Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.

[AlAyeti]

Does allowing for diversity include parents having no voice in what their children are forced to be taught and have to accept?

Do Christians and the many other cultures and belief systems opposed to homosexuality have the right to have their culture and religious views respected in society when it comes to decent and natural sexual behavior in the education system and in public?

Are homosexuals demanding accesss to children under the label of diversity and anti-hate legislation?

This seems the number one issue between average and normal "family" people and the homosexual agenda.

Can there be laws passed that keeps homosexuality from becoming forced on children and families that oppose it, without the homosexual community and homosexual action organizations crying discrimination?

Is there such a thing anymore as heterosexual rights?

[1John2_26]

Perhaps 1_John,

you could respond to the scripture without your pederastic propaganda? Your eisegesis in this matter is obvious and completely mistaken.

Kiwimac

Pederasty has a long and detailed history and I use the connection well. Eisegesis is at the heart of liberal heresy. You sir cannot mangle (with your apologetics) the New Testament to foist this abomination of subjugation of this sexual perversion being in leadership in the Churches or onto beautiful Christians that have left a life of debauchery to walk with Christ Jesus.

If "we" are Christians then our discussion is one that has been two-thousand years waged.

From you sir:

You can call it revisionism as much as you like ER, but the truth of the matter is that you are reading back into an ancient document modern concerns that were not even concepts then.

And the Anglican Church is grasping heresy and forcing modern views to "change" the Christian life. Yes we can call heresy "revisionism."

Homosexuality certainly existed then but that is NOT what the levitical texts are speaking about.

The behavior and lifestyle most certainly is argued against from Genesis to Revelation. Immorality has not changed. Demanding that God submit to man has not changed and is still grave sin.

They are speaking about temple prostiitution and pederasty.

"Homosexuality" used to be called "pederasty" before the term: "homosexual" was applied "to them." I have posted this proof many, many times. The connection is immutable. The rational concern of good parents to having unrepantant people leading and existing in the Church has never been removed from orthodoxy. It has been "revised" in the liberal Churches.

To insist that the ONLY thing they can POSSIBLY mean is homosexuality is to insist that only the 19th and 20th C translations and understandings of those passages have validity.

Paul described modern-day gays and lesbians awfully accurately. He also describes the homosexuals that left that lifestyle when they became Christians.

I'd like to see your theology on that?

God can indeed change individuals but Gay folk do not need changing they are not wrong in and of themselves.

What country do "Gay Folk" originate from? Where do the acquire a cultural classification? It is a sexual behavior pure and simple.

In addition so-called "reparative therapy" does not work when people have been through the courses they still imagine / fantisise about Gay sex, they may marry a woman and make both her and themselves thoroughly miserable but in their hearts they are and they remain Gay.

Bogus theology. Why then did Jesus have to mock the Pharisees about sexual "thoughts?"

Christianity literally is reparative therapy. "Salvation comes from no other Name given to men by which they can be saved.

I don't care what Rowan Williams says or believes. Heretics have come and they will come again. Wolves in sheeps clothing means false Christians. Obviously it does not mena the "unsaved." There are Christians and there are "non" Christians. Some do by "nature" what is right!!!! Ask Christ or Paul.

Every married man has the same fight to fight. In fact every man. And seeing what is happening in our public schools, woman (girls) have jsut a hard a time. "Leaving the sin nature." Believe it or not, gays and lesbians CAN be sinners.

Revisionism by permissive liberal theologians did not wipe away the Bible entirely. It cannot. It may be embraced by those falling away from the faith but God's Church will be fine.

As a Priest my job is to proclaim the kingdom of God, it is not to make the path to the kingdom a minefield of human-made rules and regulations folk must adhere to BEFORE they can become part of the kingdom.

You must repent "before" you are a "convert." Do I have that wrong? You also must confess your "sins" one to another. Do I have that correct also? Or, am I just to be labeled a homophobe, or hateful as Paul, Peter, Jude, John, James and others are that "want people to change."

Your "job" as "a Priiest" is to do the mechanical trappings of your religion. You sir, are not an Evangelist, a Prophet or, are called to alter the message as a new world theologian. When you step out of "your role" and start to preach a different Gospl, then sir, you must be dealt with by exegesis as well as eisegesis. Apologia is demanded one to another as Christians tying to foist a different Gospel on the people of Christ Jesus.

You have not one shred of Biblical support for propping up homosexual behavior as anything acceptable for the people of God to approve, license and celebrate. This "thing" being embraced by the Anglican Community is not just perverse it is Anti-Christ, as it also supports the lost and the repropbates of the world that are terrorizing beautiful Christians in Western society.

Do you think that Anglicans should not be disapproved of that are changing the Gospel and all of Christian theology?

Jesus said that the 'prostitutes and sinners' would enter heaven before those who considered themselves Godly. Please note he did NOT say the 'former prostitutes and sinners.'

Really? "Go and sin no more," means what" Even to a revisionist that is pretty hard to alter. "Sinning" while a Christian is always going to be part of the condition, but celebrating sinning is not pert of the Christian parardigm.

It is clear that what the liberal Anglicans have done is to offer up a "different Gospel." The apostacy mentioned by Christ Jesus and the writers of the New Testament letters is upon us for all to see.

Jesus is also the name Joshua. Two different "men" with the same message for the followers of God!

Joshua calls to us from the the Tanakh: "Choose this day whom you will serve?

Kiwimac
Priest & Theologian

There are lots of Priests and Theologians. In your revisionist liberalizing of anything Biblical Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses, Muslims and Warlocks are all "Christians."

From your Anglican leadership:

The Jesus who "died for our sins" has simply got to go in our post-Darwinian world. Christianity must move beyond a rescuing Jesus, who overcame a fall that never happened, even metaphorically, to restore human life to a status it has never had, even mythologically. Williams' task is nothing less than to articulate a new Christianity for a new world.

Like I wrote, John Spong has had a great and negative influence over the Anglican Community. Even Christ Jesus must endure attack.

Christ Jesus is not myth; no matter the incessant skeptic rants or liberal theologians who join them in diluting the Truth. And neither is heresy and heretics. They are as real as the Jesus Seminarians. Rowan Williams may be a leader for this new Jesus (nothing really new here) and the Anglican altering of their savior; but not the Son of the Living God.

Jesus said ("if" you believe that Jesus existed the way that Peter did. . .), that Sodom and Gomorrah would have "repented" if they had heard the Gospel.

Repented.

You want others to change their views based on some kind of new theology. So you do recognize the nature of "having to change."

There is still hope that those that preach "a different Gospel" will return to the real one.

[melikio]

The biblical "doctrines" of this can/will be argued for all time.
At this point, I'm NOT interested in that; many are using that as a massive smoke-screen, while others are simply being disoriented by it.

There are some basic characteristics of religion, that many thinking laymen and various skeptics realize. One of those characteristics is that many individuals and/or groups have been capable of and/or willing to SHAPE biblical and religious data (spin, as it were) to fit whatever agenda of their choice. There is nothing new or shocking about that; it DOES happen and it is certainly happening around this issue. To me, the issue is basically one of basic human rights/freedoms.

Here are some questions which I believe will address most of the issue:

1. How exactly should homosexual people be treated by "Christians"?

2. What right/s (if any, in the minds of most) do homosexual PEOPLE have to defend themselves from much of the "religion" that others would impose upon them?

You see, in America those are real and valid questions (and they should be for ALL of mankind; they don't just stop at "homosexuality". And it's about more than human "sexuality" as it relates to the interpretation of "Christianity" or the "Bible". The Bible (for those who adhere to the entire book), must harmonize everything to that book, but not everyone in this world is going to find that to be the right or best option for them.

And the problem really isn't the "options"; they have always been there for makind to select. The real problem stems from those who think/believe they actually have the authority and autonomy to select those options for others AND God Himself. Homosexual orientation may not be a choice overall, but that which one COMMITS TO from the "Bible" is most certainly a choice; not something applied to "sinners" via fear and compulsion (as far too many Christians and other religious people think it should be).

So, I have little doubt that there will always be a "biblical" level of discussion about homosexuality, but in the meantime homosexual people (and others) ARE concerned about justice, human rights and liberties... people aren't going to wait around for a "perfected" biblical-consensus as it relates to this issue (it will likely never come anyway), as illustrated by the course of the many threads I've seen on the subject.

What is needed pragmatically, is the kind of "compromise" (a bad word for the closed-minded bigots out here) that leads to the peaceful coexistence of people who are different and possess differing views. I'm not saying the morality or immoratlity of something cannot be discussed or debated, merely saying that the imposition of limitations or abuse such as that which most homosexual people endure today, needs to be addressed as well.

I'm not one for blanket statements condemning religion (to each, his own), but as things are for homosexual PEOPLE, they have real concerns that so many Christians (and other religious people) don't seem to address and likely don't intend to willfully address; this is pretty obvious.

I contend that one PRACTICAL answer, would be to pursue reasonable limits upon sexual behavior (no crimes, no victims), along with protecting the HUMAN rights of homosexual people in general. By reasonable limits, I mean that no one is defined exclusively by interpreted or perceived biblical "standards", but by the direct effects of their actual "behavior" toward others. And we already have laws which define that well enough. In short, I believe in the right of people to be "Christian" (or whatever else), but this "witch-hunting" centered upon homosexuals and homosexuality really needs to scaled down to something reasonable and practical.

As long as Christianity and/or other religious beliefs maintain the notion that is "acceptable" to dehumanize a person merely because they happen to be "homosexual", then they will be challenged in a way that only God might truly "overcome" (IF that were actually the will of a Creator). As it is, some people WANT you to believe they actually speak the will of God, FOR God Himself. Right here, right now... it needs to be UNDERSTOOD, that anyone should be absolutely SKEPTICAL of people who claim such. So many, have claimed that the Bible is what grants them the verifiable credibility they believe they have, and as it relates to personal FAITH and dedication that may be true; but that doesn't give them the right or autonomy to absolutely define and impose unfair and select limits or morality upon all other human beings.

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

Melikio,

First off . . . it is not Christians who try to justify same-gender sex acts with animal behaviors to justitfy "it."

Remember that. It is clear that the "dehumanizing" of people would be comparing "them" to animals. Please "judge" correctly. For: In the same way you judge others, you will be judged.

The biblical "doctrines" of this can/will be argued for all time.

Not according to Biblical doctrines within the Bible.

At this point, I'm NOT interested in that; many are using that as a massive smoke-screen, while others are simply being disoriented by it.

Being dis oriented. How appropriate. It is clear that the new theologians fostering this liberalism are the dis orientors.

Some basic facts, that many laymen realize remain.

Is that "scholars" are sometimes agendaizers and clergy are anything but trustworthy.

One of those facts is that many individuals and groups have been capable of and willing to SHAPE biblical data to fit whatever agenda of their choice. There is nothing new or shocking about that.

How wrong can your position be???????????

Heresy keeps people on the highway to hell.

Here are some questions which I believe will address most of the issue:

1. How exactly should homosexual people be treated by "Christians".

There are no such thing as "homosexual people." Just people needing salvation through the Gospel. "Homosexual people" are no different than any other "kind" of people. Christians are Christians by choice behavior every bit as much as people that practice homosexuality.

2. What right/s (if any, in the minds of most) do homosexual PEOPLE have to defend themselves from much of the "religion" that others would impose upon them?

Why not start their own religions? Why the need to subjugate Christians?

You see, in America those are real and valid questions (and they should be for ALL of mankind; they don't just stop at "homosexuality".

Homosexuality is nothing more than a physical act. No different than adultery.

And it's about more than human "sexuality" as it relates to the interpretation of "Christianity" or the "Bible".

True, only when it is presented in heretical theology.

The Bible (for those who adhere to the entire book),

Ahhhhh, the all-powerful "caveat."

. . . must harmonize everything to that book, but not everyone in this world is going to find that to be the right or best option for them.

"The Family" IS harmonized within the pages of the Bible. The nature of God and God's relationship with man is one of family.

And the problem really isn't the "options"; they have always been there for makind to select. The real problem stems from those who think/believe they actually have the authority and autonomy to select those options for others AND God Himself.

Liberal theologinans literally command God and the Church change or die.

Spong wrote a book with that exact premise.

Homosexual orientation may not be a choice overall, but that which one COMMITS TO from the "Bible" is most certainly a choice; not something applied to "sinners" via fear and compulsion (as far too many Christians and other religious people think it should be).

I was "born" to rob banks. It doesn't really hurt anyone as the insurance company will replace the money I took from an inanimate building.

Homosexuals were not born with an excuse to reclassify homosexuality as "not" a sin. Biblically speaking. Non- and anti-Christians can "choose" whatever they want to.

THIS THREAD is about homosexuals forcing their finite views on every person in society, by force and by law. The Bible is not going to be homosexualized ecen by the Anglican Community. Remember the guy they ordained is also an adulterer that left his wife and family to embrace his same-sex union. He cannot be a leader in a Christian Church without repentance and certainly should not a teacher.

Let us not forget facts. The Gay Agenda is what is real as well.

So, I have little doubt that there will always be a "biblical" level of discussion about homosexuality, but in the meantime homosexual people ARE concerned about their human rights and liberties... people aren't going to wait around for the "perfected" biblical-consensus for this issue (it will likely never come. And what is needed pragmatically, is the kind of compromise that leads to the peaceful coexistence of people who are different and possess differing views.

Proof of the Gay Agenda.

I'm not one for blanket statements condemning religion (to each, his own), but as things are for homosexual PEOPLE, they have real concerns that so many Christians (and other religious people) don't seem to address and likely don't intend to willfully address; this is pretty obvious.

So they will be forced to homosexualize their Churches, schools and homes or else what?

I contend that one PRACTICAL answer, would be to pursue reasonable limits upon sexual behavior (no crimes, no victims), along with protecting the HUMAN rights of homosexual people in general.

No decent parent is going to allow the homosexualization of the public schools for long. Homosexuals better understand they and their "civil rights" will be tolerated and nothing more. Forcing gay sex on families has never and will never be tolerated.

Swift and the Gay Agenda have not learned their lesson from history well at all. Even the Romans expelled the hedonists and the sexual miscraents in due time.

By reasonable limits, I mean that no one is defined exclusively by interpreted or perceived biblical "standards", but by the direct effects of their actual "behavior" toward others.

"By reasonable limits?" That is creepy. That is why the Anglican Community is shattering at "its core."

And we already have laws which define that well enough.

Yes. According to the First Amendment no one can silince the Churches. Not even the all-powerful hate crime legislation! Sensible people know Christians are better for d=society than promiscuous hedonists. So did the Romans.

In short, I believe in the right of people to be "Christian" (or whatever else), but this "witch-hunting" centered upon homosexuals and homosexuality really needs to scaled down to something reasonable and practical.

It is homosexuals attacking the populace and it is they (the Gay Agenda) who are intolerant of marriage and morality.

A litle truth and proper perspective was needed I thought.

As long as Christianity and/or other religious beliefs maintain the notion that is "acceptable" to dehumanize a person merely because they happen to be "homosexual", then they will be challenged in a way that only God might truly "overcome" (IF that were actually the will of a Creator).

Jesus IS the Creator (to Christians). He detailed in no uncertain terms that marriage is a man and a woman and at the same time never offered any other interpretation. The New Testament bears this out from Acts to Revelation.

Secular history has the same disapproval of same-gender marriage and sexual acts.

As it is, some people WANT you to believe they actually speak the will of God, FOR God Himself.

Yes soem theologians demand to be able to "change" the word of God and it seems clearly The Word of God.

Right here, right now... it needs to be UNDERSTOOD, that anyone should be absolutely SKEPTICAL of people who claim such.

"TEST ALL THINGS" is a direct reference to heresy and heretics. The New Testament is literally a treatise about heresy.

So many, have claimed that the Bible is what grants them the verifiable credibility they believe they have, and as it relates to personal FAITH and dedication that may be true; but that doesn't give them the right or autonomy to absolutely define or impose limits or morality upon all other human beings.

Where do people that desire homosexual sex have the right to demand that all of society and indeed civilization itself be forced to change for their personal sexual deviance and sexual desires to be proclaimed as loudly as normality?

There is absolutely no way that that can be done in the Christian paradigm, and it has been tried and rejected several times in history in Greece and Roman civilizations. Why do people that practice abnormal sexual acts rise up in societies to demand their personal sexual behavior be recognized as a cultural identifier?

This is NOT just a Christian matter. Why is it in any way wrong to dissent from sexual hedonists to desire to elevate their personal behaviors be celebrated by others that find sexual debauchery as repugnant, or at best something that should be a private matter?

This was debated in Greece and Rome and rejected by a populace and societies that were not Bible-based.

Seems "history" has not changed so much as NOT to repeat itself.

[melikio]

1John,

However it turns out to be where all discussions are concerned, there are still practical concerns and actions to attend.

Those who are homosexual aren't necessarily radicals (the type you tend to focus upon), they are normal everyday people who exist in numbers large enough to make a difference in this world.

You can cotinue to "imagine" that every person who doesn't think YOUR way is out to rob cradles, pervert children and crush Christianity etc., but that is primarily upon you. Others have to live a resonable life, they can't all follow in your footsteps (no matter how strongly you think/believe that should happen).

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

Easyrider wrote:
Nothing's changed.

There's an argument to be made against legitimising gay ordination and/or marriage. Sadly, that isn't it, unless you're willing to say the same thing in Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine.

When men can give birth by being fertilized by other men and women can get pregnant by other women . . . Nothings changed; or going to change. Even evolution is never going to move in "that" direction.

The Bible is both sacred Scripture and a product of its times and the people who were inspired by God to write it. Would homosexuality have been shocking and reprehensible to the ancient Hebrews? Of course. Does this mean automatically that we should have the same attitudes?

Only when the physical anatomy of maels and females change to offer sensiblity to same-gender couplings.

We live in a different society in a different era, with different moral and epistemological mores and speaking different languages. And 'nothing's changed?'

Science has been more than "modernized" to show us what "God" had "in plan" for sexuality.

Sorry, I'm just not buying that one. If you're going to oppose homosexuality in the church, do it for the right reasons, at least.

Amen. Because it is the "right" thing to do. According to Christ Jesus and Paul and the New Testament.

Easyrider wrote:
We try, but you guys keep trying to legitimize gay sex relationships and actively gay priests in our churches, so you will have to live with the adversarial situation you create.


Who is 'we' and who is 'you guys' who are 'trying to legitimize [sic] gay sex relationships and actively gay priests in our churches'?

Secularists, liberals, liberal-theologians, socialists, atheists, agnostics, skeptics, "universalists," freethinkers, Democrats, American communists, etc., etc., etc., et al. "You guys" in "that" homogenized club.

I'm a moderate-to-liberal Episcopalian, and our congregations are threatening to split over this very issue, a scourge which up until now has left our Church untouched regardless of the variety of Catholic-influenced and Protestant-influenced beliefs and practises, so I am well familiar with this 'adversarial situation'.

Truth and lies have a hard time walking together for very long.

Episcopalian priests and theologians are not pushing for gay priests to be ordained in any other denomination, nor is there any external pressure to our Church that appears to be affecting this change in policy. (The Catholic Church tried, but to little effect.)

Leadership should be "orthodox" at least.

Generally, it was not the congregation but the clergy that pushed for the ordination of Bishop Robinson.

The religious leaders became corrupted? Where have we heard that before? No wonder the Gospel has to go.

This, I will admit with concern, was a radical departure from the Church tradition and still needs to be addressed with great caution and debated with much thought and prayer.

Sounds like the tied up victim of the sexual predator is being held captive until even that abomination is revised to be contemplated as nothing more than a birth condition. The perpatrator and victim may be "born that way" to play their respective roles. Why not? If homosexualty is not indecent behavior for even the priesthood . . . than nothing is sacred. Literally.

I'm still not sure whether to endorse Bishop Robinson's election.

Is this the guy that left his wife and children? "if so" it is NOT a good place to find Christian leadership.

However, the man (it must be admitted) was in every other way competent and vigilant in his ministry at the time of his election to the episcopate.

If he destroys decency and morality and embraces a position to encourage children to seek his choices as acceptable you have no Gospel support for this man to be in a position of influence.

Coming from a tradition which is sorely affected by this 'adversarial situation', I implore you not to paint the issue as a black-and-white, us-versus-them situation.

Why embrace a lie? That is the issue. Why not seek truth in truth?

There are many devout, conscientious Episcopalians who were willing to accept the election of Bishop Robinson after much reflection and prayer who have the backing of the Scriptures and their own reason behind their stance.

That people within the "Church" will follow doctrines of demons is proclaimed in the pages of the New Testament. They will gather to themselves teachers to tell them what they want to hear!!!!!!!!

Those scriptures do not alarm the people of Christ Jesus? Many. many. Liberal Theologians literally exist in the definition of apostasy now.

That makes it an "us versus them" environment.

"Contend for the faith" isn't exactly a fluffy "live and let live" declaration. Liberal theology, like liberal politics and socialism has gone too far.

[micatala]

Heresy keeps people on the highway to hell.

Just wondering. What passages in the NT indicate that people will go to hell because they don't agree with the existing dominant doctrine. My Bible says that one way to be saved is to 'believe in your heart and confess with your mouth' that Jesus is Lord (paraphrasing).

There are no such thing as "homosexual people."

Homosexuality is nothing more than a physical act. No different than adultery.

A rather astounding claim. There are certainly many people who say they are homosexual. I suppose you would say they are all lying or deluded? This is like saying there are no dyslexic people, only tshoe who resfue to raed leertts and nmubres in teh porepr odrer.

THIS THREAD is about homosexuals forcing their finite views on every person in society, by force and by law.

Then this thread is about something which is essentially non-existent. Your consistent claims to the contrary, you have yet to show there are any real instances of this happening. You have refused to accept that the evidence you have posted to date does not support your extravagent claims.

A litle truth and proper perspective was needed I thought.

It would be good, IMHO, if you would actually supply some once in a while.

You can call it revisionism as much as you like ER, but the truth of the matter is that you are reading back into an ancient document modern concerns that were not even concepts then.

And the Anglican Church is grasping heresy and forcing modern views to "change" the Christian life. Yes we can call heresy "revisionism."

I noticed you again failed to address kiwimac's point. You simply dodge the question by making irrelevant repetitions of your previous statements.

I also do not recall seeing any coherent refutation of Grumpy's points on your part.

[melikio]

"Contend for the faith" isn't exactly a fluffy "live and let live" declaration. Liberal theology, like liberal politics and socialism has gone too far.

If you close your mind, and block the door to your heart, it may seem that this is all you need to be "right" (or just plain comfortable).

Reality is so much more than this, period.

-Mel-

[melikio]

There are certainly many people who say they are homosexual. I suppose you would say they are all lying or deluded? This is like saying there are no dyslexic people, only tshoe who resfue to raed leertts and nmubres in teh porepr odrer.

Bravo!

And this also reminded me of the typical difficulty that must certainly exist in the lives of those who are "dyslexic". Eventually, true compassion mitigates or adds understanding to the real problems mankind faces.

Jesus knew there were "homosexual" people all over the place. And what's interesting is that He did NOTHING to prove that he HATED or didn't CARE about them. ALL I have quietly asked (God and human beings around me) for the majority of my life, is that Christians simply not be so MEAN about this; that's about all.

But I now admit that some of that wish has turned into anger (although I believe in focusing that anger properly). I realize that others who claim "righteousness" do sin against homosexual people (although those homosexual people haven't lifted a finger to hurt them). In fact, that is generally the story of my life; I've had to HIDE from a-holes I knew it was BETTER (more right) to not fight back. And not that I couldn't fight or bring some form of retribution, but that I eventually figured out that (as Jesus implied from the Cross): THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING (in the vast majority of cases).

And that is why folks who think like 1John, truly DO NOT WANT people to know several sides of this issue; they want only a certain type of "biblical" view to be promoted in this world. And being raised as a "Christian" myself, I know exactly how comfortably-solid and real that can be.

But ironically, the "socialization" of the biblical views, so that I too was raised on, has somehow caused people to be exceedingly "evil" toward people who just happen to have "homosexual" orientations. And I knew something was completely out of whack about 5 years ago, when I had to ask myself:

WHY DOES GOD HATE WHAT I AM?

I don't regret it now, but that was like a massive earth quake in my faith. And it did subside, after I realized that the HATRED I was sensing, was merely a component of how Jesus' message had been "socialized" over time. I have almost no doubt today, that while dire... it is not so unreasonable for a homosexual person to view almost any professed "Christian" as a "threat" (at least temporarily). Some people eventually PROVE that their LOVE for sinners is MASSIVE; that is, they do prove that they, "Love the sinner and hate the sin."

Most times, a gay person ends up finding out that too many Christians HATE the SINNER and (not only) the sin; it's so frequent to hear or experience that, and relatively few homosexual people are surprized by the reality that certain "Christians" do wish them harm (often without being "consciously" aware that HATING is what they are doing); they have been conditioned to dehumanize and abuse others, in the name of God.

And all of that affects everything people see in homosexuals (from the totally confused super-flamming hedonist, to the highly-conservative closeted gay with an oppositely-gendered mate and family). Basically, the kind of "Christianity" being PUSHED AT homosexuals, encourages a kind of societal neurosis that few will (ever) question, because that's just THE WAY THINGS ARE. Likely anyone can be certain that gay people are likely near and dear to them.

-Mel-

[MagusYanam]

Secularists, liberals, liberal-theologians, socialists, atheists, agnostics, skeptics, "universalists," freethinkers, Democrats, American communists, etc., etc., etc., et al. "You guys" in "that" homogenized club.

I can't tell whether or not you're joking here. For your own sake I hope you are, since the groups you described are far from homogenous. For example, I would describe my own politics as social-democratic and pacifist, but extremely anti-Communist (because communism demands a complete overhaul, usually violent, of the existing systems of law and society, which I find a repugnant policy). Liberal theologians are about as far away from atheism as you can get, just in terms of common philosophical ground.

If that was a joke, try getting some good taste. If that wasn't, try getting some decency and common honesty.

Sounds like the tied up victim of the sexual predator is being held captive until even that abomination is revised to be contemplated as nothing more than a birth condition. The perpatrator and victim may be "born that way" to play their respective roles. Why not? If homosexualty is not indecent behavior for even the priesthood . . . than nothing is sacred. Literally.

Make that, 'try getting some logic'. I am neither impressed nor amused by your constant appeals to emotion and sensationalism. I stand by my Church, even if I don't agree with everything they do. At least they give actual reasons for why they do what they do, and actually endeavour to follow the path of Christ Jesus.

Also, the more I read the Gospel, the more I realise that Jesus had no respect for political distinctions or ideologies. He did what was best for the people to whom he ministered, and gave his life on the cross. Not for the Zealots, not for Israel, not even for the faithful. For all mankind.

Is this the guy that left his wife and children? "if so" it is NOT a good place to find Christian leadership.

According to his CV and bio, the Bishop never 'left' his wife in the sense you're thinking. He divorced her, legally, and they remain in touch as good friends. This happens also among heterosexual couples. Sorry, but when all was said and done in the call process, all the ad hominems just didn't cut it. Deal.

If he destroys decency and morality and embraces a position to encourage children to seek his choices as acceptable you have no Gospel support for this man to be in a position of influence.

And yet, in every way aside from his sexuality, his electors found no fault with his decency or his morality. And I demand proof that Bishop Robinson 'embraces a position to encourange children to seek his choices'. Otherwise, I'm going to chalk it up to your general irrational bigotry against my Church.

They will gather to themselves teachers to tell them what they want to hear!!!!!!!! [sic]

And yet, Bishop Robinson's appointment was one of the most controversial steps the Episcopal Church has taken in our history. I sure don't like that, so I'm sure it's not the 'teachers' telling us 'what we want to hear'.

"Contend for the faith" isn't exactly a fluffy "live and let live" declaration. Liberal theology, like liberal politics and socialism has gone too far.

No, contending for the faith is something to be done with some measure of gravitas. It's why I seek the best reasons to believe, and it's why I'll defend those beliefs to the utmost of my ability. Scripture, tradition and reason led faithful historical Christians to embrace and spread the Social Gospel and a liberal, inclusivist theology. It is this Christian tradition that I embrace and this Christian tradition for which I contend, against all who would embrace fundamentalist sectarianism and condemn the Christian religion into chaos and violence.

Here I stand; I can do no other.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Secularists, liberals, liberal-theologians, socialists, atheists, agnostics, skeptics, "universalists," freethinkers, Democrats, American communists, etc., etc., etc., et al. "You guys" in "that" homogenized club.


I can't tell whether or not you're joking here. For your own sake I hope you are, since the groups you described are far from homogenous.

They seem very homogenized to me. Especially the "Jesus" is a myth" stand they take. There is no difference between the socialism that sprouts from a liberal secularist and what commonusim really is. Do you think a rancher should own twenty thousand acres or that a man or woman should be worth 100-million dollars? I think it is great that a rancher owns his own land and that a person has the ability to amass as much wealth as they can.

For example, I would describe my own politics as social-democratic and pacifist, but extremely anti-Communist (because communism demands a complete overhaul, usually violent, of the existing systems of law and society which I find repugnant).

The existing systems of law and society "you find repugnant" real people fought and died for you to denigrate. Pacifists are no good to suffering people. The pacifists we see in America are leftist-lemmings in every sense of the word. Now that it appears that America soldiers have killed innocent Iraqi's the anti-American liberals are "literally" screaming bloody murder. These same "pacifists" drank their flavored-coffees ate Starbucks while Saddam slaughterd tens of thousands of innocent men woman and children. These same pacifists care nothing for the millions slaughtered by Muslims worldwide in just the last decade. "Social Democrat?" Taking money from those that make it, to pay for the drug habits and illegitmate children of people that will not alter their own morality or behavior to contribute positively to society, is not social progress. It is enslavment. BUT, that is for another thread.

Liberal theologians are about as far away from atheism as you can get, just in terms of common philosophical ground.

When Anglicans proclaim that Jesus is a myth how are they not atheists? Or, parroting them? What is the difference of a liberal like Spong and Neitzsche? Zip.

If that was a joke, try getting some good taste.

What an ironic sentence that is. Good taste is fighting for the rights of peoples all over the earth to have freedom, not just for same-gender couples to wed. A fighting terrorists does not happen by marching alongside the World Workers Party in Boston or Frisco.

If that wasn't, try getting some decency and common honesty.

I did. I rejected liberal-socialism and its Gospel of permissiveness and licentiousness. I also promote family values that mean families with values. That starts with a mother and a father (male and female that is) dedicated to raising honest and morally sound children. I'll use Billy Graham's preaching over John Spong or Bishop Robinson.

1John2_26 wrote:
Sounds like the tied up victim of the sexual predator is being held captive until even that abomination is revised to be contemplated as nothing more than a birth condition. The perpatrator and victim may be "born that way" to play their respective roles. Why not? If homosexualty is not indecent behavior for even the priesthood . . . than nothing is sacred. Literally.


Make that, 'try getting some logic'.

It is logical to go from the hedonism of the free love (promiscuity) sixties to gay marriage of today.

I am neither impressed nor amused by your constant appeals to emotion and sensationalism.

Umm, I am not Melikio. My facts are well established in every anatomy lesson. My history is accurate as well. My theology is that Jesus is the Son of God, that He "really" existed, was NOT a myth, was crucified, was dead and buried (not eaten by dogs) and was ressurected. That Jesus is God. And that divorce is wrong because the idea of Biblical marriage is a man and a woman. The way "the Creator" planned it "from the beginning.

I stand by my Church, even if I don't agree with everything they do.

Stand by it? Why? It is advised to resist the Devil and he will flee. Are you bringing orthodoxy back to the Anglican leadership?

At least they give actual reasons for why they do what they do, and actually endeavour to follow the path of Christ Jesus.

Same-gender marriage is not part of the Gospel. Probably the reason for revisions.

Also, the more I read the Gospel, the more I realise that Jesus had no respect for political distinctions or ideologies.

Of course. Hedonism and licentiousness are the quest of most political power-mongers.

He did what was best for the people to whom he ministered, and gave his life on the cross.

A myth cannot give His life on the Cross.

Not for the Zealots, not for Israel, not even for the faithful. For all mankind.

Jesus was quoted as saying He in fact came for the lost sheep of Israel. Is that not right?

1John2_26 wrote:
Is this the guy that left his wife and children? "if so" it is NOT a good place to find Christian leadership.

According to his CV and bio, the Bishop never 'left' his wife in the sense you're thinking.

Wow. This is going to be good . . .

He divorced her, legally, and they remain in touch as good friends.

She commited adultery against him? I have read the Gospels and that is the reason given for divorce as OK by Christ Jesus. That somehow got changed in the Anglican Bible?

This happens also among heterosexual couples.

Yes, it is called adultery. It is a reason to disquaify a leader in the Church from being a leader in a Church. At least that is what Paul is "appearing" to convey in his letters.

Sorry, but when all was said and done in the call process, all the ad hominems just didn't cut it. Deal.

Judging a sinner is actually very ad hominem. It also very accpetable when they are unrepentant or preaching heresy. Like divorcing your wife for your same gender lover.

1John2_26 wrote:
If he destroys decency and morality and embraces a position to encourage children to seek his choices as acceptable you have no Gospel support for this man to be in a position of influence.


And yet, in every way aside from his sexuality, his electors found no fault with his decency or his morality.

That says as much about the Anglican Church as it does about a pastor that would divorce his wife for a lover.

And I demand proof that Bishop Robinson 'embraces a position to encourange children to seek his choices'.

WHAT OTHER MESSAGE IS THERE?

Otherwise, I'm going to chalk it up to your general irrational bigotry against my Church.

I challange you to find any Biblical support for divorcing your wife and living in a homosexual relationship IS supported anywhere in the Bible. I'll chalk up the impossibilty of your ability to do so to the heretical views of "some" Anglican" leaders.

1John2_26 wrote:
They will gather to themselves teachers to tell them what they want to hear!!!!!!!! [sic]

And yet, Bishop Robinson's appointment was one of the most controversial steps the Episcopal Church has taken in our history.

Evil thrives on controversy. Especially controversy where evil is called good and goodness is called a hate crime.

I sure don't like that, so I'm sure it's not the 'teachers' telling us 'what we want to hear'.

You go along with it. Deal.

1John2_26 wrote:
"Contend for the faith" isn't exactly a fluffy "live and let live" declaration. Liberal theology, like liberal politics and socialism has gone too far.

No, contending for the faith is something to be done with some measure of gravitas.

There is nothing dignified in your Pastor living in open rebellion to God and preaching and teaching others to celebrate it. Nothing.

It's why I seek the best reasons to believe, and it's why I'll defend those beliefs to the utmost of my ability.

David Khoresh had faithful followers too. So did James Jones. So does Joseph Smith "still." In liberal theology anything goes! Mormons are conservative in politics and yet have the audacity to proclaim that not only are they "Christians" but are the restored originals. In liberal theology how is anything wrong? Is it just George Bush and Christians that will not vote for gay marriage?

Scripture, tradition and reason led faithful historical Christians to embrace and spread the Social Gospel and a liberal, inclusivist theology.

Does this "inclusive" theology include anti-Christians? Does it include the "folk" that Jesus told His disciples to reject, shake off the dust on their sandals (not Birkenstocks BTW) and leave them to a negative eteranal judgment? Seems Jesus had limits to inclusivist theology.

It is this Christian tradition that I embrace and this Christian tradition for which I contend, against all who would embrace fundamentalist sectarianism and condemn the Christian religion into chaos and violence.

The Christian religion has been condemned to chaos only in the Churches that preach chaos. Ordaining and celebrating adulterers, "fornicators," heretics, anti-Christians and celebrating same-gender marriage is not only chaos, but heresy and the doctrine of demons. Especially denying Christ Jesus.

Here I stand; I can do no other.

Yes you can. Relativism is for pimps, hedonists, the lascivious licentious, drug dealers and progressive professors with their captive audiences. Not for those set free by the Gospel of life.