TEC NYC Gay Disco Mass

Discussion in 'Anglican and Christian News' started by Celtic1, Jul 2, 2013.

  1. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    418
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    Your linked articles are hilarious! Yeah, good science there. LOL

    Tell me, when a dog tries to hump your leg, does that mean it is cross-sexual? LOL
     
  2. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    2,506
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    So your argument is that as long as it's natural somewhere, then it's natural among humans?

    Oh I have no doubt that there's homosexual behavior among animals. My only point was about it being natural -- and among humans.



    Have you ever once cracked open his Ecclesiastical Polity?

    Oh so you're not interested in actually following he teaches, only dropping his name when convenient for proposing things vehemently antithetical to everything Hooker believed?

    I am sure that Paul's pastoral advice was to preach what works. And when Christ said that if our eye and our hand causes us to sin, to cut off our hand and poke out our eye, he didn't really mean it. None of their words have any meaning for us. We need to follow Christ not to what he said, but "into the full flower of his ideas", yes?

    Christianity is just a springboard into liberal pantheism, did I get your meaning correctly?
     
  3. Ogygopsis

    Ogygopsis Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    60
    Homosexuality is not a Greek word, nor Hebrew. And we have 3 legs on our stool as Anglicans. Your's apparently has one.

    Sola Scriptura is a reformed position. It ain't Anglican.
    This statement alone shows that you don't understand genetics. No one asserts the "one gene - one trait" hypothesis anymore. Repeat: no-one.

    Show us where Jesus said any of this. I advise and practice slowness to condemn, you don't, I get that. You do sound fundie in your posts. You can have the last word if you really really want. Discussions like this are not about getting someone to agree with you. We can let this rest, unless your zeal requires you to continue.
     
  4. Ogygopsis

    Ogygopsis Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    60
    So shall we give away depo-Provera to gay people? Or just cut off their genitalia?

    Liberal pantheism? Where on God's green earth did you derive that from, from what I posted?

    Okay accuse me of ignorance of Hooker and I accuse you of genetic and biological ignorance.
     
  5. Ogygopsis

    Ogygopsis Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    60
    deleted duplicate -- user error, replace user!
     
  6. Spherelink

    Spherelink Active Member

    Posts:
    545
    Likes Received:
    246
    Religion:
    Unhinged SC Anglican
    I don't like either of the proposals people have put forth here. Why must we either champion or "cut off"? Why cannot we clearly state that people are in the wrong and then gently give them pastoral guidance within that context?

    I do not want my children to have "six fingers" or "seven toes" and would like to be able to say: "look son, I am sorry about your disfigurement" while still calling him son and providing guidance.
     
    Ogygopsis likes this.
  7. Ogygopsis

    Ogygopsis Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    60
    Thankyou Spherelink for a more balanced view.
     
  8. Ogygopsis

    Ogygopsis Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    60
    I think we may also be on to some cultural differences that are more significant that I realize with discussions like this one, cf http://forums.anglican.net/threads/archbishop-fred-hiltz-canada-address-to-general-synod.881/

    A local retreat centre (by local I mean 400 km/300 miles away) is owned by RC, the resident priest is Anglican, the chair of the board is a Lutheran bishop, and there are reps from RC, Anglican, Lutheran, United Church on the board. Such things mean we tend to look toward common ground and are rather polite and respectful about differences.
     
  9. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    2,358
    I should think that the ACNA and AMIA would minister positively to gay people the same way that Christians have ministered to all lost people: by sharing the gospel with them. Explain to them that they are sinners born condemned but that God, in His love, has not abandoned them, they have salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. And more than that, they have victory and power over the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Gay people are no different from any other humans and respond to the message of salvation in Christ like anyone else.
     
    Stalwart and Ogygopsis like this.
  10. The Hackney Hub

    The Hackney Hub Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    385
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    The Episcopal Church
    Sola Scriptura is most certainly Anglican:

    VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
    Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
     
    Stalwart and Lowly Layman like this.
  11. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    2,506
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    We should at least say the truth of what their state is. For the record I am not advocating they cut off anything; even I shrink from the sharp and brutal words of our Lord. All I meant to show with them is that he is not a carebear. Nor is he a hippie. He is a fire-and-brimstone everyone-shall-rot-in-Hell-besides-my-people sort of prophet, Messiah, and God. We need to take his words seriously, and not put him in a lockbox of a "story", interpreted via some kind of "stool", whereby his awesome and awful utterances are made toothless and we thereby rule over him rather than He over us.

    From the trajectory of your views that we need to believe not the ideas themselves, but "the full flower" of them, by which I understand you to mean their consequences, or what you believe are their consequences.

    I don't believe I said anything about genetics, are you sure you're referencing my posts?
     
  12. Ogygopsis

    Ogygopsis Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    60
    Genetics was Celtic1. Apologies for misdirection. There seems to be more of the one side of the debate than the other, with me being the current torch bearer for the other.

    I'm on the side of the Jesus saves everyone. With the full mystery being beyond our ken. The damned to hell part not being on. It is probably from here that the one of the differences in views stem. I'll not change you, nor you me. I do think the cultural and social condition differences account for a good measure of the differences. I will damned if I will damn anyone myself, and I do react emotionally when I see others prepared to do this to others, and also presume to speak for God on this. We will have no ability to minister to anyone if we fail to welcome them, and then see their progressive conversion. We take them broken. The is may form the second problem: conversion for some is a Paul on the Damascus Road experience. All of a sudden. For some of us, and what I see here, is a progressive filling, drop by drop. And even sometimes the cup is overturned and we start again. I do not see the all or none and the harshness put forward, in what seems very judgemental terms. Sexuality is not the really biggest deal frankly. It is merely one of many things.

    The status of the 39 articles: "the Articles are not officially normative in all Anglican Churches (neither is the Athanasian Creed). The only doctrinal documents agreed upon in the Anglican Communion are the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed of AD 381, and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral." (Wikipedia).
     
    Robert likes this.
  13. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    2,506
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    You're fighting a losing battle with your wiki comment, because in no documents you cited does it say that homosexuality is natural and equivalent to heterosexuality. Also you've quoted Wikipedia.

    That's true. And liberals shouldn't therefore try so hard to normalize it, as TEC have done and as you've apologized for them so much. We should just take the current stance of the Church that homosexuality is a defect, which is supportable by scripture, science, and reason, and minister to people from the standpoint of truth, rather than from trying to disrupt scripture, nature, and reason to get a narrow bigoted agenda forth, as TEC leadership tries to do.


    But we don't see homosexuals approach this while being broken. That's my point. We see them championed and celebrated, while the traditional family is destroyed and liberals almost cheer it on with their support for divorce, abortion, homosexuality, gender change and other evils.
     
  14. Ogygopsis

    Ogygopsis Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    60
    If we're dealing with factual information, not about opinion, Wikipedia does work. The 39 Articles are not binding nor normative for Anglican churches worldwide.

    I don't accept the American definition of and dichotomy of liberal-conservative. It doesn't fit with traditional culture here.

    Telling people that they are bad, defective and have to do what you say does not work very well. I don't agree with all the choices people make whether wilful or from their make-up, but we don't hammer them. Would you disown a child of your's who chose to live common-law? Would they be banned from communion?

    Jesus's point seemed to be that he engaged with everyone. Even a criminal on a neighbouring cross. None were rejected and none shall be. Further, we are all broken. All.
     
  15. The Hackney Hub

    The Hackney Hub Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    385
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    The Episcopal Church
    Besides, who cites Wikipedia as a serious source? C'mon!
     
  16. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    2,506
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    And I have no problem with engaging. But he did call a criminal a criminal. That is my point.
     
  17. Ogygopsis

    Ogygopsis Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gay people are not criminal. I would not want to see them arrested, locked up, or committed to mental hospitals, as did happen in Canada before 1968-69. Anyone who is advocating that is completely off the map in Canada and any civilized country. Even the 50% of Canada who are RC do not hold such extreme positions.

    We are watching the "Land of the Free" debate who shall be free and considering that somehow we went through this a decade ago, and now it is all quiet. Our experience would suggest that it is better to allow individuals to make choices and refrain from trying to legally regulate morality. Our supreme court indicated recently that sexual behaviour should only be legislated about when someone is harmed, hence polygamy was ruled illegal and not protected.

    What happens when the battle is no longer fought because there isn't one to fight, is that people stop fighting it, and it seems to largely fade somewhere into the background. I think less confrontation is better. But I am a Canadian, and we seem to avoid angry confrontation as part of our national culture. -- It will take a change of national government, but we'll probably declare many types of drug use as health issues only, and we'll see a fading of that as well. -- Better is to take the wind out of the sails of anger, then the problem just fades back into the distance.
     
  18. Onlooker

    Onlooker Active Member

    Posts:
    133
    Likes Received:
    37
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    None
    Poor old Ogygopsis, fighting his almost lone fight, and then I come along to help – with such friends ...etc etc

    I can't comment on whether homosexual behaviour is sinful; I haven't the right union card for that. I do think, however, that, even as a non-Christian, I have the right to argue for understanding, humility, and a way to avoid condemning people for what harms no other and which they cannot/do not find repugnant or sinful in their natures.

    I know I have been brushed aside as sort of wimpish in this, but what I most admire about Anglicanism can be found in the loving attitudes you find in the Archbishop of Canterbury's address on Friday to the General Synod of the Church of England. He has come from a bruising encounter opposing the Gay Marriage Bill in Parliament to a Synod which will be discussing (yet again) women bishops. What a job! Listen to how he approaches these subjects:

    http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1795958/presidentialaddress.mp3
     
  19. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    2,506
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    You were the one who invoked criminality in the middle of a discussion about homosexuals, so don't look at me. I don't want anything you listed either.

    I pointed out that Christ when around criminals was willing to love them and at the same time never shrunk from calling them criminals. So with homosexuals, the Apostles and God condemned the accepted homosexuality of their age even as they offered guidance and pastorship to those who were living in sin.
     
  20. Ogygopsis

    Ogygopsis Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    60
    But you are pointing out Jesus and criminals in the same breath as Jesus and gay people. The connection is made.

    We actually don't know what Jesus and the apostles thought about homosexuality, because the concept of a marred type of relationship with the same gender didn't exist at the time. We know that Paul was hostile to the traditional Greek culture that older men would practice incrural sex with preadolescent boys. We know that Romans and Greeks thought that women had insatiable sexual appetites, and that it was thought worthy of ridicule that a man would greatly love his wife. Marriage and family was about continuity of the familia and ensuring that it continued. -- It is not possible to take modern, i.e., the last 150 years and consider this what they thought was normal. Our view of social relations has greatly changed.

    Maybe some kind someone will provide us with "the count". NT references to the poor versus references to sex. Is sexuality more important than poverty? It is time to take a break from sexuality and focus on issues that were Jesus's preoccupation.

    Not sure Onlooker, but I think the posters on this thread think the Abps of Canterbury have been and are radical lefty sinners as they try to exercise their responsibilities to all.