The Ordination of Practicing Homosexuals

[Secundulus]

Hardly. It would be more than sufficient proof that Homosexuality is not "sinful" if God the Son had a male lover.

Or are you suggesting that Leviticus and Paul trump Jesus Christ?

I think we are suggesting that you are grasping for non-existent straws.

 

[JasonV]

This all belongs on "unorthodox theology," regardless of what icon the poster is sporting today.

Now, back to the topic of this thread.

What is more frustrating, that I don't believe the orthodox line, or that many of the orthodox posters here will be gone in the next two decades leaving the Church open to the growing tide of liberalism (aka the guidance of the Holy Spirit) against your better judgment?

And I've never had anything but an OC or Anglican Icon for the last few years thank you very much.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Jason,

Those of us who are guests in this part of the forum cannot discuss your not quite novel idea (I had thought you might mention Morton Smith rather than your own suspicions) here; but would you have any objection to its being discussed in General Theology? If so, I quite understand and will quietly go away, shaking my head a little the while, perhaps.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Albion]

I think we are suggesting that you are grasping for non-existent straws.

Well, not only that, but the straws are creations of his own imagination.

For example, I had said that if Jesus had been homosexual, this wouldn't affect anything in this discussion--which is of course correct. "Hardly," Jason quickly replied. It would "prove" homosexuality to not be a sin, he said, if Jesus had had a male lover.

Except that I had suggested nothing of the sort. I had written nothing at all about Jesus engaging any any homosexual acts or anything about sex with a young male or him having a lover of any age. Those are all beliefs Jason himself came up with and felt the need to tell us about.

 

[JasonV]

Well, not only that, but the straws are creations of his own imagination.

For example, I had said that if Jesus had been homosexual, this wouldn't affect anything in this discussion--which is of course correct. "Hardly," Jason quickly replied. It would "prove" homosexuality to not be a sin, he said, if Jesus had had a male lover.

Except it is not correct and I cannot fathom how on earth you can suggest that if Jesus were gay, it would have no affect on whether gay persons were suitable for ordination.

Except that I had suggested nothing of the sort. I had written nothing at all about Jesus engaging any any homosexual acts or anything about sex with a young male or him having a lover of any age. Those are all beliefs Jason himself came up with and felt the need to tell us about.

Gay celibates and gay non-celibates aside, I am implying that Jesus likely practiced the age-old Greek method of training young men in the arts of sexuality.

And this is hardly something novel, or something I came up with all by myself. Scholars have been speculating about Jesus' sexual orientation for quite some time now. Go here.

 

[TheCunctator]

Cunctator: since your faith icon not Anglican, you are only permitted to make posts in fellowship on this forum. You are not allowed to debate, even if some claims that Jesus was gay.

Wait a minute.

I have not challenged any single Anglican doctrine while participating on this forum. I have behaved in a respectful and absolutely correct manner. I even debated the issue of actively homosexual clergy in the most decent way possible.

You're right, I'm not an Anglican. I haven't even ever been to an Anglican church. However, I have not debated any Anglican doctrine during my stay in this forum.

Indeed, the official line of the Anglican Church is still against active gay clergy, despite the "rebellion" underway in the Episcopal branch in the United States. Certainly, I don't think any Anglican official has ever once, even once alleged that Jesus was a homosexual. My question was a question, and I think a valid one. And I still hold that I am fully correct in asking it.

I did not attack any Church official or the Church hierarchy (though I have my own personal feelings about leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury), and I do not intend to. I know there is a place for debate and this is not it.

@Jason
Concerning Jesus' sexuality, I sincerely doubt that just because John was called "the disciple Jesus loved" it meant that he had a homosexual affair with him. They probably had a deep relationship. You're looking at it too much in the context of the modern world. Men have had in the past deep friendships that were certainly not sexual in nature.

I can tell you that in Italy, for instance, men frequently show affection for their friends without being considered gay. Indeed, kissing is a common greeting over there as it is among men in several areas of Europe and even the Middle East. To make such an assertion based on such sketchy evidence (to say the least) is absurd.

Regarding Leviticus and Paul - it's perfectly fine to draw those in, because neither would have contradicted Jesus. In fact, Paul would probably say something that Jesus would, considering the encounter on the road to Damascus.

 

[TheCunctator]

Gay celibates and gay non-celibates aside, I am implying that Jesus likely practiced the age-old Greek method of training young men in the arts of sexuality.

And this is hardly something novel, or something I came up with all by myself. Scholars have been speculating about Jesus' sexual orientation for quite some time now.

Why exactly would Jesus be participating in Greek training of young men? How? For what purpose?

But let's just say that Jesus was a homosexual - it proves even more that a practicing homosexual should not be ordained for the simple fact that He never engaged in it. We cannot assume to know a person's sexual orientation. I personally see it as acceptable for a person with homosexual inclinations to be ordained, but this is so long as they do not engage in the activities. Just like I wouldn't expect any other kind of minister to be engaged in sexual acts outside of marriage (or, in the Catholic Church's case, at all).

 

[PaladinValer]

TheCunctator wrote that the Bible is clearly against same sex relations, and also “Given that, no there should be no priest/pastors that are practicing homosexuals.”

The immediate response from PaladinValer ignored what the Biblical testimony says and addressed a concept of ‘Donatism’

No, I didn't. Read all my posts in this thread and then please retract your accusation.

 

[PaladinValer]

Why exactly would Jesus be participating in Greek training of young men? How? For what purpose?

But let's just say that Jesus was a homosexual - it proves even more that a practicing homosexual should not be ordained for the simple fact that He never engaged in it.

He didn't select any Gentiles to be Apostles either. Logical conclusion is "you can't consecrate non-Hebrews"

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the discipline as it currently exists in Lambeth 1.10 (unless it were to change). However, better forms of arguments need to be given.

In addition, a previous poster is correct: this is the Anglican (Canterbury or Continuing) and Old Catholic forum. You posts cannot be debating in nature since you are not a member of any communion or church recognized as Anglican or Old Catholic.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To PaladinValer,

He didn't select any Gentiles to be Apostles either. Logical conclusion is "you can't consecrate non-Hebrews"

It was our logic, our logic is to appreciate what the Biblical testimony actually says holistically, not assume and the opposite by what it doesn’t say.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the discipline as it currently exists in Lambeth 1.10 (unless it were to change). However, better forms of arguments need to be given.

absolutely not, there is no case for same sex relations, its contrary to the marriage, God’s creation purpose throughout the Bible, or celibacy, and specifically condemned.

In addition, a previous poster is correct: this is the Anglican (Canterbury or Continuing) and Old Catholic forum. You posts cannot be debating in nature since you are not a member of any communion or church recognized as Anglican or Old Catholic.

No I reject that, at least according to scripture I can be in fellowship with him (re: Galatians 6, 1 Corinthians 5) .

 

[brightmorningstar]

To JasonV,

Let me grab some construction paper and crayons. I don't want to miss anything!

There is no core common ground at all between what you are proposing and what has been understood as Christianity throughout the centuries, and nor what the Bible says either. Nor would most Christians (and even most non-Christians) see any possibility in what you are saying.

 

[brightmorningstar]

If we are saved from all sin by repentance through Jesus Christ, then to excuse ourselves any sin is a potential barrier to the Kingdom and salvation. Certainly this is what Jesus NT warns, I recall off hand the rich young man and his wealth in Matthew and the warnings of 1 Corinthians 5-6 and Romans 1, plus the account of Sodom. God detests sin including same sex practice and for nay sin to be promoted on a Christian forum is disgusting; how offensive to God is that?

I suggest the church as a whole, but certainly the Anglican Communion as much as any, needs to make sure it distances itself from this core heresy of gay Jesus and same sex relations perversion.

 

[Phinehas2]

You know some of the stuff here makes Fred Phelps and Westboro look a lot better. Sure Westboro have missed the love bit, God doesnt hate homosexuals, God so loved (past tense) the world that He made a way to eternal life by repentance through Jesus Christ, but the pro-gays are missing the whole point, they think sexual immorality is love when in fact it is not loving God at least Westboro have recognised the sin whereas the pro-gay side loves the sin.
The problem for Westboro is that it is judging the world (1 Corinthians 5) and it shouldnt, the problem for the pro-gay side is that if it is promoting same sex sin 1 Corinthians 5 implies it is merely calling itself brother and the church when infact it isnt, if it were it would be restored as in Galatians 6.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Jason,

Does your silence mean that you missed my earlier query? Or are you unwilling to discuss this matter of Christ and sexual practices in a part of the forum where your views can be questioned?

peace,

Anglian

 

[kiwimac]

If we are saved from all sin by repentance through Jesus Christ, then to excuse ourselves any sin is a potential barrier to the Kingdom and salvation. Certainly this is what Jesus NT warns, I recall off hand the rich young man and his wealth in Matthew and the warnings of 1 Corinthians 5-6 and Romans 1, plus the account of Sodom. God detests sin including same sex practice and for nay sin to be promoted on a Christian forum is disgusting; how offensive to God is that?

I suggest the church as a whole, but certainly the Anglican Communion as much as any, needs to make sure it distances itself from this core heresy of gay Jesus and same sex relations perversion.

Sodom and Gomorrah were not about homosexuality and Romans 1 needs to be read right through to Romans 2:1, perhaps you should do so?

 

[MKJ]

Concerning Jesus' sexuality, I sincerely doubt that just because John was called "the disciple Jesus loved" it meant that he had a homosexual affair with him. They probably had a deep relationship. You're looking at it too much in the context of the modern world. Men have had in the past deep friendships that were certainly not sexual in nature.

I can tell you that in Italy, for instance, men frequently show affection for their friends without being considered gay. Indeed, kissing is a common greeting over there as it is among men in several areas of Europe and even the Middle East. To make such an assertion based on such sketchy evidence (to say the least) is absurd.

Many people seem to forget the cultural contexts of things like gestures of affection, which vary widely. My husband, when he was a soldier in Africa, was surprised one day when an member of the Indian army he was chatting to as they walked down the hall held his hand. Very weird for my husband, but not a sexual invitation.

But unfortunately our problems with thinking about sexuality are not limited to affecting our understanding of marriage and other sexual relationships. They have also profoundly affected our understanding of friendship, which has become understood as almost a kind of poor cousin to marriage, or adjunct to it. This has not, I think, been very good for marriages or friendships, which are both given short shrift and at the same time asked to bear more than they should.

But based purely on Biblical sources, I can't see anything that would give me much idea about Jesus sexual feelings that wouldn't be pure supposition - even (especially?) considering the culture he was brought up in. There is just no content there. But it is funny in a way - depending on what people want to prove, he was gay, or having an affair with MM, or whatever. Tradition gives no support for either of these assertions though.

 

[TheCunctator]

He didn't select any Gentiles to be Apostles either. Logical conclusion is "you can't consecrate non-Hebrews"

That's silly and easy disproved by the fact that he interacted extensively with non-Jews and proclaimed that the Kingdom of God is for all men, not just Jews. The reason in which there were only Jews among the apostleship is because the religion was still Judaism, a religion that to this day is still more tightly bound by ethnicity than anything else.

Don't you recall how Jesus praised the centurion, a Roman, and therefore, non-Jew? Probably even non-Middle Eastern. Your conclusions don't make sense.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the discipline as it currently exists in Lambeth 1.10 (unless it were to change). However, better forms of arguments need to be given.

In addition, a previous poster is correct: this is the Anglican (Canterbury or Continuing) and Old Catholic forum. You posts cannot be debating in nature since you are not a member of any communion or church recognized as Anglican or Old Catholic.

As for my participation in "debate," I continue to disagree. I haven't spoken about anything regarding the Anglican faith. The debate that is occurring is over homosexuals in the priesthood in the Anglican church, and whether Jesus was a homosexual.

Not even all you Anglicans on this forum are unified in any of these positions, how can you come here and say that I can't debate Anglican positions? What Anglican position am I contesting, exactly?

Sodom and Gomorrah were not about homosexuality and Romans 1 needs to be read right through to Romans 2:1, perhaps you should do so?

Personally I don't care much about Sodom and Gamorrah, especially considering that the Bible has been explicit in every other instance it has been mentioned.

Concerning Romans, I think you are conflating two different points.
Romans is very clear:

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Romans 1:26-27)

This is so blatantly clear, you can't nick pick it and arrive at any other conclusion. It is referring specifically to homosexual behavior, as I've put in bold. Evidently, homosexuality is not even considered natural, because they've abandoned the natural relations for the unnatural.

This is what it says after verse 27:

"Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." (verse 28)

This is representing a separation with the previous verse. "Furthermore" implies that there is something else wrong in addition to what was already said.

As for Romans 2:1, I think you've forgotten about Romans 2:2.

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?" (Romans 2:1-3)

This is referring to something else that's different. This is referring to hypocrisy. Performing the acts that you yourself (not you personally, of course) are condemning.

Romans 1 is against homosexuality.

 

[Albion]

He didn't select any Gentiles to be Apostles either. Logical conclusion is "you can't consecrate non-Hebrews"

And he didn't choose any Chinese or African Apostles, ergo....

Sorry, but that is NOT logical. He'd have to have done something much out of the ordinary in order to include such foreigners among the Twelve. In addition, the Twelve, you should know, are symbolic of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, which didn't include Gentiles, Chinese, etc.
No, what the selection of twelve men--continued by the surviving ones after his death in the election of Matthias--shows us is that although women were close to Jesus he consciously did not consider them for this particular role.

In addition, a previous poster is correct: this is the Anglican (Canterbury or Continuing) and Old Catholic forum. You posts cannot be debating in nature since you are not a member of any communion or church recognized as Anglican or Old Catholic.

We have contributors from other communions and other churches all the time, PV. We have our friend Anglian right now on this very thread, for example, and are happy to have his comments. There's also ThePilgrim whose icon is neither Anglican nor Old Catholic. And we had one very belligerent poster in the recent past who posted the better part of a hundred posts, I'll guess, and who refused to even state his church affiliation. Everyone continued to debate with him. I think we've already let the horse out of the barn, if that ever was a good policy.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To kiwimac,

Sodom and Gomorrah were not about homosexuality and Romans 1 needs to be read right through to Romans 2:1, perhaps you should do so?

The account of Sodom in Genesis 19 descibes Lot condemning the men wanting to know carnally the men as wicked, this is homosexual rather than heterosexual, or are you saying homosexuals are attracted to women? Once again unable to communicate in a dysfunctional discussion.
That I have cited and quoted Romans 2 in the last 24 hours in the section of the forum should suggest I have read it, have you and have you any idea what its about?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To PaladinValer,

He didn't select any Gentiles to be Apostles either. Logical conclusion is "you can't consecrate non-Hebrews"

or homosexuals for that matter which I think destroys your argument.