Active Users:698 Time:17/01/2026 01:18:34 AM
Sorry for the delay, particularly since it looks like I'll be spending a fair amount of time here. Joel Send a noteboard - 14/05/2011 12:31:33 AM
Most simply, they said that the burden of proof for one specific "sin" being a dis-qualifier for ministry laid on those in favor of exclusion, and the biblical proof simply wasn't there. Personally, I do not think that homosexual sex is any more sinful than any type of sex... look at the sexual sins that have been perpetrated by some heterosexuals, and yet, we don't exclude heterosexuals from ministry.

This was not in a flash in the pan, shot in the dark decision. It has been on the floors of debate for decades, with papers being written and arguments made by both sides. There are reams and reams of material.

Any type of unrepentant ongoing sin ought to be a disqualifier to the priesthood, even if it's just lying to your wife about whether her favorite dress makes her look fat. Heterosexuals guilty of sexual sins have frequently been EJECTED from the priesthood, often even after public confession and repentance, but name two people known to actively engage in unrepentant sin yet nontheless accepted as priests. You're as welcome to your "personal" beliefs as anyone else, of course, but there is MILLENNIA of evidence that the myriad scriptural prohibitions of homosexuality should be taken literally, and it's hard for me to believe that the position the Holy Spirit consistently dictated up until about the time I was born was suddenly altered by the sexual revolution. God didn't change, society did, and while I don't insist on reading every part of the bible literally, in this case there's every reason to think we should against precious few suggesting otherwise. Reams and reams (maybe not the best choice of terms... :whistle: ) of politically conscious (and often self serving) arguments against centuries of other arguments and Church practice don't really carry much weight with me, not when there are so many scriptural prohibitions and no such documentation to the contrary.

Ultimately what it boils down to is that all some change is devolution rather than evolution. The Church could be more inclusive if it made faith in God optional, too, but would it still be the Church if it did, or secular humanism with a cross over the door?
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Presbyterian Church (USA) passes Amendment 10-A. - 11/05/2011 05:39:29 PM 1483 Views
*NM* - 11/05/2011 06:10:26 PM 348 Views
I am happy to see this. *NM* - 11/05/2011 07:22:59 PM 384 Views
Homosexuals must die! - 11/05/2011 08:25:25 PM 1147 Views
I agree! This sort of behavior can NOT be excused!!! - 11/05/2011 10:38:16 PM 794 Views
Yay!!. - 11/05/2011 10:38:51 PM 1059 Views
Glad to hear it. *NM* - 11/05/2011 10:46:39 PM 436 Views
Well done. *NM* - 11/05/2011 11:07:22 PM 384 Views
What's the language? Did they at least TRY to give a doctrinal justification? - 12/05/2011 02:10:46 AM 1059 Views
Thank you for that rousing argument against married priests. - 12/05/2011 03:36:51 AM 978 Views
Why ARE you letting women into the priesthood? - 12/05/2011 04:16:50 AM 905 Views
Because Episcopalians don't listen to the Bible much. - 12/05/2011 05:47:03 AM 847 Views
That's just fine as far as I'm concerned - 12/05/2011 02:23:44 PM 874 Views
Yes, I suppose a church could go that route. - 14/05/2011 07:38:02 AM 819 Views
I'm not attempting to impose a dichotomy on the Bible. - 14/05/2011 03:25:30 PM 893 Views
I don't even know what following the Bible in its entirety means. - 14/05/2011 09:09:10 PM 1056 Views
As an exercise, I tried to think of how I would justify allowing homosexuals as clergy. - 14/05/2011 04:19:43 PM 885 Views
Wow. - 20/05/2011 10:15:21 AM 901 Views
Thanks (I'm actually OK with women priests though). - 12/05/2011 07:09:11 AM 941 Views
It's more a question of interpretational standards. - 12/05/2011 02:29:43 PM 834 Views
Agreed. - 14/05/2011 01:17:45 AM 906 Views
They did so, via negativa. - 12/05/2011 04:22:17 PM 1010 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 819 Views
Your church has a constitution?! - 12/05/2011 03:36:41 AM 887 Views
My Church has a congress! *NM* - 12/05/2011 03:37:52 AM 426 Views
Haha no way! *NM* - 12/05/2011 03:46:32 AM 384 Views
We have a General Assembly and a Moderator. - 12/05/2011 04:18:34 PM 987 Views
I had no idea the US was based on that system. - 12/05/2011 06:22:58 PM 825 Views
It is pretty common practice - 12/05/2011 06:54:02 PM 850 Views
Oh I'm sure it is with newer churches. - 12/05/2011 10:49:11 PM 913 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 1058 Views
Every direct reference to homosexuality in the Bible is a reference to rape. - 12/05/2011 04:12:43 PM 885 Views
Every single word that you wrote in your response is complete bullshit. - 12/05/2011 05:50:07 PM 1022 Views
Knock off your eisegesis, try some exegesis - 12/05/2011 07:02:45 PM 929 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 902 Views
Oh, is that how we're playing this, then? - 13/05/2011 06:29:31 PM 915 Views
Re: Oh, is that how we're playing this, then? - 13/05/2011 07:02:35 PM 893 Views
I'm not playing. I'm pointing out some glaring errors on your part. - 13/05/2011 07:25:08 PM 812 Views
Danny will correct me if I'm wrong, but... - 13/05/2011 09:55:14 PM 1008 Views
Danny persistently refuses to say that - 13/05/2011 10:13:55 PM 941 Views
And with respect to your textual point, once again you're wrong - 12/05/2011 07:44:10 PM 1038 Views
You're a fucking moron. *NM* - 15/05/2011 11:11:08 PM 409 Views
You make a very important but too often overlooked point. - 14/05/2011 01:54:40 AM 1017 Views
??? the bible was harsher on homosexulaity than on rape - 12/05/2011 06:56:43 PM 872 Views
Read Judges. - 12/05/2011 07:17:29 PM 881 Views
Another example... - 12/05/2011 09:19:52 AM 802 Views
That's what people said about churches opposing slavery. - 12/05/2011 04:06:26 PM 863 Views
I rest my case *NM* - 12/05/2011 04:48:32 PM 377 Views
That is a false dichotomy and we both know it. - 14/05/2011 02:07:19 AM 851 Views
If you claim to follow the entire Bible, then you are completely correct. - 12/05/2011 06:04:38 PM 795 Views
On the contrary, this move will take some butts out of the seats. - 12/05/2011 07:16:22 PM 851 Views
We both know that isn't the case - 12/05/2011 07:55:41 PM 960 Views
Whatever your issue is, get over it. - 13/05/2011 06:17:26 PM 813 Views
You'd be a lot more effective... - 13/05/2011 06:45:31 PM 934 Views
You haven't adequately expressed your theology - 13/05/2011 07:28:54 PM 917 Views
Cool cool. I have a question on a semi-related note, about Protestant Gospels - 12/05/2011 05:33:49 PM 919 Views
Since I haven't gotten around to asking yet... - 13/05/2011 07:14:01 PM 830 Views
Re: Since I haven't gotten around to asking yet... - 15/05/2011 03:18:23 PM 1235 Views

Reply to Message