Here's what you do: The first time a gay couple gets "married" in one of your churches, excommunicate the priest and the "newlyweds" and then burn the church. Overreaction? Maybe. Effective? Absolutely. Notice no gay couples are trying to get married in the Orthodox Church nowDefens0rFidei said:How long before these forces push for their church to have blessed "marriages" of homosexuals?
RhetorTheo said:I don't think a Catholic priest could openly reject the authority of the Pope and be made bishop. Of course, a non-Catholic church can have priests be bishops who reject the authority of the Pope - they wouldn't consider that sin.
What do they consider to be sin, and teach to be sin, that a priest can openly and unrepentantly do and be made bishop?
nyj said:Here is my question: If this Bishop were to marry his gay "partner" , how would they reconcile it with Paul's exhortation to Timothy (1 Timothy 3:2) that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife?
He's already made enough of a scandal by being divorced clergy, not exactly a great testament to the Sacrament of Marriage in the first place.
seebs said:Nothing.
But then, there are churches that do not necessarily teach that homosexual relationships are sinful. You may well disagree with them (and trust me, I am intimately familiar with all of the arguments on this issue), but it is nonetheless what they teach.
nyj said:Here is my question: If this Bishop were to marry his gay "partner" , how would they reconcile it with Paul's exhortation to Timothy (1 Timothy 3:2) that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife?
He's already made enough of a scandal by being divorced clergy, not exactly a great testament to the Sacrament of Marriage in the first place.
kern said:I would be interested in seeing a *rational* explanation of how this incident is going to lead to Catholics needing to meet in caves and catacombs to have Mass. That is extremely unlikely -- as far as prosecution of Catholics goes, this age is a pretty good time to live. Catholics have freedom to worship in the US and many other countries. Catholics are no longer widely considered bad or evil (only a small number of anti-Catholics believe that). -Chris
I just felt that should be quoted. Good emphasisMichelina said:"In 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."
nyj said:Here is my question: If this Bishop were to marry his gay "partner" , how would they reconcile it with Paul's exhortation to Timothy (1 Timothy 3:2) that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife?
RhetorTheo said:I don't think they mean that Catholicism will be banned. They mean that Catholicism will be forced by law to be ... well, non-Catholic, and to experience real Catholicism you'll have to go underground.
Hopefully, we are always working towards being one Church, so what other churches do is important to us.La Bonita Zorilla said:It seems to me worrying about policies of other churches is hardly a useful pursuit, but, I would sure be willing to listen if someone would explain this view.
I think that people generally respond negatively when their views are challenged by a changing society. What is important is why they hold their views. Is it because of some narrow-minded bigotry or because of an adherence to the clear command of reason and of God.I am also a sociologist and presently preparing a grant proposal for research on reactions to social change. I must say I have read theoretical models and seen their application to reaction of white Southerners toward the civil rights revolution-and the pattern of religious conservatives' reaction to the acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people is in exact paralell to that.
1 Corinthians 6:9: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders'"Momzilla said:Also, I have seen lengthy explanations regarding Paul's true intent in Corinthians and Romans, arguing that Paul was not against homosexuality per se, but rather against sexual practices in pagan temples. I have not come across any criticisms of such reasoning.
Any assistance that can be provided will be much appreciated--I really want to understand God's word on this, because it may require me to leave my current church.
La Bonita Zorilla said:It seems to me worrying about policies of other churches is hardly a useful pursuit, but, I would sure be willing to listen if someone would explain this view.
My answer is similar to Roald's. We are all of the Body of Christ. What hurts one part of the body hurts the body as a whole.Roald said:Hopefully, we are always working towards being one Church, so what other churches do is important to us.
That's not the point. The point is the attitudes are the same.PeterPaul said:I don't agree because the color of your skin has nothing to do with behaviour.