I'm not playing. I'm pointing out some glaring errors on your part.
Tom Send a noteboard - 13/05/2011 07:25:08 PM
First, I did address the "facts" that you claim I "missed", and I further provided textual evidence to continue to refute your vague and misguided claims.
With respect to translation, I did not make up any rules of translation. The Bible speaks for itself and is clear, and the consensus of translators is with me. In fact, I'm not aware of any translation of the Bible that substantively changes the words either of Leviticus 18:22 or of Romans 1:27 (aside from some potential radical "reworkings" of the Bible that no one would recognize as being the same book if they read it).
Your problem has been and continues to be that you misquote (and misspell) the Scripture upon which you have professed to base your life, and as a result of this you make completely unfounded and unsubstantiated claims so that you can retain a sense of moral superiority and a delusion that your Church has not adapted to the times or essentially cast aside portions of the Bible as not applicable.
I have repeatedly said that I don't have a problem with either approach (i.e., adapting to the times or casting aside Bible passages as irrelevant). My problem is with the gross hypocrisy of your own position, and your repeated failure to distinguish how what you say is not hypocritical. You have at no point addressed the key and fundamental question that both I and others have asked, which is namely this: because the Bible regards homosexual sex between men as a sin (and the facts are completely unambiguous on this point; the text of the Bible is quite clear), how can an openly homosexual man serve as a minister without violating the key principles of salvation and redemption, namely, that the sinner must try not to sin? How is your homosexual minister different from an adulterer who openly keeps a mistress and continues to live with her, while remaining married?
The issue has nothing to do with textual contradictions in the Bible, either. There is no conflicting passage that says "a man who lies with another man is blessed in the eyes of the Lord". There is also no conflicting passage that says "the sinner is saved even if he continues to sin without repentance". If there were, your Church could hang its hat on that point and choose to follow one or the other of the injunctions as the "proper course".
Of course, if you will admit that the Bible is a flawed document and you're willing to disregard Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:27, then you don't have a problem. You resist this, however, and therefore you continue in a hypocritical position.
With respect to translation, I did not make up any rules of translation. The Bible speaks for itself and is clear, and the consensus of translators is with me. In fact, I'm not aware of any translation of the Bible that substantively changes the words either of Leviticus 18:22 or of Romans 1:27 (aside from some potential radical "reworkings" of the Bible that no one would recognize as being the same book if they read it).
Your problem has been and continues to be that you misquote (and misspell) the Scripture upon which you have professed to base your life, and as a result of this you make completely unfounded and unsubstantiated claims so that you can retain a sense of moral superiority and a delusion that your Church has not adapted to the times or essentially cast aside portions of the Bible as not applicable.
I have repeatedly said that I don't have a problem with either approach (i.e., adapting to the times or casting aside Bible passages as irrelevant). My problem is with the gross hypocrisy of your own position, and your repeated failure to distinguish how what you say is not hypocritical. You have at no point addressed the key and fundamental question that both I and others have asked, which is namely this: because the Bible regards homosexual sex between men as a sin (and the facts are completely unambiguous on this point; the text of the Bible is quite clear), how can an openly homosexual man serve as a minister without violating the key principles of salvation and redemption, namely, that the sinner must try not to sin? How is your homosexual minister different from an adulterer who openly keeps a mistress and continues to live with her, while remaining married?
The issue has nothing to do with textual contradictions in the Bible, either. There is no conflicting passage that says "a man who lies with another man is blessed in the eyes of the Lord". There is also no conflicting passage that says "the sinner is saved even if he continues to sin without repentance". If there were, your Church could hang its hat on that point and choose to follow one or the other of the injunctions as the "proper course".
Of course, if you will admit that the Bible is a flawed document and you're willing to disregard Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:27, then you don't have a problem. You resist this, however, and therefore you continue in a hypocritical position.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
This message last edited by Tom on 13/05/2011 at 07:30:46 PM
Presbyterian Church (USA) passes Amendment 10-A.
11/05/2011 05:39:29 PM
- 1286 Views
What's the language? Did they at least TRY to give a doctrinal justification?
12/05/2011 02:10:46 AM
- 792 Views
Thank you for that rousing argument against married priests.
12/05/2011 03:36:51 AM
- 780 Views
Why ARE you letting women into the priesthood?
12/05/2011 04:16:50 AM
- 724 Views
Because Episcopalians don't listen to the Bible much.
12/05/2011 05:47:03 AM
- 674 Views
That's just fine as far as I'm concerned
12/05/2011 02:23:44 PM
- 675 Views
Yes, I suppose a church could go that route.
14/05/2011 07:38:02 AM
- 648 Views
I'm not attempting to impose a dichotomy on the Bible.
14/05/2011 03:25:30 PM
- 704 Views
I don't even know what following the Bible in its entirety means.
14/05/2011 09:09:10 PM
- 874 Views
As an exercise, I tried to think of how I would justify allowing homosexuals as clergy.
14/05/2011 04:19:43 PM
- 680 Views
Thanks (I'm actually OK with women priests though).
12/05/2011 07:09:11 AM
- 744 Views
There's ample precedent for female religious leaders, even within the bible.
12/05/2011 06:51:05 AM
- 776 Views
Since when is Moses' society the be-all end all?
12/05/2011 07:12:41 PM
- 652 Views
Since never, which is why I referenced five other eras you completely ignored.
14/05/2011 01:11:30 AM
- 760 Views
They did so, via negativa.
12/05/2011 04:22:17 PM
- 819 Views
Sorry for the delay, particularly since it looks like I'll be spending a fair amount of time here.
14/05/2011 12:31:33 AM
- 620 Views
Your church has a constitution?!
12/05/2011 03:36:41 AM
- 672 Views
My Church has a congress! *NM*
12/05/2011 03:37:52 AM
- 349 Views
Haha no way! *NM*
12/05/2011 03:46:32 AM
- 299 Views
Well, we have one group of laity and one of bishops, so it is only mildy utter chaos. *NM*
12/05/2011 05:51:09 AM
- 323 Views
I'm happy to hear this, personally. I also wonder how you reconcile this with the Bible.
12/05/2011 04:11:31 AM
- 860 Views
Every direct reference to homosexuality in the Bible is a reference to rape.
12/05/2011 04:12:43 PM
- 697 Views
Every single word that you wrote in your response is complete bullshit.
12/05/2011 05:50:07 PM
- 806 Views
Knock off your eisegesis, try some exegesis
12/05/2011 07:02:45 PM
- 751 Views
I'm trying to figure out just what your "gifts" are, because I don't see any.
12/05/2011 07:30:39 PM
- 715 Views
There are cases in which hypocrisy is far better than the alternatives.
12/05/2011 10:04:32 PM
- 790 Views
Hypocrisy is better than, say, setting gays on fire, yes.
12/05/2011 10:10:40 PM
- 755 Views
My statement is that, from a pragmatic point of view, hypocrisy shouldn't be discouraged too much.
13/05/2011 10:05:39 PM
- 752 Views
Oh, is that how we're playing this, then?
13/05/2011 06:29:31 PM
- 705 Views
I'm not playing. I'm pointing out some glaring errors on your part.
13/05/2011 07:25:08 PM
- 637 Views
The Bible says what it says. The problem... people like to tell us just what else it's saying.
13/05/2011 05:31:29 PM
- 656 Views
You don't reconcile... you pick the parts you like and adjust the rest to suit you.
13/05/2011 09:33:54 PM
- 617 Views
Another example...
12/05/2011 09:19:52 AM
- 612 Views
If you claim to follow the entire Bible, then you are completely correct.
12/05/2011 06:04:38 PM
- 590 Views
On the contrary, this move will take some butts out of the seats.
12/05/2011 07:16:22 PM
- 651 Views
We both know that isn't the case
12/05/2011 07:55:41 PM
- 757 Views
Cool cool. I have a question on a semi-related note, about Protestant Gospels
12/05/2011 05:33:49 PM
- 715 Views
No Protestant denomination has added so much as a word to the Bible
12/05/2011 05:58:16 PM
- 590 Views
So, everyone hates Judith, then?
12/05/2011 06:40:11 PM
- 658 Views
The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches accept Judith as part of Scripture.
12/05/2011 07:51:27 PM
- 630 Views
Does the Eastern Orthodox Church also segregate deuterocanonical works like Roman Catholicism does?
14/05/2011 02:19:03 AM
- 934 Views
The Eastern Church bases everything on the Septuagint.
14/05/2011 02:34:41 AM
- 683 Views
That sounds appealing, and makes sense.
14/05/2011 02:44:56 AM
- 701 Views
Oh, I just enjoy calling Protestants "heretics" to remind them not everyone agrees with them.
14/05/2011 03:25:42 AM
- 640 Views
Re: Cool cool. I have a question on a semi-related note, about Protestant Gospels
12/05/2011 08:52:48 PM
- 662 Views
The NIV is terrible. The NASB has the best translation I have found (of the NT, at least).
12/05/2011 10:43:58 PM
- 801 Views
I find this really weird, to be honest
13/05/2011 05:48:28 AM
- 672 Views
Well, it wasn't just Athanasius. But yes, we are lucky in that respect. *NM*
13/05/2011 06:32:48 AM
- 285 Views
Athanasius's list reflected the victory of Pauline Christianity
13/05/2011 02:52:53 PM
- 627 Views
There's a school of thought that says that's a strong vindication of Athanasius.
14/05/2011 02:37:49 AM
- 572 Views