So you want to be a practicing homosexual Bishop...but its not enough?

[PeterPaul]

news....sort of

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...718&e=4&u=/ap/20040319/ap_on_re_us/gay_pastor

 

[PeterPaul]

and another

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&e=10&u=/ap/20040319/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

and another

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&e=10&u=/ap/20040319/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

And people wonder why California is on fire all the time.

 

[PeterPaul]

Defens, play on words? LOL

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Defens, play on words? LOL

 

[RhetorTheo]

I would point out that many people have, with the best of possible support and reason available to them, come to conclusions that later judges consider wrong... Likewise, some people have adopted positions that later look "right" for all sorts of bad reasons.

Morally, what matters is that your reasons are the right ones... but that doesn't mean that you can't have the right reasons and still be acting in a harmful or destructive way.

I agree. If we make our decisions in good faith, based upon the best information we have available, that is all that can be expected. Those who come after is us will find countless ways in which they believe they are superior, just as we feel the same about those who came before us, and we can only hope they judge us charitably.

 

[RhetorTheo]

It will be interesting to see what happens as more Christian churches accept homosexuality and perform gay marriages. Perhaps you won't be allowed to get tax exempt status if you discriminate against gays. Then we will see what matters to churches - their beliefs or money.

 

[Plan 9]

Okay, you have accused everyone who opposes gay marriage - and particularly the members of OBOB - of operating solely out of "narrow-minded bigotry" and not because of the clear command of God. Further, you have clearly implied that "the attitudes are the same" between (a) those who oppose gay marriage, abortion, pedophilia and legalized rape, and (b) "white Southerners" who opposed "the civil rights revolution." Do you have any basis for this flame other than your ignorant belief that anyone who disagrees with you is evil?

IMO, you appear to be reading a great deal into La Bonita's post which she didn't write. She merely had the temerity to enter your bashfest of her denomination and the Episcopal church and disagree with you, and she did so with a reasonable amount of courtesy, especially considering that none of us whose denominations your have been slurring from the safety of your own forum can actually defend ourselves with you.

I have been made unwelcome by members of my own forum home for defending Catholics from a variety of slurs made there and in the IDD forum. As a United Methodist, I now wonder why I bothered.

 

[nyj]

Oh, and for identification purposes I am a Methodist though I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic School in Grades 1-8. Luckily our family was too poor to send us to Catholic High Schools.

You meant "unfortunately" right?

 

[seebs]

I agree. If we make our decisions in good faith, based upon the best information we have available, that is all that can be expected. Those who come after is us will find countless ways in which they believe they are superior, just as we feel the same about those who came before us, and we can only hope they judge us charitably.

Yes.

It is because of this that I find myself unable to fully align with either side in many of these debates. One of the most depressing and painful conversations I've ever had on this BBS involved a comparison drawn between the homosexuality debate and the slavery debates of a hundred years ago.

In this debate, someone explained that the slavery issue is perfectly clear; it is absolutely impossible to read the Bible and come to think that slavery is condoned. I asked whether it was possible for people to misunderstand the guidance given, if their culture were different from our own, and I was told that, no, it was absolutely impossible for someone to make a real effort to study the Bible and come to such a conclusion.

I could not live in such a world. I could not live in a world where I could condemn millions of people to Hell so casually, so carelessly, without having been them that I might know their hearts.

With this in mind, I find that there are people in many different positions on the debates over homosexuality whom I must respect and admire for their courage, their convictions, and their determination to find the truth and speak it, no matter the personal cost.

It hurts me immensely when people casually dismiss the positions of the other side in a debate - and indeed, when people are reduced to "sides", rather than individual people with their own perceptions and leading. Talk of "agendas" and "lifestyles" strikes me as foundationally unchristian; it goes against the core of our belief that each human is unique and special before God, and as incompatible with the reality of individual people with beliefs which may differ widely, or only a little.

A great number of Christians are caught up in debates over what homosexuality is, and how we should respond to it. If all of these people could accept that the other people involved are, in general, also acting honestly and in good faith, even when they appear to be totally wrong, we might find communication and reconciliation a great deal easier.

 

[RhetorTheo]

IMO, you appear to be reading a great deal into La Bonita's post which she didn't write. She merely had the temerity to enter your bashfest of her denomination and the Episcopal church and disagree with you, and she did so with a reasonable amount of courtesy, especially considering that none of us whose denominations your have been slurring from the safety of your own forum can actually defend ourselves with you.

You slurred me repeatedly in your bashfest against me. IMO, you appear to be reading a great deal into my posts that I didn't write. Telling the truth about my experience at a Methodist church is not a "bash."

 

[BAChristian]

It would be wise if certain people, with certain sensitivities, to what certain people say, just try to calm down.

I say this with a big smile on my face, but seriously, I'm tired of the "drama queen" 'tude around here lately.

Let's all have a pity party.

I got some Cabernet and some cheese -- who's got the violin?

 

[Michelina]

Okay, you have accused everyone who opposes gay marriage - and particularly the members of OBOB - of operating solely out of "narrow-minded bigotry" and not because of the clear command of God. Further, you have clearly implied that "the attitudes are the same" between (a) those who oppose gay marriage, abortion, pedophilia and legalized rape, and (b) "white Southerners" who opposed "the civil rights revolution." Do you have any basis for this flame other than your ignorant belief that anyone who disagrees with you is evil?

IMO, you appear to be reading a great deal into La Bonita's post which she didn't write. She merely had the temerity to enter your bashfest of her denomination and the Episcopal church and disagree with you, and she did so with a reasonable amount of courtesy, especially considering that none of us whose denominations your have been slurring from the safety of your own forum can actually defend ourselves with you.

Plan 9, LBZorilla was quite offensive when she compared us to racist bigots and I said so too.

I have been made unwelcome by members of my own forum home for defending Catholics from a variety of slurs made there and in the IDD forum. As a United Methodist, I now wonder why I bothered.

Plan 9, we appreciate it when others stand up for what is right. But I haven't seen any bashing of the Methodists or Episcopalians here on OBOB. And Rhetor, I've noticed, takes great care to be fair.

Perhaps you're reading into the posts attitudes and feelings the poster doesn't really possess.

Plan 9: "As a United Methodist, I now wonder why I bothered."

You bothered because you are a good Christian.

I am sorry about the way you have perceived this thread.

 

[BAChristian]

And people wonder why California is on fire all the time.

Heh heh...nice. You're just jealous that our weather is better than yours.

 

[Michelina]

Heh heh...nice. You're just jealous that our weather is better than yours.

California's weather better than England's??!!!?? That's Absurd.

 

[PeterPaul]

It hurts me immensely when people casually dismiss the positions of the other side in a debate - and indeed, when people are reduced to "sides", rather than individual people with their own perceptions and leading. Talk of "agendas" and "lifestyles" strikes me as foundationally unchristian; it goes against the core of our belief that each human is unique and special before God, and as incompatible with the reality of individual people with beliefs which may differ widely, or only a little.

A great number of Christians are caught up in debates over what homosexuality is, and how we should respond to it. If all of these people could accept that the other people involved are, in general, also acting honestly and in good faith, even when they appear to be totally wrong, we might find communication and reconciliation a great deal easier.

Seebs, are you honestly saying that there are no agendas on the part of certain groups or am I misunderstanding your post? I'm asking this respectfully. I agree that perhaps the tone individuals use can be toned down, certainly, however I've been shouted down by many a person (not in OBOB) when I've given my views. Should I then use that against another who was not involved in the discussion? No, I wouldn't. However, respect must come both ways, and when I open my mouth I'm shot down as a bigot, there can not be true dialogue.

 

[Plan 9]

Plan 9, LBZorilla was quite offensive when she compared us to racist bigots and I said so too.

Michelina , we haven't posted together much, but I've had the greatest respect for you, and that's also true of the vast majority of Catholics I know on this board and have had the good luck to meet in person.

I also respect La Bonita, and because you drew the conclusion you did, she isn't really free to expand on her post here without risking being reported.

I can't truly speak for her because I'm not a sociologist myself, but I've certainly read some; it's related to my own field. Sociological trends are quite complex in nature. All the white Southerners in her study would not be racist bigots at all. If I'm mistaken about this, I will be among the first to be offended. I'm from Missouri, and I'm sure that every American posting here is familiar with the Missouri Compromise.
Second, a cousin to whom I'm very close believes some of what has been posted here, as do many of my relatives, and if I felt that she was calling him a bigot, I would already have PMed her with my own objections.

Plan 9, we appreciate it when others stand up for what is right. But I haven't seen any bashing of the Methodists or Episcopalians here on OBOB. And Rhetor, I've noticed, takes great care to be fair.

I wasn't referring to Rhetor's personal experience at a United Methodist church, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression, Rhetor; all Methodist churches are not alike, and aren't intended to be. I quoted only one post of Rhetor's and that was the only post of his I was addressing.
The term "bashfest" may not be the correct one describe this thread, and if that's true, then you all have my apologies, but the tone of this thread is less than positive and its immediate and quite negative focus honestly seemed to me to center on the actions of ordained clergy from the Episcopal and United Methodist denominations.
I would not have had the reaction I did had someone thought to post early on that members of both denominations, no matter how misguided you feel us to be, might be acting from the best possible Christian motives.

I can't speak for Episcopalians, but when you belong to one United Methodist church you, in effect, belong to them all.
If any positive remarks have been made about the motives or actions of the UMC minster who performed that marriage ceremony brought up early on in the thread, I certainly missed reading them somehow, which is certainly possible, and she is as much my minister as is the minister of my local church. The implication also seemed to be made that we United Methodist would blindly follow the path of political correctness without any consideration for what is right. Our denomination is set up much like the US government; our local churches choose delegates to send to conferences meetings, conference encompasses half of a state of the population of Missouri, and that's just the start of our deliberative process.
We may (or may not) ultimately decide to continue to marry same-sex couples, but whatever we decide, I can assure you that approximately the same percentage of United Methodists will be sincerely attempting to decide this on the basis of what is morally and ethically correct as any group of Catholics of the same size.

Perhaps you're reading into the posts attitudes and feelings the poster doesn't really possess.

I certainly hope so, and, if you are correct, you all have my sincerest apologies. I have read in the site announcements that the IDD forum will be reopened soon, but have not actualy had time to read the thread to be certain of that. If that's true, I would like to see this discussed (not debated!) in that forum, with the goal of better understanding among us, so that no one is hurt for no real reason, and that includes you, Rhetor!

Plan 9: "As a United Methodist, I now wonder why I bothered."

You bothered because you are a good Christian.

I wouldn't go that far if I were you, Michelina.

I am sorry about the way you have perceived this thread.

I'm sorry, too, and I deeply desire to be proven wrong. It's your bad luck I'm from Missouri.
(Red Alert! Missouri in-joke! Anyone one here from MO, read one our license plates on the turnpike, or know what our official state animal is?)

This is a very long post to write in a forum to which I don't belong. If you've made it this far, thank you for your patience.

Yours,
~Planny

 

[seebs]

Seebs, are you honestly saying that there are no agendas on the part of certain groups or am I misunderstanding your post? I'm asking this respectfully.

I believe that most of the language about agendas is inflammatory propaganda. A lot of slippery slope arguments are made on both "sides" which strike me as poor arguments.

 

[Michelina]

Plan 9: "As a United Methodist, I now wonder why I bothered....(defending Catholics)"

I wouldn't go that far if I were you, Michelina.

You just proved I was right!!

It's your bad luck I'm from Missouri.
(Red Alert! Missouri in-joke! Anyone one here from MO, read one our license plates on the turnpike, or know what our official state animal is?)

I lived in MO for 1 year. I loved it. Great people! I started my Classical Studies program there at SLU. Then returned to NYC, because a better program had just opened up there.

This is a very long post to write in a forum to which I don't belong. If you've made it this far, thank you for your patience.

You're always welcome here, Planny. I understand what you wrote and I am grateful and glad you wrote it. As I understand it, the OP was mostly about gay marriage. LBZ's remarks were about that.

Her post has a tone to it, i.e. "somewhat disrespectful". She says that she felt Lucky that she didn't go to Catholic HS. She certainly has a right to her opinion. But does she have to express it in that way?

Then she goes on to say that Catholics and other who react as we do to gay marriage are similar to the Southerners who reacted against the Civil rights movement. I answered this logically, I think. And I also said that I found it offensive.

I can understand why members of churches who accept what we Caths reject might be offended. But our reaction is honest and not malicious toward anyone. And there are many other Christians in many other churches who agree with us and most Moslems and many Jews as well.

If we cannot agree on issues, Planny, so be it. But we should always try to glorify Our Lord by seeking mutual understanding and promoting unity in the commandment of Love.

Thanks for your thoughtful and kind response.

Love and Prayers,
Michelina

 

[ps139]

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.

Momzilla,
I was in a big debate with someone about this a few months ago. He was arguing what you said - that in Romans 1, Paul was condemning pagans and things associated with them, one of which happened to be homosexuality. So he said that homosexuality in that context is wrong, but not in other contexts.

Here is the response I wrote to that (note that this is after countless posts back and forth - but this was my last post before the thread was locked):

Once again - because a specific word does not exist does not mean that the concept can be expressed. You yourself say that Paul was referring to homosexuality - in a specific context. So whether a word for "homosexual" is available or not, the concept is still expressed.
You want to limit the homosexuality Paul condemns to pagan ceremony. Yet Paul stresses the indecent acts, abandoning natural relations (which implies that there indeed ARE natural relations), the homosexual lust, the perversion...all of which receive due penalties. (v.26-27)
Paul stresses that these people have rejected the natural order of things. They have turned their minds from righteousness.
ONLY ONE LINE in Romans 1 mentions idolatrous images...physical idols.
These created gods are a consequence of abandoning the True God, as are their perverted behaviors. Both are immoral and wrong. If only one bad practice remains, is it now good because the other is gone?
In other words, if the homosexual acts are not practiced, is the crafting of idols and images good? By no means. In the same way, if the crafting of physical idols is gone, is the homosexual behavior good? By no means.
The focus of the passage is on homosexual behavior as a result of abandoning and rejecting the natural order. Yet you see one line, verse 23, and conclude that that is the main focus of the chapter. That is utterly ridiculous.