Gays Must Change Says Archbishop

[flowperson]

Russ:

 

Wonderful post. You have cut to the heart of the matter...and that's what Jesus' teachings were about.

 

Cut through the obfuscation, the blather, the increasingly meaningless rules, rituals, and dogma, and focus upon the hidden meanings in the teachings.

 

I believe that's why I tend to study the Gospel of Thomas more often than the synoptics since there he is stating many of His core beliefs in simple terms. I'll admit that the synoptic stories are more entertaining than Thomas' sayings, but philosophically, Jesus' truths come through the sayings in Thomas more clearly in my experience.

 

flow....

[October's Autumn]

Hmmmmm...I wouldn't go so far as to say that 'the UMC sucks'. I don't think it's so very different from the top-down management style of any other major denomination. I'm a member because of it's more liberal social attitudes. However, those attitudes address a limited number of issues and needs to be updated. The Quakers have a better handle on inclusion and not 'inclusion at most levels' because they have no clergy. The issue of no gay clergy in the UMC, I feel, is conditional inclusion. Sort of like 'seperate but equal', ya know?

 

 

I was disappointed that was still in their thingy. (Not sure what it is called).

[October's Autumn]

yes. Unrepentant theives are welcome.

yes. Unrepentant drunks too.

yes. Fornicators as well.

yes. Idolators, prostitutes, drug addicts, gluttons, etc.

To me, all are welcome. Right now. Just as 'we' are.

 

 

Of course gay people are not "unrepetenant" anything. Being gay is not a sin. Being gay and having a consensual sexual relationship with another adult is not a sin, either.

 

But your point is well made.

[Mystical Seeker]

Of course gay people are not "unrepetenant" anything. Being gay is not a sin. Being gay and having a consensual sexual relationship with another adult is not a sin, either.

 

Exactly. Posing this question that compares homosexuality with drunkenness or thieving is obviously built on an assumption that those to whom the question is posed clearly don't share. It was a meaningless question in the first place.

 

If you are going to ask a church "where it draws the line" if its goes down the slippery slope of accepting people who unashamedly practice something that the church doesn't even consider a sin, then the whole exercise is just downright silly. Not only would I expect my church to accept unrepentent gays, I would also hope that my church allows unrepentent pet owners, unrepentent bowlers, and unrepentent bicyclists as well.

[October's Autumn]

Not only would I expect my church to accept unrepentent gays, I would also hope that my church allows unrepentent pet owners, unrepentent bowlers, and unrepentent bicyclists as well.

 

 

ROFLMAO! I have to remember this.

[des]

Unrepentent pet owners. I'd have to say I fall there. :-)

And I hope I am not cast into that great litter box in the sky. LOL!

 

However, I would doubt the ability of anyone here to change someone's opinion about

such basic matters. I'd suggest taking your desire to change us elsewhere.

I feel it is on the verge of harrassment.

 

Various members of this group are gay and those who are not do not consider that those

who are are sinful. (At least I not for that reason.) It is extreme disrespect for our position

that seem pretty clearly stated above: "presented in a manner that is respectful of other

viewpoints, or seeks to convert, or coerce, or attack".

I think that those who are gay (or even those who aren't who are dead tired of the argument)

and would appreciate this being "safe space".

 

BTW, I have seen conservative boards getting so sick of the topic that they limit to one or two

threads. That has got to say something.

 

Thank you. (off soap box, or perhaps pulpit)

 

---des

[JosephM]

yes. Unrepentant theives are welcome.

yes. Unrepentant drunks too.

yes. Fornicators as well.

yes. Idolators, prostitutes, drug addicts, gluttons, etc.

To me, all are welcome. Right now. Just as 'we' are.

 

Hmmm...

I love everyone and and do not condemn anyone for the things they allow in their lives BUT I fail to understand the wisdom in allowing unrepentant theives and drunks and addicts and etc. into the church. Perhaps, someone here can enlighten me because the guidance given me teaches me to avoid such things for my own sake.

 

Would you allow the same in your home to live with your family?? Going out among those represented above seems to me to have wisdom but to allow them in to one's family whether it be by blood or family by body of interest 'seems to me' a bit reckless.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[Quaker Way]

I fail to understand the wisdom in allowing unrepentant theives and drunks and addicts and etc. into the church. Perhaps, someone here can enlighten me because the guidance given me teaches me to avoid such things for my own sake.

 

Well, as a recovering alcoholic, I think the term 'unrepentant' is bit archaic. Churches already have their doors open to 'drunks and addicts' in the form of Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. My UMC church is a location for a weekly NA meeting and I've spent many hours in church basements attending AA meetings myself. And not everyone who attends is clean and sober, either. The only requirement for membership in these recovery organizations is the desire to stop drinking or using drugs...that's it. This reflects the struggle for an understanding of God and Christ's unconditional love, mercy, and forgiveness in real practice, not just in words only. To say that this person can attend church but this person cannot, for whatever reason, is to put conditions on faith in, and the worship of, God and Christ. If we truly believe in God and Christ's unconditional love, mercy, and forgivness, we have no right to place conditions as a way of barring anyone from access to communal worship of God and Christ. Jesus teaches us to love and include without exception...thieves, drunks, drug addicts, murderers...without exception. For if we do not, then we must explain to God and Christ why we feel that we can judge others, condemn others, exclude others, and prevent others from coming before God and Christ in a church where those same individuals come to seek out the love, mercy, and forgiveness of God and Christ. How can we justify preventing anyone, in any place and time in life, from coming before God and Christ in any church and seeking out the love, mercy, and forgiveness that we say is open and available to all? We can't. To do so is to privatize God and Christ's love, mercy, and forgiveness and turn our churches into private clubs. Hmmmmm...not exactly what Jesus had in mind, I would say, ya think?

[JosephM]

Well, as a recovering alcoholic, I think the term 'unrepentant' is bit archaic. Churches already have their doors open to 'drunks and addicts' in the form of Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. My UMC church is a location for a weekly NA meeting and I've spent many hours in church basements attending AA meetings myself. And not everyone who attends is clean and sober, either. The only requirement for membership in these recovery organizations is the desire to stop drinking or using drugs...that's it. This reflects the struggle for an understanding of God and Christ's unconditional love, mercy, and forgiveness in real practice, not just in words only. To say that this person can attend church but this person cannot, for whatever reason, is to put conditions on faith in, and the worship of, God and Christ. If we truly believe in God and Christ's unconditional love, mercy, and forgivness, we have no right to place conditions as a way of barring anyone from access to communal worship of God and Christ. Jesus teaches us to love and include without exception...thieves, drunks, drug addicts, murderers...without exception. For if we do not, then we must explain to God and Christ why we feel that we can judge others, condemn others, exclude others, and prevent others from coming before God and Christ in a church where those same individuals come to seek out the love, mercy, and forgiveness of God and Christ. How can we justify preventing anyone, in any place and time in life, from coming before God and Christ in any church and seeking out the love, mercy, and forgiveness that we say is open and available to all? We can't. To do so is to privatize God and Christ's love, mercy, and forgiveness and turn our churches into private clubs. Hmmmmm...not exactly what Jesus had in mind, I would say, ya think?

 

Russ,

 

Thanks for the clarification. The requirement of a desire to change makes all the difference.

 

Of course one's love must be unconditional to be divine but that Love is not blind. We can love and minister to those who desire to change but to allow equal membership in an assembly to those without a desire to change (unrepentant) is in my view unwise and asking for trouble. To the best of my knowledge, Jesus went out and ministered to those we speak of that were willing to listen but he did not advocate allowing those whose interest was otherwise to be a part of his common disciple group. To do otherwise is to invite corruption into ones house. Personally, I do not see this as privatizing God and Christ's love and mercy. Rather I see it as using his wisdom wisely. While many churches may have turned into private clubs, this does not negate the application of wisdom in Christian assemblies that I speak of.

 

You say "To say that this person can attend church but this person cannot, for whatever reason, is to put conditions on faith in, and the worship of, God and Christ."

 

It seems to me that your conclusion here is in error. One does not need to attend 'my' church to have faith in or worship God. Excluding a known child molester, drug addict, or whatever who has not repented from equal access to an assembly of believers does not seem to violate the principles that either Jesus or Paul have reportedly taught nor put conditions on faith. Of course this is just my view to consider.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[Quaker Way]

You say "To say that this person can attend church but this person cannot, for whatever reason, is to put conditions on faith in, and the worship of, God and Christ." It seems to me that your conclusion here is in error. One does not need to attend 'my' church to have faith in or worship God. Excluding a known child molester, drug addict, or whatever who has not repented from equal access to an assembly of believers does not seem to violate the principles that either Jesus or Paul have reportedly taught nor put conditions on faith. Of course this is just my view to consider.

 

Good Afternoon, JM...

 

This is a difficult topic to relate to because of the hidden, unspoken reluctance of people to deepen and define their faith based on negative experiences with 'The Church'. I'm currently organizing a bi-weekly Spiritual Service by people in recovery and for people in recovery in order to bridge the gap between the Spiritual aspects of AA, NA, etc. and worship service as typically experienced in a church setting. The difference is that many people in recovery have a deep Spiritual faith, but do not express that faith in terms that you and I do as Christians. Nor should they, either. A broad faith in a Power greater than ourselves need not have to justify itself, nor is it any less meaningful or relevent than any other expression of faith. My UMC church has offered meeting space for this Service and my Pastor understands the importance of this not becoming a Methodist service or a Christian service. When speaking to people about the Service, it is welcomed as an alternative to 'The Church' because of experiences with male domination, anti-birth control policies, right wing politics, etc. etc. These are people who have first hand experience with Spiritual transformation and know in their hearts the Hand of God and do not need to be told what to believe. Of course, I don't advocate opening the doors to evil people or people who can do physical harm, either. I do have volunteer experience with prison inmates who are serving sentences for murder, assault, etc. in a drug and alcohol 12-Step Meeting environment. I deeply feel the men that I sat and listened to for over 5 years are no worse than I am...we all come to God and Christ with sin, crime, lust, greed, selfishness, addictions, hurt, anger, predjudice, etc. etc. The true miracle of God and Christ is unconditional love, mercy, and forgiveness...even for those among us who are in prisons, institutions, shelters, and the gutter.

[October's Autumn]

And yet no one has a problem with the unreptenant/unwilling to change glutton. It would be interesting to see how all those Southern Baptists who are in the South would react if someone posted a big sign on a church saying no one who is overweight could come into the church and made them all step on a scale! I always find it interesting how we quanitfy "sin" and try to make one worse than another.

[des]

IMO, "unrepetent" sinners would be welcome, as Jesus welcomed them (I think including as his disciples, those who would follow along and live with him, a bit different than those who he welcomed into his ministry-- although see how careful he was if the story on Judas is true?) Anyway, my only proviso might be if the person was a danger to others vs himself/ herself. Like a registered sex offender, a drug dealer who was unsupervised or a convicted unrepentent murder (vs drug abuser). I think it goes without saying that we are all probably unrepentent in some area of sin, and why certain sins have a higher weight is another story (ie gluttony). Heeeheee no pun intended, really. That's a good point October. (In fact, for all the supposed sinning homosexuals, I wonder how many "obese out of the closet" :-) conservative pastors there are?? Very good point.)

 

Actually I heard a story re: a church where a convicted sex offender wanted to come to services. The church got word that several families would pull their kids out if there was anyway the person could come into contact with their kids (understandably). So they drafted a proposal that required the person to sign an agreement that they wouldn't work with the kids, be in the building unsupervised, that kind of thing. The person disagreed. BUt if they had they would have been welcome. I thought it sounded pretty reasonable and would have protected kids and the person themselves from further accusations.

 

I think that the idea of Jesus' disciples making that the same as who he ministered to is a poor comparison. Unlike today's disciples of Jesus, these men and women lived in close physical contact, shared meals, living areas and traveled together on donkeys and foot. Most of us don't live in our churches, don't travel and share most meals with church members, etc. etc. So why non-violent sinners of all kinds, LIKE US, aren't welcome, is beyond me.

 

BTW, as to singling out drug addiction in some way is strange. I think today we think of it as a disease with a "course". And we know that some individuals are expected to be more likely to be addicted than others. We should understand that, while most individuals may want to quit, there is a strong physiological/psychological need to continue. So most individuals would go thru periods of, perhaps, being "unrepentent".

This has nothing to do with their basic desire to change and grow.

 

As progressives we do have the advantage of using modern science and psychology to understand these things better and be more patient. In one of my former churches we had an employee who was an alcoholic. We had him going to AA, and go to certain therapy sessions, etc. He was unable to do that, so he was fired, after many tries, but at no time was he "excommunicated". I believe he was able to stay employed there longer than he would have elsewhere. And yes, many churches host AA or NA. I'm guessing most meetings are held in mainline churches.

 

 

 

 

--des

[JosephM]

And yet no one has a problem with the unreptenant/unwilling to change glutton. It would be interesting to see how all those Southern Baptists who are in the South would react if someone posted a big sign on a church saying no one who is overweight could come into the church and made them all step on a scale! I always find it interesting how we quanitfy "sin" and try to make one worse than another.

 

The glutton does not pose a danger to other than him/her self. To compare that with an unrepentant child molester, thief, drunk or addict as far as allowing equal access into ones church or assembly is in my view foolish behavior. But if that is your opinion, so be it. I am not saying that one is a 'sin' and one is not nor am I saying either is a 'sin'. I am only advocating wisdom with regard to equal access to ones spiritual assembled family.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[rivanna]

According to the bible, Jesus was consistently lenient toward those who indulged the body more than was thought proper at the time--he ate with publicans and prostitutes, didn't mind being called a "wine bibber," he forgave the adulteress, praised the woman who annointed his feet at supper, etc. He always got much angrier with self-righteous judgmental hypocrites-- oppressors and exploiters, those who spread false rumors against neighbors, those who excluded others socially and tried to come between them and God.

[MOW]

The glutton does not pose a danger to other than him/her self. To compare that with an unrepentant child molester, thief, drunk or addict as far as allowing equal access into ones church or assembly is in my view foolish behavior. But if that is your opinion, so be it. I am not saying that one is a 'sin' and one is not nor am I saying either is a 'sin'. I am only advocating wisdom with regard to equal access to ones spiritual assembled family.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

 

That my be true, but some "victomless" sins and crimes may be causing horrible suffering somewhere else, in a kind of butterfly effect. For example our collective gluttony may be causing starvation somewhere else.

A lust for diamonds ,while seemingly harmless here , may be causing people to cut arms and legs off in a

Sierra Leone or someplace.

 

One would run background checks on prospective church employees, like a youth minister or secretary, but such a course of action would be almost impossible for potential members. Many addicts ,"drunks" and thieves aren't interested in joining church anyway, and those that do probably keep their activities secret or may eventually get caught. The serial killer BTK was a member of a church for years , and not even his wife knew his true identity.

 

MOW

[October's Autumn]

The glutton does not pose a danger to other than him/her self. To compare that with an unrepentant child molester, thief, drunk or addict as far as allowing equal access into ones church or assembly is in my view foolish behavior. But if that is your opinion, so be it. I am not saying that one is a 'sin' and one is not nor am I saying either is a 'sin'. I am only advocating wisdom with regard to equal access to ones spiritual assembled family.

 

 

That is simply not true. Being overweight puts a person at high risk for diabetes and heart disease. Both of these medical issues can become an issue while a person is operating heavy machinery or driving. If the diabetic would have an insulin reaction or bloodsugar level get too high they would not be able to safely operate a vehicle and pose a risk to others. Same goes for having a heart attack or stroke. Plus by allowing them in the church it sends the message to the congregation and to children that gluttony is not a sin and that it is okay to be a glutton when scripture clearly states that it is not acceptable behavior. Gluttons hurt not only themselves, their offspring, and their spouses but also those who are most vulnerable around them. One must, after all, even avoid the appearance of sin!

 

(FYI, I've no issues with people who are overweight. I am simply trying to show the hypocrisy of the focus on certain "sins" we deem more sinful than others)

[JosephM]

That is simply not true. Being overweight puts a person at high risk for diabetes and heart disease. Both of these medical issues can become an issue while a person is operating heavy machinery or driving. If the diabetic would have an insulin reaction or bloodsugar level get too high they would not be able to safely operate a vehicle and pose a risk to others. Same goes for having a heart attack or stroke. Plus by allowing them in the church it sends the message to the congregation and to children that gluttony is not a sin and that it is okay to be a glutton when scripture clearly states that it is not acceptable behavior. Gluttons hurt not only themselves, their offspring, and their spouses but also those who are most vulnerable around them. One must, after all, even avoid the appearance of sin!

 

(FYI, I've no issues with people who are overweight. I am simply trying to show the hypocrisy of the focus on certain "sins" we deem more sinful than others)

 

OK....

 

If you consider the overweight person as the same risk to the church assembly as the unrepentant thief or addict or child molester, I will accept that as your view. I do not understand your reasoning that you equate them the same but I respect your right to believe as you will. From your posts I can see you have a pretty firm position on this issue so I will not say anymore and sit back and read. I do not really want to get into the issue of 'sins' as I personally see none in any of the items mentioned. Possibly errors in judgement, ignorance and unwise decisions but no 'sins'.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[Quaker Way]

I do not really want to get into the issue of 'sins' as I personally see none in any of the items mentioned. Possibly errors in judgement, ignorance and unwise decisions but no 'sins'.

 

Whew...Thanks! I'm a middle aged, balding, overweight guy myself and I was starting to get a bit nervous!

[October's Autumn]

OK....

 

If you consider the overweight person as the same risk to the church assembly as the unrepentant thief or addict or child molester, I will accept that as your view. I do not understand your reasoning that you equate them the same but I respect your right to believe as you will. From your posts I can see you have a pretty firm position on this issue so I will not say anymore and sit back and read. I do not really want to get into the issue of 'sins' as I personally see none in any of the items mentioned. Possibly errors in judgement, ignorance and unwise decisions but no 'sins'.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

 

 

You are missing the point of the discussion, Joseph.

[des]

While I accept the idea that many sins maybe more sins of complacency and so forth and some are indeed quite complex (anything involving addictive behaviors from overeating to sexual addiction to drug addiction), they are still how shall I put it, falling short. And we all do fall short. The word "sin" has gotten tied in with phrases like "I am a miserable sinner" etc. as well as our protestant work ethic.

 

I'm not sure how comfortable I would be in saying all sins are identical, then you get into the silly arguments like swearing is identical with murder. And certainly you have to protect your congregations from drug dealers and so forth, but that is a more extreme situation than most churches are probably faced with (the church I described notwithstanding). And it obviously could be dealt with, even if the person involved wouldn't like the limits (likely they weren't that sincere in the first place). So I think that we can be pretty welcoming, probably more welcoming than many churches are really willing to be.

 

BTW, I don't think anyone should worry that they are the overweight, therefore, sinful folks while we are svelte selves are therefore pure and sin free. Remember we all fall short. I don't think that meant that Jesus had to die in a gruesome death for all the ridiculous little sins I have committed (or most of us have committed). I'm not implying that I have been all that great, none of us are, but on the range of what is possible, most of us are pretty much amateurs and bit players. :-)

For instance, did Jesus die on the cross for the following: gossiping about my boss, cutting someone off in traffic, giving someone the finger, etc. etc?? If so, I'd consider God a child molestor, and a worse sinner

than most people I know.

 

--des

[jamesAMDG]

EVERYONE

 

While I appreciate the twisting of my words to say things like I'm comparing homosexuality to drunkeness and theft and idolatry etc. I would to like state that I created my little list from other bibilically defined sins. Individuals and groups who define themselves as progressive love to pick and choose which bibilical sins they think are really sins and which aren't. This whole discussion has been a particular case in point.

 

For example, how is that no one has answered my question about what Jesus's message in fact was? At least I thought that progressives would agree that a desire to improve oneself, to become more Godly (to follow God's Will more closely) would be a part of that. Apparently I was wrong. All I've gotten is some equivicating about obese people (not all of whom are gluttons actually, I'm surprised that a progressive would fail to consider the social, psychological and genetic factors involved when these same factors are used to excuse so many other things which have historically been seen as sins by Christianity).

 

Is no one willing to even take the stand that Jesus the Christ entered human history for a reason?

 

des:

 

You used to at least stick up for my right to ask questions in the discussion and debate board, what is happening?

 

Joseph:

 

Thanks for noticing my point.

[Flatliner]

The archbishop of Canterbury has told homosexuals that they need to change their behaviour if they are to be welcomed into the church, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

 

I posted earlier that ALL are welcome. Right now. As we are. It’s interesting to see where that has taken us.

 

I still stand by that comment and it was not a flippant or naïve line. My understanding and position has come about from my experience. The actual spoken word “welcome” has had a significant impact on me. In my late teens the minister of the church I had attended for two years started the morning service by asking me to stand up. I did so and he said “you are not welcome here” (presumably because he had received information about my ‘behaviour’ that he deemed unacceptable). Humiliated, I left the building and that particular community. Over the years, I wished G-d would leave me too. I found other churches, even went through ministry training, and part of me remained painfully hidden. Fifteen years after the “un-welcome” event, I was attending another church (not having been able to shake G-d). At the end of the service, the minister took my hand when I was leaving and she said, “you know, you will always be welcome here”. Words have profound and significant effects, especially on those who don’t feel welcome.

 

I don’t require anyone to change their behaviour in order to be welcome. In more desolate spiritual times I have driven past many church buildings, read the church sign, noted the service times, got up out of bed that morning, got dressed and left the house, driven to the church, parked the car, turned off the motor, opened the car door to go inside and then just driven home again. Many times. Going to a church service/meeting/gathering after stringing together dozens of decisions-actions to physically get inside to participate takes enormous courage. Walking in knowing that you are carrying an emotional heaviness, often desperation and some pain, and may not be welcome, is very difficult. To me it is a very real picture of vulnerability. This pain is often shared by people who are gay going to church, people who are alcoholics going to an AA meeting, and people who struggle with many open and hidden issues they feel (or have been made to feel) shame about. If someone makes it through the door on a Sunday morning (a ‘regular’, a newbie or a returning prodigal), I am glad to see them, I’m glad they made it, I’m glad they are there, I’m glad they didn’t drive home again. I know how hard it is sometimes just to get inside the door. They are welcome. Just as they are. Just as we all are. I don’t require anyone to change their behaviour to join me.

 

I think that extending a welcome to someone, just as they are so they may enter into worship and a community is a picture of hope. I hope that people hear and respond to G-d in some meaningful way for them, and I hope that the encounter with G-d is transforming.

It is a big leap to discuss ‘welcoming’ and ‘leadership’ in the same post. IMO, considering ANY person for positions of leadership and ongoing community interaction must be considered carefully, with hope, with wisdom and with grace - regardless of their 'track record' of behaviour.

 

I find the comment, the decision and direction from the Archbishop hurtful, especially as it is a significant departure from his earlier standpoint. I also wonder where on earth the church would be today if it were not for a significant number of gay members and clergy through the ages. But, that's another topic...

[Realspiritik]

I'm not going to go into why or how or what has changed for Williams, but I do have a question about all of the "openess" and "inclusivity".

 

At what point is it necessary to stop affirming people in their "okayness"? I mean if an unrepentant theif wanted to come to your church would that be ok? Or how about if they were unrepentant drunks who didn't want to stop drinking? Or fornicators? Idolators? etc.

 

What did Christ actually want from us, and what made Him so radical, if His message is now seen as "I'm ok, you're ok"? Was He the first pop-psychologist?

 

Okay, james, I accept your challenge. What made me, the man who lived as Jesus, radical was my unfailing and unflinching and unshakeable belief that people's mistakes as human beings do not define them as souls. At the core of every woman, man, child, elder beats an eternal heart -- the heart of an angel, the heart given all of us at the time of our wondrous creation by our loving parents, God the Mother and God the Father.

 

My message of love and forgiveness tells you that although I loved the heart and soul of each person I met -- total inclusiveness -- I also understood that human beings make mistakes. Often these mistakes are grievous and intentional. Hence the need for forgiveness. If the message were simply "I'm ok, you're ok," why would forgiveness be needed? If no single mistake were considered greater or lesser than another mistake, then forgiveness would be moot. The Way of the Christ is to love the heart of each being you meet, but to recognize the painful reality that many human beings choose not to be who they really are -- individuals capable of remarkable feats of emotional courage. Forgiveness is an act of emotional courage. I called on people to love and forgive. That's not pop psychology. That's maturity.

 

Best,

Love Jesus

September 8, 2006

[des]

>des:

 

You used to at least stick up for my right to ask questions in the discussion and debate board, what is happening?

 

 

James, it's just where I draw my line. You know progressives do draw them (at least this one does). I think a lot of the conservative stuff is tiring, after all, you know I didn't go to the TCPC to read conservative stuff, but ok when you go on and on quoting Bible verses, and so forth. I will defend your right to do this. Although I have to say, I am getting more weary of it.

 

But attacking someone who's sexual orientation is different based on some Bible verses-- well that's my line. In your defense, you really don't do a personal attack, and it was pretty mild as far as that goes. (Of course, I don't know how mild comparing it to theivery and so forth, despite your idea that it's only a list. But that's another subject.)But I don't think it is ok for me to tolerate any amount of negative behavior towards homosexuals regardless of how mild it might be.

 

The Bible was, and still is, used to defend all sorts of intolerant behavior thru history, including slavery

and discrimation based on race and sexism. And it will continue to be used that way. And that what goes on with gays, imo. It isn't any more tolerable now than it ever was. Another consideration is that we have gay members here.

 

(BTW, I dont' think anyone here is seriously equating obesity as a serious sin in the same way that, say, pedophilia is. But I think that was the whole point. )

 

 

 

--des

[Quaker Way]

Hello, Des...

 

Good points. Using The Bible as a Life Guide is Faith...using it as a litmus test for what is acceptable and what is not, what is 'sin' and what is not isn't Faith, but dogma. Certainly, there are moral guidelines in The Bible such as the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus. But even there we have to understand certain passages as being written for a society that existed two thousand years ago and in a different part of the world. In the New Testament, Jesus is reported to have said that a man who divorces his wife and remarries is committing adultery. I think a sense of historical and cultural setting is needed when we look at passages like this. The challenge for Christians isn't to point to The Bible as being the model of what 'correct' or 'acceptable' behaviour or living should be, but rather use it as a way, one way in addition to others, of guiding our lives in complicated and changing times. Never before have we been so confronted with questions and issues that go so totally beyond anything that the witers of The Gospels or the Prophets of The Torah could have ever imagined. Afterall, if we were to adhere strictly to The Bible for our guide to life, we would all be in the streets condemning the Bush Regime for its oilfield war in Iraq. But, of course, the conservatives who call themselves Christians would be hard pressed to explain their politics in relationship to their religion. We must look inward to the Indwelling God that is in each and everyone of us, look at the teachings of Jesus, look at the fact that we are all People of God, and use that as a starting point for any discussion of anyone or anything.

 

Russ