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.
You're obviously not capable of having a reasonable conversation free of condescension or sarcasm. Have a great evening, Albion.
Obviously I don't support the ordination of criminals or animal abusers. Anyone who partakes in beastiality is both. Homosexuals are neither. We are not comparing apples and apples.
What is the basis for your liberal agenda that says one thing is a vice and another isn't? "It's criminal!" is a cop-out because that just means someone else has decided for you. How are you deciding?
I'm not trying to advance an agenda, Yab Yum. When I took the bait on the beastiality issue I expressed that the basis for which I would not support someone who was a beastialist (if that's a word, lol) was the fact that the activity was both criminal and abusive. Presumably, it is criminal primarily because it is abusive.
I don't know that we can blame him for advancing that argument since is is exactly the same one that Bishop Robinson has been publically stating. It is apparently the current hermenutic of TEC.Heard that one before. It's kind of a favorite of the advocates of changing anything and everything in the church, wouldn't you agree? Of course, it's a ridiculous argument since you either have to contend that there should be absolutely no regulations or standards at all--which you have already said is incorrect for the reason that you do have standards such as the ones you explained above--or else you are operating under the mistaken assumption that this OT chapter is the whole of the Bible's teaching on morality and sexual behavior.
Well, he offered you a whole new set of analogies in view of your objection to the bestiality comparison. Will you answer?
I don't know that we can blame him for advancing that argument since is is exactly the same one that Bishop Robinson has been publically stating. It is apparently the current hermenutic of TEC.
Well, I have to agree. It does seem that they feel a need to offer some sort of defense and to find some passage in scripture to cite, even if the claim is known by all sides to be lacking. Otherwise, it would be like a lawyer going into court and declining to address the jury, whether or not he has a case.The fact that it is entirely absurd doesn't seem to matter to those TEC Bishops as they have a entirely non-biblical agenda to advance.
Now to be fair to NFF I also included lobster-eaters and people who wear nylon and cotton - which are excluded from our present society's list of vices but are included in the 613 mitzvot, which are summarized in the ten commandments, which are summarized in Christ's two great commands, which presumably we are all agreed we ought to try to keep.
Again, the point is - what do we do with this mess? We're living in a society which - like all societies - has a changing set of values and we have a Bible which has a single Law. Now what?
Society has ALWAYS been changing. At the same time, the Church has been called to be NOT of the world, to be steadfast. I don't see that there's a lot there to puzzle over. Yes, some changes have been incorporated into the Church over the years and we could evaluate them to see which were reasonable to make and which might have transgressed against the Church's basic values. However, the idea that if society changes, the Church must also go right along with it seems a proposition that is almost impossible to defend--unless one thinks that the Church is not a divinely-established instistution but is simply a good way to keep people in line or someting practical like that.
Secundulus, as you are listed as a Catholic, please refrain from commentary on the Episcopal Church. You don't have to like TEC, but have some respect for the Episcopalians on the board.
I know TEC bashing is popular in STR - but please be more respectful.
Yet presumably there are plenty of Episcopal priests who eat lobster and wear mixed cloth.
If we permit ourselves to draw even a smidge of a line re: the Law - where do we draw it?
As I have said already, I am in the Traditional Anglican Communion and have a right to post here. When and if we move to the Catholic Church I will stop posting here.Secundulus, as you are listed as a Catholic, please refrain from commentary on the Episcopal Church. You don't have to like TEC, but have some respect for the Episcopalians on the board.
I know TEC bashing is popular in STR - but please be more respectful.
Again, the point is - what do we do with this mess? We're living in a society which - like all societies - has a changing set of values and we have a Bible which has a single Law. Now what?
This is obviously totally incorrect with regards same sex, and not entirely true as a generalisation. As a generalisation, what about that the events in creation were before God chose His people and any cultures, and what about the prophecies of Christ? He chose His people to be a blessing and an example to others though they fell short.I suppose the crux of the disagreement is that one side (my side) contends that the OT scriptures were delivered for to a specific people within a specific cultural context, and that we must employ reason to interpret God's message as a whole and apply it to modern contexts.
That’s not interpretation but disbelief. The Romans had differing views of same sex relationships than the Greeks, for the Greeks it was considered almost part of life’s education, for the Romans it was practiced mostly with slaves as the passive partner was looked down on.The conclusion that my side has reached is that homosexuality in the modern context of a monogamous and commited relationship is neither a perversion nor sinful, due to our interpretation of God's message and our perception of its relevance to this particular modern context.
I suppose the crux of the disagreement is that one side (my side) contends that the OT scriptures were delivered for to a specific people within a specific cultural context, and that we must employ reason to interpret God's message as a whole and apply it to modern contexts. The conclusion that my side has reached is that homosexuality in the modern context of a monogamous and commited relationship is neither a perversion nor sinful, due to our interpretation of God's message and our perception of its relevance to this particular modern context.
I suppose this would be considered more of a fundamentalist approach.
My perception of your assessment is something along the lines of: 'God said it within a different cultural and historical context, but that doesn't change the fact that he said it so it still applies'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?