SC Episcopalians to distance from national church

JohnInToronto wrote:

<quoted text>
According to whom? Religious tracts and not those from every religion - Hinduism says nothing about it for example.
You listen to religion and I will listen to science. End of conversation.

Some of those who believe that ancient India condoned homosexuality base their case on the fact that there are many ancient visual depictions of homosexual acts (e.g., temple carvings), as well as literary descriptions (e.g., the Karma Sutra) of homosexuality. What is clear is that in present-day India, homosexuality is not condoned and is often condemned."

Vito wrote:

<quoted text>
If you listen to science homosexuality doesn't make sense either.

Not according to everyone who has a brain and is not merely following pseudo-science backed by religion.

Vito wrote:

I find it amusing how liberals like to pick and choose what it wants to follow out of the Bible. Gays can try to intellectualize all they want. However, that doesn't change the fact the homosexuality is condemed everywhere it is mentioned in the Bible.

It's called liberal theology. The Bible does say there will be false prophets spreading false doctrine. You can't get more false than church-sanctioned homosexuality.

Vito wrote:

<quoted text>
Many of the assoc you cite are left wing and have an agenda! Many radical homosexual groups have threatened, picketed and used violence to anyone that disagreed with them. Unfortunately, many medical assoc. have given in due to "political correctness".

Vito,

You are not very well informed on this issue. It is apparent that you rely upon various interpretations of Holy scripture and believe that such reliance, regardless of fact, is sufficient in your opinion to justify your beliefs.

I am not willing to accept such basis for belief, if and when such beliefs result in unjustified discrimination, segregation and institutionalized social condescension against and upon children of God.

More to the point, neither was Christ Jesus.

You gotta make an informed choice, Vito. As the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water. But, you cannot make him drink."

KGC

HappilyCelibateinChrist wrote:

<quoted text>
It's called liberal theology. The Bible does say there will be false prophets spreading false doctrine. You can't get more false than church-sanctioned homosexuality.

Dear Happily Celibate,

Do I recall that you claim to be homosexual?

Perhaps you could give some insight to the participants in this thread as to how you came to understand that you are homosexual.

Then, I and possibly some others here, would like to know of what value you believe celibacy to be if the church, as you say, cannot sanction or allow homosexuality - even when a person adopts celibacy. What about many Roman Catholic priests who are both celibate and homosexual? Does the church sanction and sanctify them?

You need to explain your position, here, bud.

KGC

JohnInToronto wrote:

<quoted text>
Not according to everyone who has a brain and is not merely following pseudo-science backed by religion.

Really, if you look at the natural order of nature homosexuality is abnormal.

HappilyCelibateinChrist wrote:

<quoted text>
It's called liberal theology. The Bible does say there will be false prophets spreading false doctrine. You can't get more false than church-sanctioned homosexuality.

Exactly!

RevKen wrote:

<quoted text>
Vito,
You are not very well informed on this issue. It is apparent that you rely upon various interpretations of Holy scripture and believe that such reliance, regardless of fact, is sufficient in your opinion to justify your beliefs.
I am not willing to accept such basis for belief, if and when such beliefs result in unjustified discrimination, segregation and institutionalized social condescension against and upon children of God.
More to the point, neither was Christ Jesus.
You gotta make an informed choice, Vito. As the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water. But, you cannot make him drink."
KGC

I beg to differ as to not being informed. In fact, I'd say I'm more informed than most.

Everywhere homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is condemed. Again, not one major religion condones the practice. The Bible is very specific about the subject. It doesn't leave much to interpretation.

Now, you can't pick and choose what you want to believe out of the Bible or it becomes RevKen's religion. Now, if you want to start your own religion where you advocate that homosexuality is a normal trait then do so. However, don't spread falsehoods that Jesus would be o.k. with people of the same sex engaging in homosexual behavior.

You seem to ignore many of my points and ramble on about discrimination, segregation or injustice. Is discrimination so widespread against homosexuals that they are refused housing, education or employment. I already pointed out that many openly gay people hold positions of power and have aquired wealth and prosperity. More in America than anywhere in the world. I don't see anyone breaking down doors to check the bedroom practices of homosexuals.

Are you a reverend for the Episcopalian Church?

Remember, "God loves the sinner but hates the sin"!

Vito wrote:

<quoted text>
Really, if you look at the natural order of nature homosexuality is abnormal.

How do you explain that to gay penguins, lesbian seagulls, bsexual (and in fact very slutty) bonobos, and so on?

RevKen wrote:

<quoted text>
Dear Happily Celibate,
Do I recall that you claim to be homosexual?
Perhaps you could give some insight to the participants in this thread as to how you came to understand that you are homosexual.
Then, I and possibly some others here, would like to know of what value you believe celibacy to be if the church, as you say, cannot sanction or allow homosexuality - even when a person adopts celibacy. What about many Roman Catholic priests who are both celibate and homosexual? Does the church sanction and sanctify them?
You need to explain your position, here, bud.
KGC

As long as I can remember I have had homosexual inclinations. I have certainly never stated the church should not sanction celibate homosexuals. If a person cannot change their sexual inclination, then the only choice for them is to remain celibate if they are to remain within God's Will. I have always argued in favor of gay people remaining celibate. I am not sure what the church sanctions...different Christians say different things. I personally don't see where someone's sexual inclinations are relevant if that person is not acting on those inclinations.

HappilyCelibateinChrist wrote:

<quoted text>
As long as I can remember I have had homosexual inclinations. I have certainly never stated the church should not sanction celibate homosexuals. If a person cannot change their sexual inclination, then the only choice for them is to remain celibate if they are to remain within God's Will. I have always argued in favor of gay people remaining celibate. I am not sure what the church sanctions...different Christians say different things. I personally don't see where someone's sexual inclinations are relevant if that person is not acting on those inclinations.

Problem is that your beliefs conflict with what is described in Romans 2, which clearly says that homosexuals turned their back on God and were THEN GIVEN OVER TO THEIR INCLINATIONS. How do you reconcile your beliefs with scripture? How do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that many young homosexuals weren't doing a thing wrong, were actively seeking God's Will and yet still had attractions to the same sex???

JohnInToronto wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you explain that to gay penguins, lesbian seagulls, bsexual (and in fact very slutty) bonobos, and so on?

So you get your model of behavior from the animal kingdom? Some in the animal kingdom kill their offspring or feed their young from regurgitated food.

Thanks, but I don't look to animals for modeling human behavior.

Funny though.

HappilyCelibateinChrist wrote:

<quoted text>
As long as I can remember I have had homosexual inclinations. I have certainly never stated the church should not sanction celibate homosexuals. If a person cannot change their sexual inclination, then the only choice for them is to remain celibate if they are to remain within God's Will. I have always argued in favor of gay people remaining celibate. I am not sure what the church sanctions...different Christians say different things. I personally don't see where someone's sexual inclinations are relevant if that person is not acting on those inclinations.

My mistake. I meant Romans 1.

HappilyCelibateinChrist wrote:

<quoted text>
As long as I can remember I have had homosexual inclinations. I have certainly never stated the church should not sanction celibate homosexuals. If a person cannot change their sexual inclination, then the only choice for them is to remain celibate if they are to remain within God's Will. I have always argued in favor of gay people remaining celibate. I am not sure what the church sanctions...different Christians say different things. I personally don't see where someone's sexual inclinations are relevant if that person is not acting on those inclinations.

They don't want you celibate you moron, they want YOU BURNED AT THE STAKE!!!! Do you get it now?

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>They don't want you celibate you moron, they want YOU BURNED AT THE STAKE!!!! Do you get it now?

You're nuts! He is correct in his reply to you. Celibacy is the only answer for those who cannot meet the standards (male & female) prerequisite of a Christian marriage.

Think Again wrote:

<quoted text>
You're nuts! He is correct in his reply to you. Celibacy is the only answer for those who cannot meet the standards (male & female) prerequisite of a Christian marriage.

Really...just how long before the Catholics withhold Communion from the likes of me or even the people who support me?

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>Really...just how long before the Catholics withhold Communion from the likes of me or even the people who support me?

I cannot speak for the RCC but in my opinion if one is celibate whether they are a homosexual or a heterosexual who is not married they should be fine.

In most cases, they still give communion to politicians who support abortion legislation. Biden, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc. to my knowledge all receive(d) communion in the RCC.

Actually, the Bishops where Biden, Pelosi and Kennedy are from have said they should not be receiving communion! The Vatican came out several months ago and called the Democratic Party "the party of death" because of their stance on abortion.

The Catholic Church is clear on homosexuality. It's not a sin to be a homosexual. However, if you act on it, that is the sin.

True story. A gay man confided to a priest that he was attracted to men and felt that he couldn't change his sexual orientation. The priest stated, "Oh, you and me are the same then". The gay man was confused and asked the priest if he was gay? The priest replied "no, I'm not gay". The gay man then questioned the priest on how they are the same. The priest responded," we've both been called to a life of celibacy"!

Think Again wrote:

<quoted text>
I cannot speak for the RCC but in my opinion if one is celibate whether they are a homosexual or a heterosexual who is not married they should be fine.
In most cases, they still give communion to politicians who support abortion legislation. Biden, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc. to my knowledge all receive(d) communion in the RCC.

I am so happy that YOU do not hold the velvet rope to the Communion Rail or to Heaven.

Vito wrote:

<quoted text>
Some of those who believe that ancient India condoned homosexuality base their case on the fact that there are many ancient visual depictions of homosexual acts (e.g., temple carvings), as well as literary descriptions (e.g., the Karma Sutra) of homosexuality. What is clear is that in present-day India, homosexuality is not condoned and is often condemned."

It is condemned based on Victorian Christian morality introduced by the Raj. There is no historical reason. Similarly, homosexuality in China was always accepted by the Han people until the Manchu took over in 1644.