Active Users:1507 Time:19/04/2026 08:42:26 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 1516 Views
*NM* - 11/05/2011 06:10:26 PM 371 Views
I am happy to see this. *NM* - 11/05/2011 07:22:59 PM 398 Views
Homosexuals must die! - 11/05/2011 08:25:25 PM 1179 Views
I agree! This sort of behavior can NOT be excused!!! - 11/05/2011 10:38:16 PM 833 Views
Yay!!. - 11/05/2011 10:38:51 PM 1106 Views
Glad to hear it. *NM* - 11/05/2011 10:46:39 PM 454 Views
Well done. *NM* - 11/05/2011 11:07:22 PM 398 Views
What's the language? Did they at least TRY to give a doctrinal justification? - 12/05/2011 02:10:46 AM 1089 Views
Thank you for that rousing argument against married priests. - 12/05/2011 03:36:51 AM 1019 Views
Why ARE you letting women into the priesthood? - 12/05/2011 04:16:50 AM 935 Views
Because Episcopalians don't listen to the Bible much. - 12/05/2011 05:47:03 AM 874 Views
That's just fine as far as I'm concerned - 12/05/2011 02:23:44 PM 915 Views
Yes, I suppose a church could go that route. - 14/05/2011 07:38:02 AM 855 Views
I'm not attempting to impose a dichotomy on the Bible. - 14/05/2011 03:25:30 PM 931 Views
I don't even know what following the Bible in its entirety means. - 14/05/2011 09:09:10 PM 1097 Views
As an exercise, I tried to think of how I would justify allowing homosexuals as clergy. - 14/05/2011 04:19:43 PM 923 Views
Wow. - 20/05/2011 10:15:21 AM 945 Views
Thanks (I'm actually OK with women priests though). - 12/05/2011 07:09:11 AM 982 Views
It's more a question of interpretational standards. - 12/05/2011 02:29:43 PM 867 Views
Agreed. - 14/05/2011 01:17:45 AM 942 Views
They did so, via negativa. - 12/05/2011 04:22:17 PM 1064 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 870 Views
Your church has a constitution?! - 12/05/2011 03:36:41 AM 927 Views
My Church has a congress! *NM* - 12/05/2011 03:37:52 AM 444 Views
Haha no way! *NM* - 12/05/2011 03:46:32 AM 402 Views
We have a General Assembly and a Moderator. - 12/05/2011 04:18:34 PM 1025 Views
I had no idea the US was based on that system. - 12/05/2011 06:22:58 PM 867 Views
It is pretty common practice - 12/05/2011 06:54:02 PM 898 Views
Oh I'm sure it is with newer churches. - 12/05/2011 10:49:11 PM 960 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 1096 Views
Every direct reference to homosexuality in the Bible is a reference to rape. - 12/05/2011 04:12:43 PM 924 Views
Every single word that you wrote in your response is complete bullshit. - 12/05/2011 05:50:07 PM 1056 Views
Knock off your eisegesis, try some exegesis - 12/05/2011 07:02:45 PM 967 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 935 Views
Oh, is that how we're playing this, then? - 13/05/2011 06:29:31 PM 944 Views
Re: Oh, is that how we're playing this, then? - 13/05/2011 07:02:35 PM 925 Views
I'm not playing. I'm pointing out some glaring errors on your part. - 13/05/2011 07:25:08 PM 850 Views
Danny will correct me if I'm wrong, but... - 13/05/2011 09:55:14 PM 1047 Views
Danny persistently refuses to say that - 13/05/2011 10:13:55 PM 984 Views
And with respect to your textual point, once again you're wrong - 12/05/2011 07:44:10 PM 1071 Views
You're a fucking moron. *NM* - 15/05/2011 11:11:08 PM 426 Views
You make a very important but too often overlooked point. - 14/05/2011 01:54:40 AM 1050 Views
??? the bible was harsher on homosexulaity than on rape - 12/05/2011 06:56:43 PM 909 Views
Read Judges. - 12/05/2011 07:17:29 PM 916 Views
Another example... - 12/05/2011 09:19:52 AM 838 Views
That's what people said about churches opposing slavery. - 12/05/2011 04:06:26 PM 903 Views
I rest my case *NM* - 12/05/2011 04:48:32 PM 394 Views
That is a false dichotomy and we both know it. - 14/05/2011 02:07:19 AM 892 Views
If you claim to follow the entire Bible, then you are completely correct. - 12/05/2011 06:04:38 PM 835 Views
On the contrary, this move will take some butts out of the seats. - 12/05/2011 07:16:22 PM 888 Views
We both know that isn't the case - 12/05/2011 07:55:41 PM 990 Views
Whatever your issue is, get over it. - 13/05/2011 06:17:26 PM 853 Views
You'd be a lot more effective... - 13/05/2011 06:45:31 PM 971 Views
You haven't adequately expressed your theology - 13/05/2011 07:28:54 PM 951 Views
Cool cool. I have a question on a semi-related note, about Protestant Gospels - 12/05/2011 05:33:49 PM 949 Views
Since I haven't gotten around to asking yet... - 13/05/2011 07:14:01 PM 861 Views
Re: Since I haven't gotten around to asking yet... - 15/05/2011 03:18:23 PM 1270 Views

Reply to Message