J
JasonV
Guest
Get used to it...it's the future. And for the record I am a Subdeacon.
I believe God's plan is perfect...therefore I reject that nonsense you consider God's plan.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Ordination of Practicing Homosexuals
- Thread starter Ave Maria
- Start date
- Status
Get used to it...it's the future. And for the record I am a Subdeacon.
I believe God's plan is perfect...therefore I reject that nonsense you consider God's plan.
- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,636
- 5,009
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Apparently anyone can call themselves a Christian. That is one definition of being a Christian. This is an enormous issue in the world, since non-believers and believers have no idea what folks stand for when they say that they are Christian. It is also a great problem within the Communion, and will cause schism with the decade.
IMHO, there is always room with the COmmunion for differing opinions, for ignorance, and even for outright "fighting". IMHO, openly attacking the faith is not good for the Communion.
================
With regard to the issue ordaining practicing homosexuals, I take a similar view to the Roman Catholic Church on such major issues. This is an issue that takes time to resolve and cannot be dealt with as a cultural equity issue. There are three steps that the Communion would need to take. All are large.
1) Declare that homosexual behavior is loving and part of God's plan of relationship between people.
2a) Declare that marriage is between two adults and can be between two men or two women.
2b) Or declare that sexual activity outside of marriage is acceptable and part of God's plan.
3) Decide what restrictions, if any, is reasonable with regard to the definition of deacons, presbyters (priests) and espiskos (bishops).
All this must be done in the context of the scripture, tradition, reason and the effect on the Communion.
==================
My personal opinion is the actions of the TEC has caused a schism in the Communion. Perhaps it is time, but the hierarchy of the TEC is not acceptable to the majority of the Communion.
IMHO, there is always room with the COmmunion for differing opinions, for ignorance, and even for outright "fighting". IMHO, openly attacking the faith is not good for the Communion.
================
With regard to the issue ordaining practicing homosexuals, I take a similar view to the Roman Catholic Church on such major issues. This is an issue that takes time to resolve and cannot be dealt with as a cultural equity issue. There are three steps that the Communion would need to take. All are large.
1) Declare that homosexual behavior is loving and part of God's plan of relationship between people.
2a) Declare that marriage is between two adults and can be between two men or two women.
2b) Or declare that sexual activity outside of marriage is acceptable and part of God's plan.
3) Decide what restrictions, if any, is reasonable with regard to the definition of deacons, presbyters (priests) and espiskos (bishops).
All this must be done in the context of the scripture, tradition, reason and the effect on the Communion.
==================
My personal opinion is the actions of the TEC has caused a schism in the Communion. Perhaps it is time, but the hierarchy of the TEC is not acceptable to the majority of the Communion.
Upvote
0
Your either purposely trying to mislead people here on this forum or you're ignorant. When Jesus says "it is written" he does so as an affirmation of the scriptures. You can deny this until you are blue in the face but you will only be kidding yourself and maybe a few unfortunate others.
Matthew 4:4
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'
Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.
Matthew 26:24
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
Upvote
0
With all due respect I don't have to get used to what you say anymore than you do to me.
Great! Now would you tell us what "version" do refer to?
It can't be the same one we of the Judeo Christian tradition have, that's for darn sure.
Upvote
0
J
JasonV
Guest
It takes a pretty big leap of logic to take a few selectively quoted passages and apply that as a stamp of approval on the entirety of the Old Testament.
Since no normative canon existed at the time of Jesus, saying he approved of the Old Testament (with or without the apocryphal/deutrocanonical books?) as we know it today is a logical fallacy.
Jesus used certain verses in support of his new way as needed. Making blanket statements about his views is an overgeneralization at best.
Upvote
0
J
JasonV
Guest
Your righteous indignation aside, people are leaving the "orthodox" churches in such numbers as to render your version of Christianity irrelevant. So you can stick your head in the sand, or take a good look around and realize that a massive shift is taking place that will forever alter what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,636
- 5,009
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
It is simply untrue that there was no normative Old Testament during the time of Jesus. The preistly prayer was found on a scroll dated 7 centuries before Jesus. The oral tradition and scrolls of the first five books had existed for quite a long time by the era of Jesus. The prophets were also discussed for centriues. Document from just before and just after the time of Jesus have been discovered in Qumram. These documents match what we THOUGHT were accurate EXACTLY, with three letters for one of the scrolls.
Jesus was a rabbi (a teacher). He was expert on the written word by the time he was 13.
There is no question with regard to what was said in Isaiah. There were many, many folks looking for the Messiah. The prophecies were well known by the Jews and the Romans.
Jesus did not reject the Old Testament. He certainly had every opportunity to do so.
==========
But this is a diversion. The absolutely open question is how much of the Old and New Testament rules are applicable to our generation. For Christians, the answer cannot be none of them. It also cannot be "whichc ever rules one chooses".
Jesus was a rabbi (a teacher). He was expert on the written word by the time he was 13.
There is no question with regard to what was said in Isaiah. There were many, many folks looking for the Messiah. The prophecies were well known by the Jews and the Romans.
Jesus did not reject the Old Testament. He certainly had every opportunity to do so.
==========
But this is a diversion. The absolutely open question is how much of the Old and New Testament rules are applicable to our generation. For Christians, the answer cannot be none of them. It also cannot be "whichc ever rules one chooses".
Upvote
0
J
JasonV
Guest
None of which has anything to do with proving there was a normative canon in use by Jews in Palestine at the time of Jesus.
Before you get your feathers all ruffled, you might want to pay attention to the question.
The question of whether Jesus used the so-called Palestinian Canon or the Alexandrian canon has been discussed and is still under some question.
Regardless, since Jesus only said "It is written" instead of "God said in Isaiah..." the argument is flat and meritless.
Nor did Jesus say he approved of it, in whole or in part. I believe that is the elephant in the room you are ignoring.
Upvote
0
It takes a pretty big leap of logic to think that a man born of a virgin women would die on the cross and somehow enable our sins to be forgiven. Harder to imaginge is that he would come back to life.
Such is the life of a true Christian, something I think you are oblivious too.
It's pretty apparent you wish to define your own version of Christianity and for that matter God's greater plan for us. I will not stand in your way, after all He gave us free will. However, I doubt your sincerity in this matter because you apparently constantly wish to diminish the legacy he has given us but rather propose your own divine version to be somehow more "up to date" and therefore superior. This is laughable because as the bible states it, God knew you and me and everyone else before we were born. To suggest then that he couldn't see in the future and that therefore His plan is archaic is without merit.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Another nonsensical response.
Here's a question for you, if God didn't inspire man to write the Old Testament, as is the Judeo Christian tradition, how did HE, God, then propagate His word?
Luke 11:28
He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
Matthew 22:29
Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
Mark 14:49
Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled."
Luke 24:27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Upvote
0
J
JasonV
Guest
When you can separate your emotions from this "discussion" I will be happy to continue. But until you can get over your righteous indignation, and your apparent belief that God needs you to defend him, I see no reason to discuss this with you.
Upvote
0
J
JasonV
Guest
I am asking for facts, and you are giving me some lame emotional non-factual replies.
If my posts are so "nonsensical" would you mind explaining why? Have you already managed to come to a conclusion on which "canon" Jesus used? In your research, what was the definitive evidence that lead you to decide? Was it the Alexandrian or Palestinian canon? Have you told all the scholars out there who missed this bit of evidence you found?
This is what I'm asking. If you don't have a factual reply, don't reply.
Upvote
0
Righteous indignation? I'll tell you I'm of no account.
I'm only interested in propagating the truth, nothing more and nothing less.
Upvote
0
I've answered you sufficiently regarding the topic at hand.
As far as not replying I solely reserve the right to decide this.
Matthew 13:14
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,636
- 5,009
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
You have made the choice to ignore the bible. You have chosen to believe that Jesus misled us when he said that all the teachings of the prophets are contained in the two commands. You ahve chosen to believe that Jesus really wasn't a believer in scripture beacuse tyhere might be a few words different in the various translations. What sand you choose to stand upon!
Your idea of the OT is to ignore what was siad because there are a few differences between the book of Daniel in the Aramaic and Greek versions that we have.
I do uinderstand that many Christains appear to do the same thing as you have done, fussing about the critical importance of 2nd Maccabbes or who has translated John 3:16 and the 6th Chapter of John correctly. However, these are mild diversions compared your stated differences from the orthodox belief of the ages.
I don't get my feathers ruffled. One has a choice whether to believe what Jesus said, his followers who said what he said and the the thousands of years of those who prayed about what he said. Or you can choose to make your own interpretations, ones that are closer to your own choices.
We are all free to create God in our own image. Left to our own interpretations and advices, we have no other choice.
BOTTOM LINE
You have chosen a set of interpretations that are your own. In another era, you would have been considered a heretic or an apostate, and treated by the methods of that age.
Today, here on this board, we are a bit more charitable. We merely point out that billions of Christians who regularly met as communities of Jesus, and confess the creeds of the faith, disagree with what you call Christain. In fact, this board even has a working definition. We merely point out that for 2000 years, there have been those who accept the creeds and those don't. You obviously don't. Your path is your own. It is not for us to judge. However, it is for us to state the Truth as it has been passed down to us.
Your idea of the OT is to ignore what was siad because there are a few differences between the book of Daniel in the Aramaic and Greek versions that we have.
I do uinderstand that many Christains appear to do the same thing as you have done, fussing about the critical importance of 2nd Maccabbes or who has translated John 3:16 and the 6th Chapter of John correctly. However, these are mild diversions compared your stated differences from the orthodox belief of the ages.
I don't get my feathers ruffled. One has a choice whether to believe what Jesus said, his followers who said what he said and the the thousands of years of those who prayed about what he said. Or you can choose to make your own interpretations, ones that are closer to your own choices.
We are all free to create God in our own image. Left to our own interpretations and advices, we have no other choice.
BOTTOM LINE
You have chosen a set of interpretations that are your own. In another era, you would have been considered a heretic or an apostate, and treated by the methods of that age.
Today, here on this board, we are a bit more charitable. We merely point out that billions of Christians who regularly met as communities of Jesus, and confess the creeds of the faith, disagree with what you call Christain. In fact, this board even has a working definition. We merely point out that for 2000 years, there have been those who accept the creeds and those don't. You obviously don't. Your path is your own. It is not for us to judge. However, it is for us to state the Truth as it has been passed down to us.
Upvote
0
J
JasonV
Guest
I'd rather be a Jesus loving heretic, than a self righteous, pompous, arrogant, short-sighted orthodox Christian!
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
Upvote
0
If that were really the case.
At any rate we're all on our own journey and as such I would offer you some advice; God has given us the scriptures for a reason and they are not to be diminished nor ignored, at least to those who profess to love and serve the Christ and His heavenly Father.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
BenjaminW
The Unimpressive
While, in general, I'd lean against the ordination of "practicing homosexuals", this would be primarily because the Church does not recognise same-sex marriage, at least in Canada, for the moment.
In general, I feel that churches which have ordained sexually active gays and lesbians to have done this in the wrong order. It would make more sense to approve same sex marriage (or declare all pre-marital sex okay) and then ordain married gays, than to do it in the reverse order, unless they also want to ordain unmarried, sexually active heterosexuals.
But as long as same-sex marriage is not ecclesiastically recognised, ordaining "practising homosexuals" doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.
In general, I feel that churches which have ordained sexually active gays and lesbians to have done this in the wrong order. It would make more sense to approve same sex marriage (or declare all pre-marital sex okay) and then ordain married gays, than to do it in the reverse order, unless they also want to ordain unmarried, sexually active heterosexuals.
But as long as same-sex marriage is not ecclesiastically recognised, ordaining "practising homosexuals" doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
