History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWhat is a Bishop? (Homo/Heterosexual/Fema

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What is a Bishop? (Homo/Heterosexual/Fema
    Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 00:31
   PLEASE TAKE A BIT TO RESEARCH THE BACKGROUND IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THE ISSUES!
   So it would seem--at least to my reading---that the Episcopal Church (the Anglican Church in America) is on the verge of thumbing it's nose at the Global Anglican Communion (which, honestly, is no surprise to me, as an orthodox Christian who sees unorthodox division as nothing more than a natural, further source of the same). Still, the patronizing attitude of the Episcopal Church toward the global Anglican communion deserves a response at the best, an analysis at the weakest.
   It would seem that the Episcopal Church, having already patronizingly disregarded (and I wonder where those who accuse Americans of patronizing the global community are now, when an issue is not so concretely cast in the sense of a global "liberal"--an that does not, necessarily, mean leftist--consciousness) the recommendations of the Lambeth Commision and the Windsor Report that resulted from it, have decided to throw a further rock in the gears by ordaining the first female Presiding Bishop (who was also the first nominee for the position). Leaving aside the validity of female ordination (to the presbyterate, much less to the episcopate, much less to the metropolitinate--or arch/presiding epicopate), let us consider the ramifications of the Episcopal Church's ordination of a man who does not view Scirpture (the Scripture recognized by all mainstream Christian Churches) as a reliable guide particularly on the issue of homosexuality.
   I don't know how many of you saw the "Larry King Live" with Robinson, as well as several other ecclesiastics/"ecclesiastics", but I would be interested to hear your comments. Having already colored the debate more than I had initially intended, I will take my leave--although I will be back to referee (hopefully more fairly than that ref in the US vs. Italy game). Looking forward to your thoughts.
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 15-Aug-2007 at 02:43
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5711
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 01:13
I know very little about the issue but will jump in to pose a question. Am I correct that the Bible says that a homosexual act is an abomination to God, but that it does not actually say HOMOSEXUALITY (that is the personal state of being a homosexual) is an abomination?
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 01:36

As I view it (and as I feel the particular 2-3 passages in question--Lev, possibly another Lev, and Rom--state it) that is the way of it. Acting upon homosexuality, according to the traditional interpretation of scripture is a sin, much like many other sins. I, myself, am a sinner, for instance ;).

Robinson, however, views it as part of the way in which he was naturally created (as if our natural state wern't one of sin), and thus NOT, in his opinion, a sin. That is my particular point of disagreement.
 
The problem is the issue has been corrupted. Many on the Anglican "orthodox" side have responded to the ordination by trying to single out homosexuality as a specific sin of higher degree than other sins (as if it were up to us to determine this). The response, from the Anglican "progressives" has been that homosexual impulses are, in fact, a product of the way in which God created us. They, thus, view them as not sinful.
 
I believe that the debate has been hijacked by partisans. In the traditional interpretation, homosexual impulses, like all other lustful impulses, are sinful, and require a repentant attitude. I, myself, as I am sure many of you, suffer from lustful impulses. Just because they are a natural part of our state doesn not make them less sinful--for indeed we are in a fallen state.
 
Thus, by stating that homosexual impulses are just a part of how we exist, and are thus, not inherently sinful, the "bishop" disqualifies himself from leading his flock--for indeed, a bishop must be blameless, and must be able to teach his flock according to tradition and the word, not his own personal beliefs. In effect, he is leading certain members of his flock into sin by convincing them that sinful impulses are not sinful. Likewise, those on the Anglican--and Christian, for that matter--right who try to single out homosexuality as some sort of special sin are denying individuals the opportunity for repentance according to the more than just nature of God toward all sinners; in this sense, they too may be disqualified from the episcopate.
 
But yes, in my opinion--and I feel that I have the backing of the Church on this, though I would not presume so--homosexuality is no more a sin than being lustful (a common condition of all created beings) is a sin. Our submission to sin is what binds us to it, and Christians are taught that freedom from sin (for heterosexuals and homosexuals) comes from Christ. The slight difference is that homosexual tendencies (and note that these might not always be lustful) do not have a scriptural or traditional matrimonial sanction, and thus, homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy. Virgins were always held in high esteem in the Church, and I believe that a specific degree of honor should be conferred upon those who choose to remain celibate in spite of their homosexual tendencies (although this would be hard in the face of the radical--and sometimes un-Christian opposition from the right).
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Wulfher ap Clun View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfher ap Clun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 16:31
good thing im not in the anglican church anymore.............Smile
'Save us from the northmen oh Lord"
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5711
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 02:51
Thanks for you take on the issue Akolouthos, you obviously went to alot of effort to give it indepth scrutiny. Your answer has raised another question which someone not so well acquainted with Church teachings as myself has difficulty answering. What if the bishop is repentant of being a homosexual and does not encourage or endorse homosexuality, nor does he/she engage in homosexual practices? Would they then still be considered unqualified to be a minister of the Church?
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 12:17
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Thanks for you take on the issue Akolouthos, you obviously went to alot of effort to give it indepth scrutiny. Your answer has raised another question which someone not so well acquainted with Church teachings as myself has difficulty answering. What if the bishop is repentant of being a homosexual and does not encourage or endorse homosexuality, nor does he/she engage in homosexual practices? Would they then still be considered unqualified to be a minister of the Church?
 
In my opinion--and I must stress that this is only my opinion--that (a state of repentance and celibacy) would not disqualify them from the episcopate; indeed it is exactly what is called for. All are sinners, and all must seek forgiveness. The bishop has a very special role in this process; he must guide his flock toward greater communion with God. Allow me to note, at this point, that I would consider myself wholly unqualified for the office. I suppose this brings us back to the question: What is a bishop? Wink
 
I think the problem with the debate, in the way it has been expressed, is that we have a double failure of leadership. Robinson and the progressives deny, to some degree, practicing homosexuals the opportunity to repent by convincing them that what they are doing is "just a part of who they are," and thus not sinful. Some--although not all--of the "orthodox" Anglicans, acting in response, are guilty of the same, in that they single out homosexuality, and stress only the condemnation of the act and impulses, while downplaying the available path of repentance. Obviously these two assertions could be carried over into any number of other religious situations (see "Rev." Phelps and his hate-centered movement; some of the more "progressive" mainline protestants and their sanction of same-sex unions/"marriages").
 
By the way, thank you for carrying on this conversation with me. Although I feel the matter both important and relevant, it was only with great hesitation that I raised the issue at all, owing to a fear of being labelled a hatemonger, bigot, etc. Herein lies another problem of the issue. While there is a very real need for vehement disagreement (for indeed the two positions are well nigh irreconcilable; something has to give), there is an equally great need for understanding. So far the debate over this particular point has been characterized by gross oversimplification and demonization; people often attempt to attack the two positions without fully considering the theological nuances of each argument.
 
At issue is the way in which we interpret Scripture, the authority of Tradition/tradition, the issue of ecumenism, and the metanoetic properties of the human soul.
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 20-Jun-2006 at 12:18
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 14:08
I believe to be accurate it is not a case of the Episcopalian church nearing schism from the rest of the Anglican community, but of the US Episcopalian church itself being split, with a considerable part of it (I don't remember) agreeing with the more general community.
 
The issue is referred to in an interesting story in The Times today (though it is more directly concerned with the similar problem of the election of a female bishop)  Cartoon and all it is at:
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Wulfher ap Clun View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfher ap Clun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 09:45
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I believe to be accurate it is not a case of the Episcopalian church nearing schism from the rest of the Anglican community, but of the US Episcopalian church itself being split, with a considerable part of it (I don't remember) agreeing with the more general community.
 
The issue is referred to in an interesting story in The Times today (though it is more directly concerned with the similar problem of the election of a female bishop)  Cartoon and all it is at:
 
 
concur and thats why Im not a member of that church any more...
'Save us from the northmen oh Lord"
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 11:46
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I believe to be accurate it is not a case of the Episcopalian church nearing schism from the rest of the Anglican community, but of the US Episcopalian church itself being split, with a considerable part of it (I don't remember) agreeing with the more general community.
 
The issue is referred to in an interesting story in The Times today (though it is more directly concerned with the similar problem of the election of a female bishop)  Cartoon and all it is at:
 


I think both internal schism (within the Episcopal Church) and schism between the progressive wing of the Episcopal Church and certain parts of the global Anglican communion are both definite possibilities.

For instance certain parishes of the Episcopal church have sought oversight from bishops in Africa. In a normal situation this would go against several ancient, and universally accepted canons dating back to Nicaea, which state that bishops are not to interfere outside of their dioceses. Under most precedents of Canon Law this foreign oversight would, thus, be clearly prohibited.

The issue is whether or not the Episcopal Church is in (or is in the process of developing into) open schism with the rest of the global communion, as well as with certain "orthodox" elements in America. In this case, there is a long standing canonical precedent in the Western tradition for external  episcopal oversight (for instance the Latins, shortly after the schism of 1054, began appointing bishops in the territory of the Eastern Patriarchs). There is also a more recent precedent in the East (which is less relevant to the Anglicans, who are products of the Western school of Canon Law), where the Patriarchs have finally appointed Bishops in communion with them. Uncharted waters, while not being an entirely correct designation, is partially applicable as a description. The Episcopalians, and the global Anglican communion, must decide two things:

1) In what sense can the Episcopal Church be considered a canonical ecclesiastical body?
2) To what degree is the communion impaired, and at what point can it be considered broken?

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 21-Jun-2006 at 11:50
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 05:52
Mutual communion is surely only impaired at the point where the Apostolic Succession is broken.  That's just a technical point because it merely shifts the question to 'when is the Apostolic Succession broken?'
 
The Episcopalian Church in the US is in a somewhat anomalous position anyway. The Anglican church in England essentially bases its position on the role of the Sovereign as (divinely chosen) head of the church in her domains.
 
It made clear sense in the 16th century, and falls under the 'cujus regio, ejus religio' doctrine. It is also I suppose extensible to territories that subsequently fall under her rule, and, at a pinch, to the Commonwealth, of which she remains the titular head.
 
What however happens as a result of the Declaration of Independence? Since, I assume, the success of the revolution has to be seen as a change in the mandate of heaven, how can the US bishops be seen as still members of the same community?
 
Note that this is different from the position of the other Catholic churches, including the orthodox ones, since they have always been independent - in theory - from the lay authority.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 10:04

I think the Anglican communion has evolved, or rather has been forced to evolve, since its foundation. The old cuius regio, eius religio idea was always generally more applicable to the Reformation princes in Germany, but a broader interpretation of it would seem to lend itself to the church under Henry VIII. Still, after a bit of infighting, a brief Catholic resurgence, and a development of religious semi-tolerance in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, The idea that the religion of the people must corresponded to that of the sovereign fell out of favor. It continued to be accepted in the H.R.E. for a time, as it was the result of a treaty between Charles V (who headed the empire) and the princes (who actually ruled the separate parts of the empire).

The Anglican Church was founded without a developed doctrine of its own, and it took around a century for it to find out what it truly believes. Hence, though the sovereign is recognized as the symbolic head of the Church, the role of the Queen today is similar to--and perhaps lessened in comparison to--her role in the government of the state. Still, during the period of colonization, the Anglican Church was definitely used as an imperialistic arm of the state, and this is yet another thing that the Anglicans, themselves, need to think through theologically.
 
Still, I believe that we can separate the idea of the submission of the hierarchy to the monarch from the idea of Apostolic succession, which has historically been applied to the episcopate. I am not familiar with any Anglican theologian who views, or has viewed the monarch as a part of the Apostolic succession (although this could be a result of ignorance; if you could find a citation, I would be extremely interested in reading it). Thus, I don't see any ecclesiological reason for the refusal to recognize Episcopal bishops as a result of the success of the Revolutionary War.
 
Even so, the Apostolic succession can be broken either by a self-ordained priesthood, or a heretical sect that has developed within the church. For instance, during the Ecumenical Period and after, the baptisms, ordinations, and consecrations of certain heretics were rendered null and void on points of doctrine, though these some of these bishops and priests were admitted to have originated within the Apostolic Church. Members of the episcopate do not forfeit their free-will after becoming bishops, and can fall into error. Thus, the Church acts as the corrective body, which evaluates doctrine in council (a point the Anglicans have, generally, adopted).
 
The idea--and it is one with which the entire Anglican communion will have to deal--is that by abandoning the commonly held faith (or certain aspects of it via their interpretations and consecrations), the Episcopal Church has brought about a state of "impaired communion" with the global body. The criticism is especially direct from the Asian, and above all the African bishops. The Lambeth Commission and the Windsor report explored this issue in some depth. Now it is up to the Episcopal Church to respond, which they are in the process of doing. If, as looks likely, they decide to adopt very few of the recommendations, the ball will be in the court of the other bishops and primates.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 2218
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 13:31


Edited by mamikon - 23-Jun-2006 at 13:31
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 14:09
 
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

I think the Anglican communion has evolved, or rather has been forced to evolve, since its foundation. The old cuius regio, eius religio idea was always generally more applicable to the Reformation princes in Germany, but a broader interpretation of it would seem to lend itself to the church under Henry VIII.

I used the phrase generically. Henry's assumption of power preceded the adoption of the doctrine in the German countries. It actually derived its justification more from the arguments of the Imperial factions in the middle ages (and the French kings at various periods too).
Quote
Still, after a bit of infighting, a brief Catholic resurgence, and a development of religious semi-tolerance in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, The idea that the religion of the people must corresponded to that of the sovereign fell out of favor.
The idea that people must follow the religion of the country - and the monarch - fell out of favour. The idea that the religion of the country whould be the religion of the monarch (and vice versa) didn't. This after all was part of what the Civil War, the Restoration and the Revolution of 1688 were all about.
In particular it was held (and justified by force of arms) that the English Church should not be subject to a foreign leader (in particular of course the Pope), even if the monarch wanted it that way.
The monarch has never been seen as fully sovereign in England, no matter what the Stuarts felt.
 
Quote
 
It continued to be accepted in the H.R.E. for a time, as it was the result of a treaty between Charles V (who headed the empire) and the princes (who actually ruled the separate parts of the empire).
The Anglican Church was founded without a developed doctrine of its own, and it took around a century for it to find out what it truly believes.
 
Well it was founded with the same theological doctrines as the Roman church. They don't differ much even now.
Quote
Hence, though the sovereign is recognized as the symbolic head of the Church, the role of the Queen today is similar to--and perhaps lessened in comparison to--her role in the government of the state. Still, during the period of colonization, the Anglican Church was definitely used as an imperialistic arm of the state, and this is yet another thing that the Anglicans, themselves, need to think through theologically.
 
Still, I believe that we can separate the idea of the submission of the hierarchy to the monarch from the idea of Apostolic succession, which has historically been applied to the episcopate.
 
Yes. I hadn't meant to confuse the two.
Quote
I am not familiar with any Anglican theologian who views, or has viewed the monarch as a part of the Apostolic succession (although this could be a result of ignorance; if you could find a citation, I would be extremely interested in reading it). Thus, I don't see any ecclesiological reason for the refusal to recognize Episcopal bishops as a result of the success of the Revolutionary War.
Neither do I. What seems anomalous is their recognition of the See of Canterbury, to which they appear to give predominance. Indeed I gather some Episcopalians want to increase its role, even though of course, the Archbishop is appointed by the Queen (or King).
 
I agree with the rest.
Quote
 
Even so, the Apostolic succession can be broken either by a self-ordained priesthood, or a heretical sect that has developed within the church. For instance, during the Ecumenical Period and after, the baptisms, ordinations, and consecrations of certain heretics were rendered null and void on points of doctrine, though these some of these bishops and priests were admitted to have originated within the Apostolic Church. Members of the episcopate do not forfeit their free-will after becoming bishops, and can fall into error. Thus, the Church acts as the corrective body, which evaluates doctrine in council (a point the Anglicans have, generally, adopted).
 
The idea--and it is one with which the entire Anglican communion will have to deal--is that by abandoning the commonly held faith (or certain aspects of it via their interpretations and consecrations), the Episcopal Church has brought about a state of "impaired communion" with the global body. The criticism is especially direct from the Asian, and above all the African bishops. The Lambeth Commission and the Windsor report explored this issue in some depth. Now it is up to the Episcopal Church to respond, which they are in the process of doing. If, as looks likely, they decide to adopt very few of the recommendations, the ball will be in the court of the other bishops and primates.
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by gcle2003 - 23-Jun-2006 at 14:09
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 06:30
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I used the phrase generically. Henry's assumption of power preceded the adoption of the doctrine in the German countries. It actually derived its justification more from the arguments of the Imperial factions in the middle ages (and the French kings at various periods too).
 
I understand. Still, I always viewed the phrase as more applicable in a three tiered feudal context. The imperial power (the Emperor) made an agreement with the actual governing powers (the princes) pertaining to the beliefs which the people would be allowed to adopt. This does not, however, exclude the possiblity of using the phrase in the context in which you used it; it is merely how I have traditionally viewed it.
 
 
Quote
The idea that people must follow the religion of the country - and the monarch - fell out of favour. The idea that the religion of the country whould be the religion of the monarch (and vice versa) didn't. This after all was part of what the Civil War, the Restoration and the Revolution of 1688 were all about.
In particular it was held (and justified by force of arms) that the English Church should not be subject to a foreign leader (in particular of course the Pope), even if the monarch wanted it that way.
The monarch has never been seen as fully sovereign in England, no matter what the Stuarts felt.
 
And some of those Stuarts found that out in several ways, eh? LOL It does fit. Still, after Henry VIII's death, very few monarchs would ever presume to tamper with theology.
 
Quote Well it was founded with the same theological doctrines as the Roman church. They don't differ much even now.
 
The only initial difference was that Henry, not the pope, was on top. Still, I think there are significant ecclesiological differences now: church government, Eucharistic theology, canonical tradition, theological liberalism (although this, as well as liberation theology, is prominent among Roman Catholics in the United States and South America).
 
Quote Neither do I. What seems anomalous is their recognition of the See of Canterbury, to which they appear to give predominance. Indeed I gather some Episcopalians want to increase its role, even though of course, the Archbishop is appointed by the Queen (or King).
 
It is odd, isn't it. They have adopted the old primus inter pares doctrine of the Orthodox on that one. The Archbishop holds a primacy of honor, but is seldom honored. Indeed the Episcopal Church feels free to thumb their nose at any overtures he makes to the African/Asian traditionalists, while the traditionalists raise a ruckus if he indulges the Episcopal theological liberalism. I would not want to be in his position right now: having absolutely no real power, with everyone both looking at me for a solution and half always completely unwilling to accept any solution I came up with.
 
-Akolouthos
 
P.S. Sorry it took so long. It's been a busy week. Thank you for your patience.
Back to Top
Epikoureios View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epikoureios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 21:19
According to what the Church is practicing (and not preaching) homosexuality it NOT an abomination.
Every Priest, Bishop, Archbishop and Patriarch wants to be just like David, his king.
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." 1Samuel 18:1, 3-4

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." 2 Samuel 1:26

Back to Top
iapetos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote iapetos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 10:12
The inteleceuals are debating about the "hair (trixa)" of the beast, and remain oblivious of the beast itself!
OYDEN PROS HMAS O THANATOS
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 03:03
Originally posted by Epikoureios Epikoureios wrote:

According to what the Church is practicing (and not preaching) homosexuality it NOT an abomination.
Every Priest, Bishop, Archbishop and Patriarch wants to be just like David, his king.
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." 1Samuel 18:1, 3-4

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." 2 Samuel 1:26

 
I was checking through old topics that I participated in, but did not quite follow up on, and I saw the above... LOL
 
So are you actually trying to assert, on the basis of a complete misinterpretation/miscontextualization that David had a homosexual relationship with Jonathan? And even if he did, what has that to do with the consecration of homosexual bishops? If you can make a case for it, I would be willing to discuss it with you. If you just felt like placing oversized quotes in this thread, I fail to see what purpose you have accomplished.
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 15-Jan-2007 at 03:24
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 03:06
Originally posted by iapetos iapetos wrote:

The inteleceuals are debating about the "hair (trixa)" of the beast, and remain oblivious of the beast itself!
 
What on earth is this "beast" you speak of? Please try to make yourself clear; otherwise, we "intelectuals" shall remain perfectly content splitting its hairs.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jan-2007 at 17:52
Personally, on the subject of homosexuality and women's ordination in the Anglican church I see this more of a political move than a theological one. The Anglican's are trying to become more "protestant". Therefore I think that the theological issues of homosexuality and women's ordination is a moot point to many officials of the church (no offense meant to any Anglicans here).

Women's ordination is quickly countered theologically by the reasoning that God chose to select only men as his apostles and that God chose to create a patriarchal mindset in his church. As I heard someone say once, "Women can no more be priests than men can be mothers."

Homosexuality though is a bit more difficult to discuss. The fact is is that homosexuality is a sin, much related to lust as Akolouthos pointed out. Therefore a bishop who openly stated that he would engage in homosexual acts is like a bishop who would openly state he would visit brothels and have relations with prostitutes. If you wouldn't want the latter representing your church why would you want the former.

That sexual urges to the same sex are natural and should be accepted is debatable. Sure all humans are born with sinful urges and these are natural, but to act upon these urges is a sin against the laws of God, and shouldn't be accepted in any church that promotes these ideals.

On the issue of a bishop being a "closet homosexual". Since bishops (I' not sure about the anglican communion?) are celibate the issue of their sexual identity should have no bearing on their role as shepherd. However this was explained to me like this a few years ago. A bishop shouldn't be a homosexual because they aren't giving up anything. A heterosexual bishop has the oppurtunity before his ordination as a priest to enter into marriage with a woman. Therefore he sacrifices this option to become closer to God and to bring others closer to God. A homosexual doesn't have this option because in the church he can't marry another man so he isn't sacrificing anything to be closer to God, which would make the act less genuine.

Personally something like ordination shouldn't be taken lightly or used for political means. It is a personal experience that comes with huge responsibility as your not only entrusted with your own salvation but the salvation of others. I hope that the Anglican communities take this thought one more step and together decide whether the choices they make are for the betterment of Christianity or the worsening of it.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jan-2007 at 17:54
Quote
Every Priest, Bishop, Archbishop and Patriarch wants to be just like David, his king.
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." 1Samuel 18:1, 3-4

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." 2 Samuel 1:26


Why do people think we have to love with our genitals instead of our hearts?
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.