Things you find on the FL -

[kyburg]

Want proof that belief isn't proof you're nuts?

I am a joyful Christian who claims the fullness of the Anglican tradition of being evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, orthodox and radical. Since March 1, 2002,I have been privileged to serve as rector and pastor of The Episcopal Church of St. Paul, in the northern New Jersey town of Chatham, NJ in the Diocese of Newark, where I have been since 1991.

Comments

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, orthodox and radical

Orthodox? No way. This person's positions are outside the pale of orthodox (or Orthodox) Christian belief.

[magaliiiii.livejournal.com]

i wouldn't necessarily say that; christian, and especially catholic doctrine, actively throw out all the "jewish" separatist stipulations and parts of the old testament (like leviticus, despite loving to quote it when asked why homosexuality is wrong), so a lot of their positions on sexual and gender identity are a little muddled without that to stand on.

jesus's only real teachings that ALL christians are supposed to adhere to were: love God, love each other, and don't judge other people because you will never be God and so your judgments might be the wrong ones.

[drave117.livejournal.com]

Okay, that WouldJesusDiscriminate.com site is AWESOME!

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

a lot of their positions on sexual and gender identity are a little muddled without that to stand on.

Not at all. Christian (i.e. Catholic/Orthodox) teaching on "sexual and gender identity" (i.e. human sexual morality) are founded on the clear teachings of Christ, His Apostles, and Scripture. For example, in the Catechism we find the Church's doctrines on human sexual behavior, including homosexual acts, masturbation, and adultery, are integral to the overall doctrine based upon the Sixth Commandment [1].

Our Lord never taught anything new. He said specifically and more than once that the Law of Israel had not passed away. And while certain parts of that Law apply only to the House of Israel, the Natural Law underlying all human morality -- and which is most succinctly expressed in the Ten Commandments -- remains valid for all times and for all people.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

So the parts about shellfish and cotton/polyester blends are still valid? UH OH.

How about the parts about a man using another man 'like a woman?' Frankly, I don't know many women who would consider being used like a woman in the biblical sense to be either legal or moral either, these days.

You sit next to your wife in church, don't you?

Her argument stands.

I'm still holding out to hear what Christ had to say on the matter, having the Apostles (and no spouse) to hold close, entrust with his teachings and legacy. All of the same gender, too. Hmm.

Can you imagine how little credibility there would be with such a teacher in today's world? They'd look at that and be GAY OH GAY AUGH RUN AWAY. Really.

Quoting catechism is quoting the teachings of a specific sect, BTW. It's also quoting a secondary intepretation intended to bring conformity within a group of people (ie, a teaching reference). You want to quote Jesus, quote Jesus from the New Testament. That set of documents is pretty underfunded in this regard, IMHO. (Even the ones the lady in question posts on her site leave something to be desired - I've read about some linguistic interpretation twists giving more credibility to the Centurian's servant in Matthew 8:5-13 not being a servant but a concubine, but that's about it.)

But let's go ahead and wrap some Old Testament into this discussion - hell, why not.

Ruth and Naomi...David and Jonathan?

OH SO GAY. Some of the most tender love stories to be had in the Bible.

I really wonder what people are thinking when they're talking about love between two people of the same gender - when they have these two GREAT examples to consider.

No, it ain't all about the seXX0r.

(And if the titled professional calls herself orthodox, I don't have the credibility to question it. Radical and orthodox...well, I've heard some very conservative folks call themselves radical for just not listening to other people's CW. Why not.)

[the-paulr.livejournal.com]

The pastor has a dog named Lenny Bruce Briscoe? That's so cool!

[miwasatoshi.livejournal.com]

Your Lord is also above his own Laws.

"If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted."

Leviticus 26:21-22

"When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

Deuteronomy 20:13-14

I understand the part about God punishing sinners, but killing their children to prove a point? (And don't forget the entirety of the Book of Job.) Sorry, no.

Traditional biblical marriage, by the by: a man using one or more woman as chattel. Not precisely "valid for all times and all people" there.

Also, the idea that The Word is immutable entirely ignores Hebrews 8:13.

[magaliiiii.livejournal.com]

Re: the Old Testament stuff--

Even then, the subtle difference between "sin" and "abomination" can't really be overlooked. The Levites were very rule and order-oriented and they would never have called something 'sinful' if it was actually just 'abominable'. Abomination is the verb used to refer to deviation from the Judaic tribal rules (eating shellfish, etc), and it's this noun that is used to denote a homosexual act between men. Understand that at these times, man-boy love in the Greek pagan beliefs was rampant, so this was yet another way to differentiate themselves. This also explains why there's no equal prohibition against women having sex with other women. So I don't think you can actually count that as one of the things that should still stand; if that is the case, obviously women can be lesbian but men not gay.

The closest argument that does work is that it could constitute spilling one's seed, but even then I don't quite bite.

I agree with kyburg that quoting catechism doesn't really apply to the entirety of the Christian orthodoxy, but since I referenced Catholocism it raises an interesting point. But I think that 'adultery' was meant more to keep the mind above the human world, because when Catholicism was trying to eke itself out in the roman empire it had to be *very* different than the pagan norm it was struggling against. This meant foregoing things like sacrifice and moderation in many things (fasting, etc), and also putting an increased emphasis on the divine and being "above" or having "moved beyond" this world. So obviously lusts of any type would be shameful and adulterous, not just homosexual ones.

Also, I still maintain that it is very wrong for Christians to outwardly profess to know exactly "what God/Christ meant." I am somewhat guilty of it myself, because I analyze the texts primarily from an atheist and academic perspective and try to look more at historical context than just what is on the page. But regardless, I don't think anyone really has "got it 100% right," so it bothers me when people who profess to "love the sinner" will still openly bash or stifle them under the umbrella of a loving religion. If Jesus doesn't judge me, then why on earth should the rest of us?

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

I think in all the fracas, people don't realize that marriage has a lot more in common with slavery than anything else. Ask the lawyers.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

I maintain God speaks to everyone - we just don't get it all down the same way.

And then are stupid enough to ostracize others who wrote it down differently. Hey, my piece fits with yours - but because it says This instead of THAT - AUGH INFIDEL!

How dumb is that.