Gay church leaders

[gracebyfaith]

Wow Gracie!
Sorry, I haven't been on for quite some time, it's a busy season for our
family.

I have to say you've caught me off guard.  For someone who claims
tolerance and "LOVE" for all sinners - you're pretty mean spirited in
your posts, as you personally attack Acumen.  Well, "You will know
them by their fruits," and you are certainly showing some fruits...

All of the things you've accused others of doing on this particular
thread is exactly what you've been doing, which is always ironic to
witness.  No one has an agenda or fixation, but you.

By the way, this morning in church I sat behind a friend of mine
who was once homosexual and no longer is.  He's married with
a newborn baby and a beautiful wife.  I was reminded of how your
claims are so UNTRUE.  People can change and do all the time.
There are many with a testimony like my friend.  You're choosing
to focus on people who have not accepted God's true GRACE -
that's your choice.  Only you limit what He does in your life by
not believing. 

Sadly, my concern is that people like you will teach homosexuals
there is NO hope for change and they have to accept their sin trap. 
God can deliver them, just like He delivers us from sexual sins.  We
don't have to give in to every lustful thought or inclination, no matter
if it's sodomy or adultery.  Be careful to not be a stumbling block
to homosexuals, because "again" you will be guilty of what you claim
people like I do. 

God can deliver homosexuals, and you may be telling them He can't???

PS
You accused Acumen of only wanting to hear himself.  He is the most
patient person I've witnessed on Belief Corner.  Who else would have
read your every word?  I have to say you give the impression that you
like to hear yourself by giving little substance in all your rambling.  Less
is more when it comes to your posts.


Sincerely,
GracebyFaith

[Acumen]

Gracebyfaith,

I have to say you've caught me off guard.  For someone who claims
tolerance and "LOVE" for all sinners - you're pretty mean spirited in
your posts, as you personally attack Acumen.  Well, "You will know
them by their fruits," and you are certainly showing some fruits...

I've seen this quite a bit when discussing homosexuality.  It's unfortunate that people feel they need to get malicious when you don't agree with them.  This is a new forum, and the management here won't tolerate those sorts of ad hominem attacks on its members.  I consider this place a safe haven for academic discussion, and that's why I said, "don't let the door hit you on your way out."

You accused Acumen of only wanting to hear himself.  He is the most
patient person I've witnessed on Belief Corner.  Who else would have
read your every word?  I have to say you give the impression that you
like to hear yourself by giving little substance in all your rambling.  Less
is more when it comes to your posts.

In my opinion, people only get that personal when they don't have much to say.  Didn't it seem sort of strange that she attacked me because I made a reference to another scriptural passage?  If I'm not mistaken, I believe she accused me of referring to my "favorite" scriptures -- you know, because I'm fixated on homosexuality.  And then when a few posters disagreed with her, she accused me of lying about the forum in my invitation.  Oh well, can't please everyone.

-Acumen

[Some Darn Xian]

Came across an interesting point of view on the subject of "sodomy."

First, the definitions of sodomy were defined by a person named Damian in the 11th century and was further codified by Thomas Aquinas in the 17th century.

Second, the term used in the Greek that we translate as the modern construct of "homosexuality" was more likely referring to the common practice of the time, pedastery, the taking of young boys by older men for "comfort."

Just a thought for the discussion.

[Acumen]

Darn,


Right, and this may be the case, however Paul talked about women doing what was not in their nature.  I think the subject of homosexuality was intended to expand beyond the parameters of "pedastery."

[Faithfulee]

This is difficult for this Episcopalian who believes that Homosexuals are part of Gods creation and are to be loved as such.  Additionally,  I have witnessed the good works of committed Gay church members and leaders.

What makes it difficult is the elevation of Gene Robinson to become a Bishop of the Episcopal Church.  That act is tearing the Church apart and it is a shame.  My position at this time is that Bishop Robinson should resign and help the church heal.  I believe him to be a good man and one who could heal the wounds and convince enough Episcopal members that he is worthy of holding a position of Bishop.  It may take some time, but it would take the pressure off the current situation and help the Church to Grow.

[WorldWarrior]

Ell says--

"How exactly does (sic) homosexual acts benefit society and bring in the Kingdom of God?"



In the very same way that hetero "acts" "benefit" society--by creating stable units from which the members can be fully functioning and work for the good of all in the society.

The emphasis is on actions taken that will benefit all or many members of the society--not on the actions between the members of each unit.

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"What makes it difficult is the elevation of Gene Robinson to become a Bishop of the Episcopal Church.  That act is tearing the Church apart and it is a shame.  My position at this time is that Bishop Robinson should resign and help the church heal. "


How does this situation differ in your mind from the first Blacks/African-Americans and as well as Women who became leaders and heads of religions and businesses and government agencies that were once considered to be the province only of White Males?

[Faithfulee]

FFLee says--

"What makes it difficult is the elevation of Gene Robinson to become a Bishop of the Episcopal Church.  That act is tearing the Church apart and it is a shame.  My position at this time is that Bishop Robinson should resign and help the church heal. "


How does this situation differ in your mind from the first Blacks/African-Americans and as well as Women who became leaders and heads of religions and businesses and government agencies that were once considered to be the province only of White Males?

We have made lots of progress in these areas and I am proud of America for it.  It is a process and I have always supported the belief that women and Blacks should have the same opportunities as men in this world.
I feel much the same about gays.

The differenct is that in the case of Gene Robinson, his elevation has torn apart the Episcopal Church.  I became more familiar with Robinson over the past week and he has gained more respect from me as a person and a Christian.  In spite of that, I believe that he should either resign or accept the more limited role as a bishop that the heirarchy as offered him.  That way there mignt be healing of the Church and it might give the people time to be more acceptig of homosexuals.  It is a close call and I pray over it.  Less so now that I am no longer active in the Episcopal Church.

I also note that a former Governonr of NJ who is gay and left office in disgrace is in training to be an Episcopal priest.  I am sympathetic to him also, but I don't know enough about his situation.  We all need to know more about homosexuality and need to be open in our discussions of the matter.  My main concern is in the area of marriage, where too often homosexuals get mariied and eventually end up divorced and the children suffer.  My wife's first husband was gay and I know some of the pain that she and her children went through.  Thank God they are blessed by having a mother who is supportive and loving and a father that is still part of their lives.  Life is very complicated but very exciting.

[WorldWarrior]

Ell says--

"Well you have every right to believe what you wish, but I said homosexual "acts" not homosexual relationships.  Homosexual actions (sex) does not benefit society and or bring in the Kingdom of God."



Homosexual acts--like heterosexual acts--create long-term relationships and long-term relationships are the basis of society.


What is your proof for saying that they do *not* benefit society?

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"The differenct is that in the case of Gene Robinson, his elevation has torn apart the Episcopal Church."

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s "tore aprat" some churches too.

But look at the overall gains to society as a result of the Civil Rights Movement.

Whenever there are social upheavals--changes in behavior based on changing ideas and norms--there are bound to be temporary disturbances.


When people's lifelong "beliefs" and models for society change there are bound to be discomforts.


Do you think everyone was nice and comfy with Jesus' push for reforms?

[jacknky]

El,
"Sin affects genes.  Does anyone here believe that God created genes that ultimately lead the person to have cancer, Alzheimers...etc? "

I think science is showing that genes affect us a great deal but I don't believe they have shown any corallary to "sin".

That's the wonderful and sad thing about belief. We are free to believe anything we want because it is the nature of belief to be free of rational impediments. I am free to believe there are little green men in my toothpaste but that doesn't mean there actually are.

It is my belief that homosexuals can make as good church leaders as heterosexuals. I think homosexuals are just as capable of great wisdom and compassion as heterosexuals.

[jacknky]

"I would like to ask those who do not believe that homosexual sex is a sin how they come to that conclusion theologically/philosophically/ontologically/eschatologically and last but not least naturally?"

Actually, I think the Bible is a very poor guide on the issue of homosexual relationships primarily because during that time there were few if any loving committed homosexual relationships to consider. There were few if any homosexual marriages for models. Perhaps that's why there are so few references to homosexuality in the Bible, none by Jesus.

Jesus did show a remarkable affinity for the down-trodden of his time which to me is the most revolutionary aspect of Christianity. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuals but he did say "Judge not". That is so terribly difficult to do that most Christians still can't follow that injunction 2000 years later.

[WorldWarrior]

Jesus said and did a lot in relation to people who "didn't fit in" to society's ordinary "norms."


He dined with prostitutes and prevented an adulteress (woman) from being stoned.

He hung out with tax collectors and with thieves.

He was a rabbi/highly respected teacher who hung around with fishermen.


I don't see how any "Christian" can feel comfortable throwing those stones--at anyone.

[Acumen]

Jesus said and did a lot in relation to people who "didn't fit in" to society's ordinary "norms."


He dined with prostitutes and prevented an adulteress (woman) from being stoned.

You probably shouldn't wing scripture here.  People in this forum, unlike those at bnet, actually know their scriptures well.

Jesus never dined with a prostitute, nor did he prevent an adulteress from being stoned.  He did, however, answer a question posed by a mob before an attempt to stone an "alleged" adulteress.   

He hung out with tax collectors and with thieves.

He didn't hang out with thieves, unless of course, you meant it literally in which Jesus "hung" on a cross with thieves.  But I seriously doubt you meant that.

[WorldWarrior]

Acumen says--

"You probably shouldn't wing scripture here.  People in this forum, unlike those at bnet, actually know their scriptures well.

Jesus never dined with a prostitute, nor did he prevent an adulteress from being stoned.  He did, however, answer a question posed by a mob before an attempt to stone an "alleged" adulteress."


Perhaps you've forgotten the scene in which the prostitute washes Jesus' feet with her hair?


And yes--he did stop the stoning of the purported adultress. The would-be executtioners all walked away--and he told the woman--"Go and sin no more."


   


Acumen says--

"He didn't hang out with thieves, unless of course, you meant it literally in which Jesus "hung" on a cross with thieves.  But I seriously doubt you meant that."


I would never make such a crude statement about Jesus on the cross--and I didn't.

But be advised--people in Jesus' time considered tax collectors to BE thieves.

[Faithfulee]

FFLee says--

"The differenct is that in the case of Gene Robinson, his elevation has torn apart the Episcopal Church."

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s "tore aprat" some churches too.

But look at the overall gains to society as a result of the Civil Rights Movement.

Whenever there are social upheavals--changes in behavior based on changing ideas and norms--there are bound to be temporary disturbances.

When people's lifelong "beliefs" and models for society change there are bound to be discomforts.

Do you think everyone was nice and comfy with Jesus' push for reforms?

I am not sure how much society has gained by these movements, but I do know that blacks and homosexuals have gained in acceptance and then taking advantage of the openness of society. 

The "push" has limits (as in my feelings about gay marriage) so I have no qualms nor feel guilty in resisting the forward thrusts of these movements.  In this case I did vote "yes" in the above poll and have no qualms about being is the minority.  I am comfortable with a "forward with restraint" position.

 

"I would like to ask those who do not believe that homosexual sex is a sin how they come to that conclusion theologically/philosophically/ontologically/eschatologically and last but not least naturally?"

Actually, I think the Bible is a very poor guide on the issue of homosexual relationships primarily because during that time there were few if any loving committed homosexual relationships to consider. There were few if any homosexual marriages for models. Perhaps that's why there are so few references to homosexuality in the Bible, none by Jesus.

Jesus did show a remarkable affinity for the down-trodden of his time which to me is the most revolutionary aspect of Christianity. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuals but he did say "Judge not". That is so terribly difficult to do that most Christians still can't follow that injunction 2000 years later.

You don't know the presence or absence of homosexuality in the bible.  There were many contemporary issues that Jesus did not deal with.  As we develop our understanding of God in our world, we must draw from the bible and the acts of Jesus and interpolate.  My belief (based on science today) is that homosexuality did exist at the time of Jesus.  Therefore Jesus did not deal with it because it was not a sin.

I also believe that the propensity for homosexuality is deep within our genitic structure and in that sense is God given.  I respect your disagreement with this position, but the more I learn of homosexuality in my science and my life, the more convinced I am that homosexuals are children of God, must be accepted as such, and should have the same rights as heterosexual.  (there is no "right" for homosexuals to be "married" in a rite and law based on heterosexual relationships), any more so than a gay man can use the "ladies room"

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

".....any more so than a gay man can use the "ladies room"



Sorry to pull this very short phrase out of context--but I have to ask WHY you think a Gay Man would WANT to use the ladies room?

If you think that Gay Men want to "be" women--then I suspect a serious lack of understanding of homosexuality here.

[Acumen]

Acumen:  Jesus never dined with a prostitute, nor did he prevent an adulteress from being stoned.  He did, however, answer a question posed by a mob before an attempt to stone an "alleged" adulteress."

WW: Perhaps you've forgotten the scene in which the prostitute washes Jesus' feet with her hair?
-------------------------

• First, she didn't dine with Jesus, unless you consider washing someone's feet with your hair to be a dining experience.
  
• Second, the scriptures do not refer to her as a prostitute.  That is an inference that you (or someone you read) is making about her.

-------------------------

WW:  And yes--he did stop the stoning of the purported adultress. The would-be executtioners all walked away--and he told the woman--"Go and sin no more."

Again, we don't know if she was an adulteress, this is a supposition you're making based upon an accusation from a mob during a time when there was serious prejudice and discrimination against women.  What is interesting about the passage, is that the other allegedly guilty party (the man) was nowhere to be found.  Perhaps she wasn't an adulteress because the missing party didn't really exist?

------------------------

Acumen:  "He didn't hang out with thieves, unless of course, you meant it literally in which Jesus "hung" on a cross with thieves.  But I seriously doubt you meant that."

WW:  I would never make such a crude statement about Jesus on the cross--and I didn't.

-----------------------

In that case, your claim that he hung out with thieves is wrong.

----------------------

WW:  But be advised--people in Jesus' time considered tax collectors to BE thieves.

I know the scriptures quite well, thank you.  Tax collectors were called thieves as a derogatory term because people wanted to keep their money rather than give their dues to the government.  However, the money wasn't their's for the keeping, and therefore tax collectors were really no more thieves than today's IRS, or the politicians who encourage higher taxation.  So hanging out with tax collectors is not the same as hanging out with thieves.

Next time, consider reading the scriptures before you tell us what Jesus was or wasn't doing.

[Faithfulee]

No disrespect Lee, but you keep repeating the same sentiment, we get it already.  The problem that we have with it is that you have no Biblical or Traditional support for your personal view.

But you are free to believe what you want.

And you too my friend are free to believe what you want to.

I assure you that I have scientific support for my view on homosexuality, but I rely on the comments of others above who say homosexuality is NOT mentioned by Jesus.

FFLee says--

".....any more so than a gay man can use the "ladies room"



Sorry to pull this very short phrase out of context--but I have to ask WHY you think a Gay Man would WANT to use the ladies room?

If you think that Gay Men want to "be" women--then I suspect a serious lack of understanding of homosexuality here.

Homosexuals want to occupy the "ladies room" of marriage.

----------------------

WW:  But be advised--people in Jesus' time considered tax collectors to BE thieves.

I know the scriptures quite well, thank you.  Tax collectors were called thieves as a derogatory term because people wanted to keep their money rather than give their dues to the government.  However, the money wasn't their's for the keeping, and therefore tax collectors were really no more thieves than today's IRS, or the politicians who encourage higher taxation.  So hanging out with tax collectors is not the same as hanging out with thieves.

Next time, consider reading the scriptures before you tell us what Jesus was or wasn't doing.

  AMEN to that.  Amazing what one can find in the Bible.

[WorldWarrior]

Acumen--none of what you say in your post 87 in any way "disproves" anything that I have said.


And yes--keep saying I "don't know the Bible" while I am referencing Bible stories to you.


That doesn't make any sense either.