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.
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...
) 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.
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.
Presbyterian Church (USA) passes Amendment 10-A.
- 11/05/2011 05:39:29 PM
1497 Views
What's the language? Did they at least TRY to give a doctrinal justification?
- 12/05/2011 02:10:46 AM
1073 Views
Thank you for that rousing argument against married priests.
- 12/05/2011 03:36:51 AM
996 Views
Why ARE you letting women into the priesthood?
- 12/05/2011 04:16:50 AM
922 Views
Because Episcopalians don't listen to the Bible much.
- 12/05/2011 05:47:03 AM
857 Views
That's just fine as far as I'm concerned
- 12/05/2011 02:23:44 PM
888 Views
Yes, I suppose a church could go that route.
- 14/05/2011 07:38:02 AM
832 Views
I'm not attempting to impose a dichotomy on the Bible.
- 14/05/2011 03:25:30 PM
913 Views
I don't even know what following the Bible in its entirety means.
- 14/05/2011 09:09:10 PM
1075 Views
As an exercise, I tried to think of how I would justify allowing homosexuals as clergy.
- 14/05/2011 04:19:43 PM
904 Views
Thanks (I'm actually OK with women priests though).
- 12/05/2011 07:09:11 AM
960 Views
There's ample precedent for female religious leaders, even within the bible.
- 12/05/2011 06:51:05 AM
1011 Views
Since when is Moses' society the be-all end all?
- 12/05/2011 07:12:41 PM
862 Views
Since never, which is why I referenced five other eras you completely ignored.
- 14/05/2011 01:11:30 AM
968 Views
They did so, via negativa.
- 12/05/2011 04:22:17 PM
1037 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
841 Views
Your church has a constitution?!
- 12/05/2011 03:36:41 AM
903 Views
My Church has a congress!
*NM*
- 12/05/2011 03:37:52 AM
431 Views
*NM*
- 12/05/2011 03:37:52 AM
431 Views
Haha no way! *NM*
- 12/05/2011 03:46:32 AM
392 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
428 Views
*NM*
- 12/05/2011 05:51:09 AM
428 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
1077 Views
Every direct reference to homosexuality in the Bible is a reference to rape.
- 12/05/2011 04:12:43 PM
906 Views
Every single word that you wrote in your response is complete bullshit.
- 12/05/2011 05:50:07 PM
1041 Views
Knock off your eisegesis, try some exegesis
- 12/05/2011 07:02:45 PM
947 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
918 Views
There are cases in which hypocrisy is far better than the alternatives.
- 12/05/2011 10:04:32 PM
996 Views
Hypocrisy is better than, say, setting gays on fire, yes.
- 12/05/2011 10:10:40 PM
972 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
992 Views
Oh, is that how we're playing this, then?
- 13/05/2011 06:29:31 PM
927 Views
I'm not playing. I'm pointing out some glaring errors on your part.
- 13/05/2011 07:25:08 PM
832 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
897 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
818 Views
Another example...
- 12/05/2011 09:19:52 AM
818 Views
If you claim to follow the entire Bible, then you are completely correct.
- 12/05/2011 06:04:38 PM
814 Views
On the contrary, this move will take some butts out of the seats.
- 12/05/2011 07:16:22 PM
872 Views
We both know that isn't the case
- 12/05/2011 07:55:41 PM
976 Views
Cool cool. I have a question on a semi-related note, about Protestant Gospels
- 12/05/2011 05:33:49 PM
929 Views
No Protestant denomination has added so much as a word to the Bible
- 12/05/2011 05:58:16 PM
811 Views
So, everyone hates Judith, then?
- 12/05/2011 06:40:11 PM
892 Views
The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches accept Judith as part of Scripture.
- 12/05/2011 07:51:27 PM
835 Views
Does the Eastern Orthodox Church also segregate deuterocanonical works like Roman Catholicism does?
- 14/05/2011 02:19:03 AM
1149 Views
The Eastern Church bases everything on the Septuagint.
- 14/05/2011 02:34:41 AM
894 Views
That sounds appealing, and makes sense.
- 14/05/2011 02:44:56 AM
902 Views
Oh, I just enjoy calling Protestants "heretics" to remind them not everyone agrees with them.
- 14/05/2011 03:25:42 AM
849 Views
Re: Cool cool. I have a question on a semi-related note, about Protestant Gospels
- 12/05/2011 08:52:48 PM
873 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
1017 Views
I find this really weird, to be honest
- 13/05/2011 05:48:28 AM
926 Views
Well, it wasn't just Athanasius. But yes, we are lucky in that respect. *NM*
- 13/05/2011 06:32:48 AM
366 Views
Athanasius's list reflected the victory of Pauline Christianity
- 13/05/2011 02:52:53 PM
838 Views
There's a school of thought that says that's a strong vindication of Athanasius.
- 14/05/2011 02:37:49 AM
794 Views
- 14/05/2011 02:37:49 AM
794 Views

*NM*