are
>
>when you are resurrected
>you shall know
>nothing of these matters
>so begin
>now
>or you shall be ill prepared
Jesus retained His memory in the resurrection. In fact He asked Peter
to admit his fault three times from before the crucifixtion. I have no
reason to believ that our memories will be erased in the resurrection,
on the contrary actually.
Patrick Dunford
nz.soc.religion on Tue, 28 May 2002 11:20:39 GMT, Fr
James.(fr_james...@yahoo.com.au) said...
> On Tue, 28 May 2002 23:05:34 +1200, Patrick Dunford
> <to....@ct.me.see.signature> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> Thats one of the reasons why Priests are called 'fathers'.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Catholic Churches are Christian Churches. Which of course includes the
> >> Roman and Orthodox. There -never- was a time when there was -not-
> >> priests who were 'fathers' in Christianity.
> >>
> >> I realise of course some reforming churches threw out/rejected the
> >> episcopacy and priesthood.
> >
> >They threw out the non-biblical Catholic traditions about episcopacy and
> >the priesthood.
>
> Non-Biblical mmmmmmmm?
>
> St Paul declared himself to be a priest.
Which put him among all believers, no surprise there.
> Judas had the office of the Episcopacy.
Meaning? Never heard anyone make such a claim before
> >The bible says all Christians are priests.
>
> Sure does we agree as were all Jews under the Old Covenant. Try making
> any non-levites serve the Temple though. :-)
The temple in the New Testament is not a church. Your body is the temple
of the Holy Spirit and the church is not the building or the hierarchy,
it is the people. There is no equivalent of the levitical order
prescribed in the New Testament.
> The bible does -not- say we are all -presbyters-. :-) Or Episcopates
Both the Strongs and NIV Concordances translate presbyteros as elder.
Episcopate does not actually appear in either of those works. The word
most commonly used in the New Testament for priest is hiereus.
> for that matter either. In fact it clear references to a few (not even
> all men) number of men in certain places only and NOT ALL by virtue of
> their baptism/faith.
There are references to deacons, elders and bishops. There is not one
single New Testament reference to these people having special powers that
are denied to ordinary Christians. in 1 Timothy 3 they are referred to as
"overseers".
> > There is no
> >bible justification for the existence of a special priestly caste and
> >ministers or priests have no special authority or powers above any
> >ordinary believer.
>
> That would cause some problems with the following -teachings- of the
> Bible then if it were true (which it isn't so the Bible is safe-phew).
> :-)
>
> "Is anyone among you sick call the -elders- of the church" Note not
> call -anyone as we are all elders-. :-)
>
> "Appoint 'elders' in every place, men who are able to teach etc etc'
> Note not 'all are elders in every place'.
>
> "A bishop shall be then the husband of one wife etc." Note not all are
> bishops etc.
>
> "Those that rule over you shall have double honour"
>
> "Do not receive an accusation against an -elder- but by two or three
> witnesses."
>
> And a whole host of others.
>
> I understand your view on this though.
I can call the elders if I wish. I can also pray directly to God without
calling the elders. Teaching is another different thing. What we see in
the NT model is people being appointed as leaders, which is putting them
in positions of authority, but that authority does not extend to the
priestly roles of the Old Testament.
>
> It is quite mistaken -according- to the Bible. (and the Church).
According to your church only.
--
=========================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
In God, whose word I praise, in God I trust; I will not be
afraid. What can mortal man do to me?
-- Psalm 56:4
http://www.SearchGodsWord.org/desk/?query=Psalm+56:4
Patrick Dunford
nz.soc.religion on Tue, 28 May 2002 20:47:24 GMT, Fr
James.(fr_james...@yahoo.com.au) said...
> On Tue, 28 May 2002 14:55:25 +0200, "Moira de Swardt"
> <moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>
> >
> >House of Rock <nospam_no...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> All written or translated by "men." Find me something a
> >> woman wrote from the Bible that supports your
> >> "patriarchal, sexist and unyielding nature." and I'll talk to ya.
> >
> >Lisa, it is thought by some scholars, that the reason the author of
> >Hebrews remained anonymous was because she was a woman. :-)
> >Seriously, it has been suggest that it may have been someone like
> >Priscilla. Of course, this is just conjecture, but it appealed to
> >me at the time.
> >
> >Moira, the Faerie Godmother
>
> Of course it is -recent- conjecture and -not- in accordance with the
> received tradition that St Paul is the author as is announced in every
> apostolic Church when any passage from Hebrews is read out.
Really? You mean every apostolic Catholic church?
It has been widely recognised since the reformation that Paul could not
have been the author of Hebrews. The literary style of Hebrews is
markedly different from any of the other epistles. Barnabas and Apollos
are thought the most likely candidates.
Hebrews is the only epistle in which Paul does NOT state that he is the
author.
Patrick Dunford
on Tue, 28 May 2002 14:49:24 +0200, Moira de
Swardt(moira.d...@global.co.za) said...
>
> Patrick Dunford <to....@ct.me.see.signature> wrote in message
>
> > They threw out the non-biblical Catholic traditions about
> episcopacy and
> is no
> > bible justification for the existence of a special priestly caste
> and
> > ministers or priests have no special authority or powers above any
> > ordinary believer.
>
> there is much written by Paul about the authority of spiritual
> leaders. It's merely not clear that this should be inherently
> patriarchal in nature.
Spiritual leaders, not priests (intermediaries) in the Levitical order of
priesthood.
Church leaders do not have the power to forgive sin, only God can do
that. You do not need to go to a church leader to have your sin forgiven.
Patrick Dunford
nz.soc.religion on Thu, 30 May 2002 22:31:09 GMT, Fr
James.(fr_james...@yahoo.com.au) said...
> On Wed, 29 May 2002 17:50:07 +0200, "Moira de Swardt"
> <moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>
> >
> >Fr James. <fr_james...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >> <moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
> >
> >> >Lisa, it is thought by some scholars, that the reason the author
> >of
> >> >Hebrews remained anonymous was because she was a woman. :-)
> >> >Seriously, it has been suggest that it may have been someone like
> >> >Priscilla. Of course, this is just conjecture, but it appealed
> >to
> >> >me at the time.
> >
> >> Of course it is -recent- conjecture and -not- in accordance with
> >the
> >> received tradition that St Paul is the author as is announced in
> >every
> >> apostolic Church when any passage from Hebrews is read out.
> >
> >The tradition that St Paul is the author has been trounced by modern
> >scholarship. The styles are different. Paul's other work is
> >clearly labelled.
>
> Not good enough to dismiss the view of St Paul's authorship.
Plenty of substance in the claims.
> Styles can differ due to age, since Paul was old and blind he could
> also have had a scribe write for him.
>
> Then there is the -issue- we do -not- have the original script of
> Hebrews and your literacy criticism is based on -later translations-
> that assume a different style in the original which they do not have.
Every other epistle that we know to have been written by Paul contains
his name in the first sentence. Hebrews does not. There is no unequivocal
belief or statement that Paul actually was blind.
> Then there is also the possibility that St Paul purposely wrote
> different to hide his identity from the Jews to whom he was writing
> the letter.
>
> Overall, on this one, i'll stick with the majority opinion,
Outside the Catholic Church, at least, it has been widely recognised that
Paul could not be the author.
Patrick Dunford
newsgroup nz.soc.religion on Tue, 28 May 2002 15:05:24 +0100,
Changeling(ulti...@spamtrap.com) said...
>
> "Moira de Swardt" <moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote in message
> news:3cf34242$0$18...@hades.is.co.za...
> >
> > Changeling <ulti...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > "22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the
> > Lord.
> > > 23 For the husband is the HEAD [Strong's Supreme: Chief : Master
> > :Lord] of
> > > the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the
> > saviour of
> > > the body.
> > > 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the
> > wives be to
> > > their own husbands in every thing."
> > > Eph 5:22-24 (KJV)
> > > One down, two to go.
> >
> > Except that this is interpreted to mean that women must be subject
> > to men to whom they are not married. Please note that I am not
> > married to anyone. I am an independent woman who has no male
> > relatives whatsoever, no living father no living uncles no living
> > grandfather. In what way does the Bible suggest that the church has
> > a right to be patriarchal and sexist in my case.
>
> "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the
> HEAD of the woman [Strong's Chief: Prominent : Supreme ] is the man; and
> the head of Christ is God". 1 Cor 11:3 (KJV)
>
> Women also are forbidden to speak in the assembles of the saints, by the
> Lord's absolute command, showing a Divine sexist orientation. Women being
> from the start the "Weaker vessel" both spiritually and physically .
Actually the meaning of those verses is widely disputed even among the
most learned of Bible scholars. After all you can find examples elsewhere
in the New Testament of women teaching, and in the Old Testament of women
leading Israel, prophesying and doing all sorts of things.
> ".33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the
> congregations of the saints,
> 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to
> speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
> 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own
> husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
> 36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has
> reached?
> 37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him
> acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's COMMAND."
> 1 Cor 14:33-37 (NIV)
>
> No defence or excuse for any women whether married or not.
> The Lord's commandment cannot be countermanded or ignored by his faithful
> followers.