TEC vs the continuum

[ebia]

ebia,
A lot? Are you sure?
Have you any evidence that there are a lot?

's pretty self evident

Is for example the leadership of Uganda for it?

not using those terms, but by our standards most definitely.

So you are saying agreeing with homophobia or same sex blessings is ok for Anglicans?

I'm saying it's possible.

Thats what it seems.
That would make no sense, no point in making a Communion statement if everyone can simply ignore it.

Lambeth 1.10 is not even a Communion statement. It's a resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. It's not binding on anyone - not even the bishops that voted for it. it's a statement of what "this conference believes" and no more than that.

 

[ebia]

What is the Elephant?

"the elephant in the living room that nobody wants to talk about", shortened to "elephant" has become a way of referring to the controversies surrounding the ordination of homosexuals in the Communion.

 

[Brian Daniel]

"the elephant in the living room that nobody wants to talk about", shortened to "elephant" has become a way of referring to the controversies surrounding the ordination of homosexuals in the Communion.

It saddens me that the elephant is a divisive issue. I don't particularly care for the term "homosexual" as a noun for individuals or groups of people, and I am not saying that to express displeasure with you; I am just stating my feeling about a word. I hope that in a few years this will be a controversy of the past, like interracial marriage. I have had a a bisexual orientation since I became aware of sexual feelings at age 11. As an adult I fell in love with and married a woman, and have been faithful since, but I don't consider myself heterosexual because I have to be on guard to not lust for women or men as a Christian husband. Would that make me a homosexual?

 

[ebia]

It saddens me that the elephant is a divisive issue. I don't particularly care for the term "homosexual" as a noun for individuals or groups of people, and I am not saying that to express displeasure with you; I am just stating my feeling about a word. I hope that in a few years this will be a controversy of the past, like interracial marriage. I have had a a bisexual orientation since I became aware of sexual feelings at age 11. As an adult I fell in love with and married a woman, and have been faithful since, but I don't consider myself heterosexual because I have to be on guard to not lust for women or men as a Christian husband. Would that make me a homosexual?

I understand your point.

 

[wayseer]

ebia,
A lot? Are you sure? Have you any evidence that there are a lot? Is for example the leadership of Uganda for it?

So you are saying agreeing with homophobia ...

You need to get a better handle on the meaning of certain words.

Homophobia - noun - an extreme and irrational aversion of homosexuality and homosexual people.

 

[MKJ]

I am NOT commenting in this post regarding ordination.

QUESTION
Hasn't the Church always accepted all civil marriages? For example, when those divorced were allowed to remarry by the state, did not the Church accept those marriages. When heterosexuals living in continuing sin are married, does not the Church accept those marriages?

We are dealing with two separate questions. The Church has it own definition of marriage (as it should). Also, the Church has always accepted and blessed the civil standard of marriage in each of the countries and states in which it exists.

In any case, the Church hasn't always accepted all civil marriages.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Ebia,

's pretty self evident

Its pretty self evident that there isnt.

not using those terms, but by our standards most definitely.

Then your standards might need changing. Can you be more specific?

I'm saying it's possible.

Oh dear. Neither are acceptable.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Good post #43.
God created men and women for His purposes, in marriage its a faithful union of the man and woman, sexual attraction is thus irrelevant.

 

[brightmorningstar]

wayseer,

You need to get a better handle on the meaning of certain words.

Homophobia - noun - an extreme and irrational aversion of homosexuality and homosexual people.

Ok so for some God must be homophobic in that same sex relationships are against His purposes. Good for God.

 

[ebia]

Ebia,
Its pretty self evident that there isnt.

have you been following what's been happening in countries like Uganda over the last few years.

Then your standards might need changing.

so when you condemn homophobia you mean what exactly, if you think the death penalty for it is okay? By the standard set by your beloved Lambeth 1.10 Uganda fails well below par.

Can you be more specific?

if you really care and know what you're talking about I shouldn't need to

Oh dear. Neither are acceptable.

acceptable to whom? I'm talking about what is possible.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Ebia,

have you been following what's been happening in countries like Uganda over the last few years.

yes, have you? Could you provide some evidence rather than asking me questions?
​

so when you condemn homophobia you mean what exactly, if you think the death penalty for it is okay? By the standard set by your beloved Lambeth 1.10 Uganda fails well below par.

So men who have sex with men and adulterers and murderers etc shall not inherit the Kingdom 1 Cor 6.
In what way then is the death penalty for murder in the US any different from the death penalty for homosexual practice in Uganda? Can you show me where the leadership of the Ugandan Anglican province has supported death penalty laws for same sex practice?

acceptable to whom? I'm talking about what is possible.

acceptable to God. The church is the body of believers isnt it?

 

[ebia]

Ebia,
yes, have you? Could you provide some evidence rather than asking me questions?

I'm not playing for the crowd. Either you know what we are talking about and there is no need for me to "prove" anything, or you don't.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

I'm not playing for the crowd. Either you know what we are talking about and there is no need for me to "prove" anything, or you don't.

Then I would say you are making false and unsubstantiated claims.

 

[wayseer]

ebia,
Then I would say you are making false and unsubstantiated claims.

I really am becoming quite depressed at the strident fundamentalism that is savaging the Anglican communion.

There is no attempt to understand, or even appreciate, any view other than the fundamentalist self-proclaimed view. Debate descends into a shouting match on the proposition that the louder one shouts the more theologically correct one must be. There is no attempt to actually engage the debate at all as fundamentalism's agenda is to derail any discussion into a a question about the legitimacy of being a Christian.

Should anyone dare so much as to question the unquestionable fundamentalist's doctrine of intolerance, one is immediately told to leave the Church as they are 'obviously' no longer a Christian. Having satisfied that those with opposing are no longer a Christian they can then satisfy themselves they, therefore, were obvious right all alone. Self-serving righteousness.

Ebia and I have argued long into the night over any number of issues and we do not agree on all matters under discussion. But Ebia is not 'false'.

You have no basis to suggest Ebia is making 'false and unsubstantiated claims' just because you disagree with his view.

Your tactics are self-serving and display little compassion or even a modicum of understanding. You have railed against me and question my Christianity. Now you are leveling you fundamentalistic guns of Ebia.

I know Ebia is well and truly able to speak for himself and I, in no way, speak for him, but I am just wondering what is going on in the Anglican communion when fundamentalism becomes the theological measure whereby one determines the Christian agenda.

 

[ebia]

ebia,
Then I would say you are making false and unsubstantiated claims.

Unsubstantiated, yes. Because if you've been following what's going on they don't need substantiating. And if you haven't this is pointless. False: no.

 

[mark46]

You speak of "fundamentalism ravaging the Anglican communion". I don't see much fundamentalism on this board (except for one poster), unless you are using the word in a nontechnical sense to simply apply to theological conservatives who you see as intolerant. In that broad sense, the word would apply to most folks in the RCC and EO, and many conservative Anglicans. There are certinaly many fundamentalist posting on other sub-bboards such as GT.

I really am becoming quite depressed at the strident fundamentalism that is savaging the Anglican communion.

There is no attempt to understand, or even appreciate, any view other than the fundamentalist self-proclaimed view. Debate descends into a shouting match on the proposition that the louder one shouts the more theologically correct one must be. There is no attempt to actually engage the debate at all as fundamentalism's agenda is to derail any discussion into a a question about the legitimacy of being a Christian.

Should anyone dare so much as to question the unquestionable fundamentalist's doctrine of intolerance, one is immediately told to leave the Church as they are 'obviously' no longer a Christian. Having satisfied that those with opposing are no longer a Christian they can then satisfy themselves they, therefore, were obvious right all alone. Self-serving righteousness.

Ebia and I have argued long into the night over any number of issues and we do not agree on all matters under discussion. But Ebia is not 'false'.

You have no basis to suggest Ebia is making 'false and unsubstantiated claims' just because you disagree with his view.

Your tactics are self-serving and display little compassion or even a modicum of understanding. You have railed against me and question my Christianity. Now you are leveling you fundamentalistic guns of Ebia.

I know Ebia is well and truly able to speak for himself and I, in no way, speak for him, but I am just wondering what is going on in the Anglican communion when fundamentalism becomes the theological measure whereby one determines the Christian agenda.

 

[MKJ]

You speak of "fundamentalism ravaging the Anglican communion". I don't see much fundamentalism on this board (except for one poster), unless you are using the word in a nontechnical sense to simply apply to theological conservatives who you see as intolerant. In that broad sense, the word would apply to most folks in the RCC and EO, and many conservative Anglicans. There are certinaly many fundamentalist posting on other sub-bboards such as GT.

Overall, I wouldn't say that Anglicanism is overburdened with fundamentalism compared to many other groups. But it is a bit depressing to see it at all. You're right though, fundamentalism is a very specific take on Christianity and it is by nature not at all conservative - it's an innovation, in the bad sense of the term.

 

[brightmorningstar]

there are to my knowledge no African Anglicans, or Anglicans from the sounthern cone or asia on STR. These geographies make up the majority of Anglicans. I think some of you would find what you call raging fundamentalism is the norm for the Anglican Communion.

 

[MKJ]

there are to my knowledge no African Anglicans, or Anglicans from the sounthern cone or asia on STR. These geographies make up the majority of Anglicans. I think some of you would find what you call raging fundamentalism is the norm for the Anglican Communion.

Do you understand that Anglicanism doesn't just include the Church Militant, but all Anglicans that have gone before?

And I'll just not that I am pretty shocked that you think that the death penalty for homosexual acts is appropriate. That is way outside what is acceptable.

 

[brightmorningstar]

MJK,

Do you understand that Anglicanism doesn't just include the Church Militant, but all Anglicans that have gone before?

I understand that Anglicanism includes all Anglicans that have gone before. No idea what you mean by the ‘Church militant’
You do understand that Anglicanism includes the all Anglicans worldwide such as Africans and Asians and Southern come?
You also realise that some of the views of the present TEC that are causing a divide in the Communion have been considered faulty by Anglicans who have gone before?

And I'll just not that I am pretty shocked that you think that the death penalty for homosexual acts is appropriate. That is way outside what is acceptable.

Nope I did not say that. My point was that it is not for us to judge the death penalty for murder any more than the death penalty for homosexual acts.
For the record of my views on this, here is what I said on a pro-choice thread on 7th July 2011.
As to the law of the country we have already on this forum shared a wish to have laws of other countries changed, for example the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda, I don’t’ like it that homosexuals get killed in countries like Uganda and Islamic countries, I am sure you can therefore appreciate how we also feel about the unborn getting killed, .......

So we are looking to have the law changed and that starts with educating people of the truth which is of coursde God's truth., not what some men in certain countries think. This is also a Christian section of the forum and thus many will tell you that the US cant give eternal life, but Jesus Christ can.

1.Matthew 10:28 “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
3.2 Corinthians 5:1 “For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.”


Be careful not to misrepresent what people say, and btw defending same sex relationships which God detests as error and a wicked suppression of the truth, and abortion, is way outside what is acceptable on a Christian forum.