Political Crossfire Forums

[el_hombre_de_Dios]

Ruth Gledhill wrote: Anti-gay bishops vote to split the evangelical church in two

LEADERS of the Anglican Church’s conservative wing took the first steps yesterday in creating formally a new Church structure for anti-gay evangelicals in the United States.
After meeting in Rwanda, archbishops from the 20 African and Asian provinces in the Anglican “Global South” grouping said that they understood the “serious implications” of their decision.

But they added: “We believe that we would be failing in our apostolic witness if we do not make this provision for those who hold firmly to a commitment to historic Anglican faith.”

The primates will now push for a two-Church solution in the US. This could serve as a model for Anglican provinces elsewhere with liberal majorities and strong conservative minorities, such as in England, Wales and Scotland.

They are to develop an alternative Anglican structure in the US for the seven episcopal dioceses who appealed this year to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, for alternative primatial oversight.

Their appeal came after the general convention of the Episcopal Church, when a female and pro-gay primate, Bishop Katharine Schori, was elected to succeed Frank Griswold as leader of the Episcopal Church. The conservatives are also angry that the Episcopal Church has stood by the election of the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire.

A new Church structure would also offer a home to conservative parishes within liberal dioceses. What is striking about the Global South decision is that there is no plan to leave the Anglican Communion. The aim is to develop a separate structure that will be a member in its own right of the Anglican Church.

The two Anglican Churches would not be in communion with each other, but both would remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, one of the Communion’s “instruments of unity”.

The concept is not unprecedented. Such a structure exists in Europe, where both the Church of England and the Episcopal Church have a diocese that exists alongside each other in the same geographical territory.

The Global South group have also appealed for another bishop to sit alongside Bishop Schori when all 38 bishops meet in Tanzania next year. They do not recognise Bishop Schori, who backed the election of Bishop Robinson.

“We are convinced that time has now come to take initial steps towards the formation of what will be recognised as separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican communion in the USA,” the primates said in a statement yesterday.

An insider said that the Church was moving with the times. “This is taking the realities seriously and saying that Anglican identity is not something to be determined by a single province but is something done globally.

“In a globalised world with new communications, the medieval notion of one Church, one bishop, one territory is totally outdated.

“The Global South primates are saying: ‘Let’s live in the modern world and recognise there are various possible configurations and these should not be determined by geography alone’.”

Sounds like it won't work... :roll:
Anglicans split over gay issues

[Fido]

I get it. Not anti gay bishops, but bishops who are anti gay. Why can't everyone just be happy?

[Lumina]

All this just breaks my heart. And is why I abandoned the Anglican Communion of my childhood. The proverbial writing on the wall was written during the Phoenix Convocation of 1990 (+/---can't remember the precise year).

[el_hombre_de_Dios]

Lumina wrote: All this just breaks my heart. And is why I abandoned the Anglican Communion of my childhood. The proverbial writing on the wall was written during the Phoenix Convocation of 1990 (+/---can't remember the precise year).

The gay issue is one touchy item for any church to handle. Just how much gay behavior is considered permissible? Are they suppose to be monogamous? Preach Monogamy? I really don't know. I'm catholic and the gay issue is moot. Gays must show proven psychological stability (no pedophilia etc.) and be celibate for a number of years to be priests. With the scandals here in the US the Vatican does not encourage gays to become priests at all. Moreover, repentance form a gay lifestyle would be no easy task. More than a few are hard core party hardy hedonists, especially sexually. Once that type of vice gets into your soul it certainly doesn't come out easy...only the grace of God can change certain things.

I think the division just won't work.

[Pzatchok]

Stuff like this has worked before.

The Eastern Orthodox Catholic church split from the Holy Roman Church in the "Great Schism" of 1054.

Almost a thousand years and going strong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism

[Lumina]

el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: Lumina wrote: All this just breaks my heart. And is why I abandoned the Anglican Communion of my childhood. The proverbial writing on the wall was written during the Phoenix Convocation of 1990 (+/---can't remember the precise year).

The gay issue is one touchy item for any church to handle. Just how much gay behavior is considered permissible? Are they suppose to be monogamous? Preach Monogamy? I really don't know. I'm catholic and the gay issue is moot. Gays must show proven psychological stability (no pedophilia etc.) and be celibate for a number of years to be priests. With the scandals here in the US the Vatican does not encourage gays to become priests at all. Moreover, repentance form a gay lifestyle would be no easy task. More than a few are hard core party hardy hedonists, especially sexually. Once that type of vice gets into your soul it certainly doesn't come out easy...only the grace of God can change certain things.

I think the division just won't work.

The breaking point for me was the ordination of the lesbian priest who was openly living with her lover. So long as most Christian denominations hold that homosexuality is a sin, I don't think that people openly exemplifying that sin can be ordained. I wouldn't want a flagrant adulterer ordained either.

Not saying anything about congregants. I love my gay brothers and sisters, and I certainly love my own lesbian daughter. I don't see any of their sins as being any worse than mine, LOL, and I think it's up to our Father to judge us. But so long as Christians hold homosexuality or adultery or theft or whatever as a sin, I don't think that those hoping to lead flocks and set the example should be ordained.

[Samantha]

I think it's a great idea. Separate the evil Bush loving, gay bashing Christians from the good Jesus loving Christians.

[el_hombre_de_Dios]

Lumina wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: Lumina wrote: All this just breaks my heart. And is why I abandoned the Anglican Communion of my childhood. The proverbial writing on the wall was written during the Phoenix Convocation of 1990 (+/---can't remember the precise year).

The gay issue is one touchy item for any church to handle. Just how much gay behavior is considered permissible? Are they suppose to be monogamous? Preach Monogamy? I really don't know. I'm catholic and the gay issue is moot. Gays must show proven psychological stability (no pedophilia etc.) and be celibate for a number of years to be priests. With the scandals here in the US the Vatican does not encourage gays to become priests at all. Moreover, repentance form a gay lifestyle would be no easy task. More than a few are hard core party hardy hedonists, especially sexually. Once that type of vice gets into your soul it certainly doesn't come out easy...only the grace of God can change certain things.

I think the division just won't work.

The breaking point for me was the ordination of the lesbian priest who was openly living with her lover. So long as most Christian denominations hold that homosexuality is a sin, I don't think that people openly exemplifying that sin can be ordained. I wouldn't want a flagrant adulterer ordained either.

Not saying anything about congregants. I love my gay brothers and sisters, and I certainly love my own lesbian daughter. I don't see any of their sins as being any worse than mine, LOL, and I think it's up to our Father to judge us. But so long as Christians hold homosexuality or adultery or theft or whatever as a sin, I don't think that those hoping to lead flocks and set the example should be ordained.

I don't think being gay in itself is intrinsically sinful. It's what it can lead to, or rather what a person becomes by indulging in it. I don't see any difference between hetrosexual promiscuity and homosexual promiscuity. But of course this begs the question, then why do many gays take promiscuity to heights of engaging in overtly hypersexuality, such as 12 partners in one night in a bath house? I think the answer is in spiritual disposition. Some addicts are ravenous dope fiends while most just struggle. However, my point is addiction and sin are soul mates, and gays who indulge do show the same propensities.

Unfortunately, it seems the militant gays want Christianity to change the way it views sinful behavor. They seem to what us to accept them as they are, completely and across the board. It is not a sin to be a homosexual. However, it is a sin to use it as an excuse to engage in a hedonistic life style. And engaging in that shows a spiritual immaturity of wanting to dictate to life what you want out if it instead of being able to accept life as it is. You know, the old Adam and Eve bit. We want to decide for ourselves what is right and wrongful behavior. The problem with that is we must also suffer the consequenses of our choices..like getting AIDS from excessive sexual promiscuity. There's always a price for violating God's will. It's mankind who constanly must learn that lesson over, and over again.

This will make for some real interesting theological debates though.

[el_hombre_de_Dios]

Samantha wrote: I think it's a great idea. Separate the evil Bush loving, gay bashing Christians from the good Jesus loving Christians.

Don't you realize you're feeding the fire? Simplistic diatribe like this gives people reason to bash gays and those who support them. If you actually think your statement is the by-product of an open mind I've got news for you.....(it's overtly bigoted).

[lovebush]

Samantha wrote: I think it's a great idea. Separate the evil Bush loving, gay bashing Christians from the good Jesus loving Christians.

Another fine example of the tolerant left.

[islandhopper]

el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: Lumina wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: Lumina wrote: All this just breaks my heart. And is why I abandoned the Anglican Communion of my childhood. The proverbial writing on the wall was written during the Phoenix Convocation of 1990 (+/---can't remember the precise year).

The gay issue is one touchy item for any church to handle. Just how much gay behavior is considered permissible? Are they suppose to be monogamous? Preach Monogamy? I really don't know. I'm catholic and the gay issue is moot. Gays must show proven psychological stability (no pedophilia etc.) and be celibate for a number of years to be priests. With the scandals here in the US the Vatican does not encourage gays to become priests at all. Moreover, repentance form a gay lifestyle would be no easy task. More than a few are hard core party hardy hedonists, especially sexually. Once that type of vice gets into your soul it certainly doesn't come out easy...only the grace of God can change certain things.

I think the division just won't work.

The breaking point for me was the ordination of the lesbian priest who was openly living with her lover. So long as most Christian denominations hold that homosexuality is a sin, I don't think that people openly exemplifying that sin can be ordained. I wouldn't want a flagrant adulterer ordained either.

Not saying anything about congregants. I love my gay brothers and sisters, and I certainly love my own lesbian daughter. I don't see any of their sins as being any worse than mine, LOL, and I think it's up to our Father to judge us. But so long as Christians hold homosexuality or adultery or theft or whatever as a sin, I don't think that those hoping to lead flocks and set the example should be ordained.

I don't think being gay in itself is intrinsically sinful. It's what it can lead to, or rather what a person becomes by indulging in it. I don't see any difference between hetrosexual promiscuity and homosexual promiscuity. But of course this begs the question, then why do many gays take promiscuity to heights of engaging in overtly hypersexuality, such as 12 partners in one night in a bath house? I think the answer is in spiritual disposition. Some addicts are ravenous dope fiends while most just struggle. However, my point is addiction and sin are soul mates, and gays who indulge do show the same propensities.

Unfortunately, it seems the militant gays want Christianity to change the way it views sinful behavor. They seem to what us to accept them as they are, completely and across the board. It is not a sin to be a homosexual. However, it is a sin to use it as an excuse to engage in a hedonistic life style. And engaging in that shows a spiritual immaturity of wanting to dictate to life what you want out if it instead of being able to accept life as it is. You know, the old Adam and Eve bit. We want to decide for ourselves what is right and wrongful behavior. The problem with that is we must also suffer the consequenses of our choices..like getting AIDS from excessive sexual promiscuity. There's always a price for violating God's will. It's mankind who constanly must learn that lesson over, and over again.

This will make for some real interesting theological debates though.

Why do you equate homosexuality with promiscuity or hyper-sexuality or hedonism, etc.? In one breath you state that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity. So, by reason, you suggest that a homosexual lifestyle is automatically more promiscuous. Of which you have no evidence except to spout off some anecdote about multiple sex partners in a gay bath house. Mira, hombre de Dios; you need look no further than your own kind to find exceptional promiscuity and hedonism. The world is filled with plenty of hetersexual debauchery; pedophiles included. So stop pointing the finger at homosexuals and take down the holier than thou attitude a notch or two. Man of God, my a**

[Lumina]

I understand your impatience, Islandhopper. This thread should probably be moved to the gay and lesbian forum. If somebody wants to start a thread on the diffs between male and female homosexuality, for example, boy, do I have an opinion!

Just not here. But I will say that whether straight or gay, men and women are very different!

[el_hombre_de_Dios]

islandhopper wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: Lumina wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: Lumina wrote: All this just breaks my heart. And is why I abandoned the Anglican Communion of my childhood. The proverbial writing on the wall was written during the Phoenix Convocation of 1990 (+/---can't remember the precise year).

The gay issue is one touchy item for any church to handle. Just how much gay behavior is considered permissible? Are they suppose to be monogamous? Preach Monogamy? I really don't know. I'm catholic and the gay issue is moot. Gays must show proven psychological stability (no pedophilia etc.) and be celibate for a number of years to be priests. With the scandals here in the US the Vatican does not encourage gays to become priests at all. Moreover, repentance form a gay lifestyle would be no easy task. More than a few are hard core party hardy hedonists, especially sexually. Once that type of vice gets into your soul it certainly doesn't come out easy...only the grace of God can change certain things.

I think the division just won't work.

The breaking point for me was the ordination of the lesbian priest who was openly living with her lover. So long as most Christian denominations hold that homosexuality is a sin, I don't think that people openly exemplifying that sin can be ordained. I wouldn't want a flagrant adulterer ordained either.

Not saying anything about congregants. I love my gay brothers and sisters, and I certainly love my own lesbian daughter. I don't see any of their sins as being any worse than mine, LOL, and I think it's up to our Father to judge us. But so long as Christians hold homosexuality or adultery or theft or whatever as a sin, I don't think that those hoping to lead flocks and set the example should be ordained.

I don't think being gay in itself is intrinsically sinful. It's what it can lead to, or rather what a person becomes by indulging in it. I don't see any difference between hetrosexual promiscuity and homosexual promiscuity. But of course this begs the question, then why do many gays take promiscuity to heights of engaging in overtly hypersexuality, such as 12 partners in one night in a bath house? I think the answer is in spiritual disposition. Some addicts are ravenous dope fiends while most just struggle. However, my point is addiction and sin are soul mates, and gays who indulge do show the same propensities.

Unfortunately, it seems the militant gays want Christianity to change the way it views sinful behavor. They seem to what us to accept them as they are, completely and across the board. It is not a sin to be a homosexual. However, it is a sin to use it as an excuse to engage in a hedonistic life style. And engaging in that shows a spiritual immaturity of wanting to dictate to life what you want out if it instead of being able to accept life as it is. You know, the old Adam and Eve bit. We want to decide for ourselves what is right and wrongful behavior. The problem with that is we must also suffer the consequenses of our choices..like getting AIDS from excessive sexual promiscuity. There's always a price for violating God's will. It's mankind who constanly must learn that lesson over, and over again.

This will make for some real interesting theological debates though.

Why do you equate homosexuality with promiscuity or hyper-sexuality or hedonism, etc.? In one breath you state that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity. So, by reason, you suggest that a homosexual lifestyle is automatically more promiscuous. Of which you have no evidence except to spout off some anecdote about multiple sex partners in a gay bath house. Mira, hombre de Dios; you need look no further than your own kind to find exceptional promiscuity and hedonism. The world is filled with plenty of hetersexual debauchery; pedophiles included. So stop pointing the finger at homosexuals and take down the holier than thou attitude a notch or two. Man of God, my a**

One statistic: "Yet Another Study Confirms Gay Life Expectancy 20 Years Shorter" Of course this begs the question, why? No need to figure it out there honcho, I already told you. :lol:

[Varyag]

The bible clearly states the homosexuality is a sin, if you want to go to church, don't be gay, simple.

[Kane]

Varyag wrote: The bible clearly states the homosexuality is a sin, if you want to go to church, don't be gay, simple.

Strange as it may be...the Bible says many things. :shifty: :think:

Sometimes...it can even contradict itself! :shock: :roll:

[lovebush]

Varyag wrote: The bible clearly states the homosexuality is a sin, if you want to go to church, don't be gay, simple.

if you find a church that has only people who dont sin, dont go there , youll ruin it. Is it youre contention that people first quit sinning, then come to church and then get saved? How is it then that Jesus was known for hanging out with sinners? The Bible says the power to overcome temptation is given to the believer. how can they come to believe, if they are not welcomed into the church. Salvation may be given wholly upon belief and confession , but sanctification, is a process that takes time.
However, someone who has not overcome a sexual sin(of any kind) is not in any sort of spiritual condition to be considered for any sort of teaching or leadership position.

[Golden Child]

Varyag wrote: The bible clearly states the homosexuality is a sin, if you want to go to church, don't be gay, simple.
"We declare our right on this earth...to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary."
-Malcolm X

It's amazing that in this day and age we still don't have equality and respect for others. People act as if the homosexual life style is a disease or abnormal when all it is, is sexual preference in the base root of it all.

It's like saying wearing your hair in a pony tail compared to braids is sinful and abnormal.

One of the main reasons I don't hold myself to any religion. Individuality is the heart of humanity.

[Varyag]

Golden Child wrote: Varyag wrote: The bible clearly states the homosexuality is a sin, if you want to go to church, don't be gay, simple.
"We declare our right on this earth...to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary."
-Malcolm X

Meaningless.

Quote: It's amazing that in this day and age we still don't have equality and respect for others. People act as if the homosexual life style is a disease or abnormal when all it is, is sexual preference in the base root of it all.

It's like saying wearing your hair in a pony tail is sinful and abnormal.

I don't care what gays do, its their business, bottom line is however the bible, a roughly 2000 year old religious text is not going to be re-written as to somehow be more "acceptable" to gays, likewise the definition of marriage both in the state and the religious sense.

[Varyag]

lovebush wrote: Varyag wrote: The bible clearly states the homosexuality is a sin, if you want to go to church, don't be gay, simple.

if you find a church that has only people who dont sin, dont go there , youll ruin it. Is it youre contention that people first quit sinning, then come to church and then get saved? How is it then that Jesus was known for hanging out with sinners? The Bible says the power to overcome temptation is given to the believer. how can they come to believe, if they are not welcomed into the church. Salvation may be given wholly upon belief and confession , but sanctification, is a process that takes time.
However, someone who has not overcome a sexual sin(of any kind) is not in any sort of spiritual condition to be considered for any sort of teaching or leadership position.

Becuase the people in question wish to remain homosexual (ie. homosexuality is "natural" and "not a sickness") AND be christian, which is impossible.

[Golden Child]

Varyag wrote:
Meaningless.
Then you obviously don't understand the quotes meaning. You act as if gays aren't human beings and don't deserve the rights of a human being.

Varyag wrote: I don't care what gays do, its their business, bottom line is however the bible, a roughly 2000 year old religious text is not going to be re-written as to somehow be more "acceptable" to gays, likewise the definition of marriage both in the state and the religious sense.

If we are all gods children and in his image then why is being gay looked down upon so? It's no different. There is no difference between me and someone who is homosexual. The only difference is their sexual preference. It's like me prefering blonde women and my friend prefering red heads. Saying god looks down upon homosexuality is f***ing stupid and ignorant.

"OMG I HATE f***ing GAY PEOPLE!"
-The Almight words of God.

Btw, give me a quote from the bible as to where it says being gay is unacceptable.

Also why can't gays get married? Why do Christians and religion fight it? What's the big deal? If you aren't gay then it doesn't pertain to you. What does it matter if a homosexual is married to another homosexual? Seriously?