Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Unto The Breach. Join us! http://s6.zetaboards.com/Unto_The_Breach/register/ If you are already a member log in below |
| Methodist Jurors Convict, Defrock Lesbian Pastor | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 5 2004, 09:39 AM (245 Views) | |
| Admin | Dec 5 2004, 09:39 AM Post #1 |
Keeper of the Castle
|
Methodist Jurors Convict, Defrock Lesbian Pastor
.......
|
![]() |
|
| kiwi_too | Dec 5 2004, 09:52 AM Post #2 |
Sir Perceval, Ruler of the Realm
|
This is good. The church has to stick to God's word. Not rationalise it for man/woman. |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 5 2004, 10:00 AM Post #3 |
Knight of the Realm
|
Doesn't that indicate that there are two conflicting interpretations of the scripture, both probably honestly and sincerely held and both probably legitimate positions? |
![]() |
|
| Admin | Dec 5 2004, 10:07 AM Post #4 |
Keeper of the Castle
|
Honestly and sincerely held? Yes I would say so, but I don't see how they can both be legitimate. Either the scriptures say Homosexual behavior is a sin or not. |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 5 2004, 11:23 AM Post #5 |
Knight of the Realm
|
Buddy, It occurs to me that the identical argument can, and is, made by both sides in the argument about homosexuality. Lowell |
![]() |
|
| Pastor Charlie | Dec 5 2004, 11:40 AM Post #6 |
|
Unregistered
|
Colo-crawdad since I was unable to understand your position about whether homosexualality is a sin, in the thread you posted about the United Church of Christ advertisment being rejected by the networks, perhaps you would state here is you believe homosexualality is a sin. |
|
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 5 2004, 11:53 AM Post #7 |
Knight of the Realm
|
Pastor Charlie, I'll make this as clear as possible. There may be a difference between the sinfulness of homosexuality and some particular practices of homosexuality. I simply and honestly do not have a "position" on whether or not homosexuality or the practice thereof is a sin or what level of sin it might be. I have been searching for just answer and I am continually given quoted, interpreted, scriptures justifying contrasting and competing positions. We may all find the definitive answer to those question upon death. Until then, I am willing to accept quoted, interpreted, scriptures justifying contrasting and competing positions as honest, sincere and legitimate, all belonging under the broad umbrella of "Christianity." |
![]() |
|
| Pastor Charlie | Dec 5 2004, 11:58 AM Post #8 |
|
Unregistered
|
But colo-crawdad Jesus taught that the road that leads to life is narrow not broad. Do you believe it to be broad? |
|
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 5 2004, 12:03 PM Post #9 |
Knight of the Realm
|
I believe that many roads lead to life, many of them narrow, some of them broad. |
![]() |
|
| minnow | Dec 5 2004, 12:34 PM Post #10 |
Cutter of Bait
|
How is a jury that votes 12 to 1 deeply divided ? Sounds like more liberal media spin-speak. There are other denominations that will gladly take this lesbo into their fold. Glad that the Methodists stood up for church laws. |
![]() |
|
| SPIKEFISH | Dec 5 2004, 01:38 PM Post #11 |
|
Unregistered
|
Minnow, You posted what I was going to post! A 7 to 6 vote would be very divided. If Bush had won with 92% (12/1) of the votes, some media would have reported that the results represented a "very divided" country. |
|
|
| General Bullmoose | Dec 5 2004, 02:29 PM Post #12 |
|
Unregistered
|
krawdad is the cmoehle of this forum Ask him to take a stand, and he most likely will not have the spine to do so. |
|
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 5 2004, 02:37 PM Post #13 |
Knight of the Realm
|
And then there is the General that refuses to recognize a stand when it is clearly taken. For him it is just more fun to make an assinine personal attack. |
![]() |
|
| Admin | Dec 5 2004, 03:02 PM Post #14 |
Keeper of the Castle
|
They may make the argument but it either is or it isn't a sin. |
![]() |
|
| kiwi_too | Dec 5 2004, 03:10 PM Post #15 |
Sir Perceval, Ruler of the Realm
|
The church (any church) must be of one mind on this. |
![]() |
|
| Pastor Charlie | Dec 5 2004, 03:37 PM Post #16 |
|
Unregistered
|
"I simply and honestly do not have a "position" on whether or not homosexuality or the practice thereof is a sin or what level of sin it might be. I have been searching for just answer." I understand this to be your stand. If this be your sincere answer, and I do accept is as such, it reveals either your lack of Biblical knowledge, a standard for Truth, pride, or a combination of all three. If your search is for Biblical understanding, I can help if you are willing, if you are having difficulty in finding a standard for the Truth, you will have to personally find that within your heart, for myself the Standard is the Scriptures, and if your search is prejudiced by pride then only God can help you with that sin. I do wish you success in your Search For the Truth. You are not alone, there are multitudes in the vally of decisions. Should you desire, please feel free to PM me and I will share my email address with you. I wish you and yours a happy Celebration in our Lord Jesus Christ, "God with us." |
|
|
| TennesseeT | Dec 5 2004, 04:30 PM Post #17 |
Marchioness du Nashville
|
:yeahthat |
![]() |
|
| OzarkPreacher | Dec 5 2004, 05:24 PM Post #18 |
Sir Lancelot
|
Lowell, I can only give you the same counsel for seeking truth I give everyone who seeks it. John 16:13-15 13“However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14“He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15“All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. Seek for God to fill you with His spirit of truth. This will be your guide. We will not find truth in the doctrine or words of man. I is only in the Word of God we will find real truth. Being led by His spirit to have those truths revealed. Understand that the refusal to accept sin is not the same as refusing the sinner. I counsel with and visit with those in sin on a regular basis. I do not accept their sin and tell them to continue in it. Just as Jesus met the woman at the well and forgave her sin He did not send her back to it but told her to go and sin no more. In His grip, OP |
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Dec 5 2004, 08:01 PM Post #19 |
Abbot Monk, Vintner & Steak Knife Keeper, Purveyor of Stamps
|
Colocrawdad, I'm going to list here several passage from the bible along which may help you in deciding the issue of homosexuality. I'm not going to type out every one of these, as my arthritus is acting up. Genesis, 19: 1-29 Romans 1: 24-27 1 Corinthians 6: 10 1 Timothy 1: 10 Now those should help you in your decision. I would also like to refer you to the Catholic Churchs decision on homosexuality found in CDF, Persona humana 8 I don't believe you are Catholic, but it ties in with the Catholic Catechism #2357, 2358, 2359.--and the Catholic Churchs position on homosexuality. I ask you to review these scriptures, and Rev. Dave's scriptures, and contact Pastor charlie if you have any questions or need any guidance on this issue. Merrry Christmas Fr. Mike Xmastree |
![]() |
|
| Mainecoons | Dec 5 2004, 08:18 PM Post #20 |
Keeper of the Royal Cattery
|
And that, my friend, is why you don't get it. You have succumbed to the disease of secular humanism. For all your intellect, you don't understand right from wrong. The scriptures, indeed the teaching of ALL major religions, proscribes homosexuality for the simple reason that it contravenes life. You are so awash in complicating a simple issue that you are stuck in internal debate. Homosexuality promulgates physical and intellectual disease and discord and this is why it is proscribed by religion, which when all is said and done, is mainly an elucidation of rules of behavior THAT WORK. |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 5 2004, 08:26 PM Post #21 |
Knight of the Realm
|
I kind of think that very statement is secularly humanitarian based on utilitarianism. It certainly appears to fit the criteria for utilitarianism established by John Stuart Mill. |
![]() |
|
| Motobu | Dec 5 2004, 10:15 PM Post #22 |
Baroness of Gundi, Guard of the Realm
|
Jesus The teaching of the New Testament concerning sexuality assumes the understanding of marriage as the bond between a man and a woman, in accordance with the creation accounts of Genesis 1-2. Jesus' teaching on this subject reinforces the permanency and exclusivity of the sexual bond between a man and a woman (Matt 5:27-32; 19:1-12). Moreover, Jesus condemns all kinds of sexual impurity as evils to be avoided, including porneiai, moicheiai and aselgeia (Mark 7:20-23). The third term in this list suggests sexual licence or debauchery beyond the norm. The semantic range of aselgeia is inclusive of homosexual practice Paul When we turn to the Pauline writings, we find specific references to the practice of homosexuality, and in each instance the behaviour is viewed negatively. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul describes the kind of behaviour that is characteristic of the wicked, those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. The central concern of Paul's indictment of the wicked, however, is their rejection of God the creator. This rejection is exemplified by idolatry and results in God giving them up to all kinds of aberrant behaviour. Such behaviour includes a range of sins listed in verses 28-32, as well as that of homosexual practice discussed in verses 26-27. Homosexual behaviour therefore is not singled out above all others as worthy of special condemnation. Nonetheless, same sex union is, according to the apostle, unnatural (para physin); by way of contrast sexual relations between a man and a woman are natural (physike). In verse 26 Paul highlights the dishonour of sexual acts which are contrary to the created order of male/female relationships. [3] He first makes mention of sexual intercourse between females [4], and then draws attention in greater detail to similar homosexual activity between men. Such same sex activity is part of God's judgment upon the wicked, whether they be Jew or Gentile, in that they have rejected the one true God. And for the record ALL roads do NOT lead to life or to God. The wages for sin is death. However, God Himself came to earth as a human being to bring us back to Himself. If any other way would have worked, Jesus Christ would not have had to come. THE Way is a Person! About this defrocked Pastor, I can see why she would have been removed as she did not present a good example for what is traditionally accepted as Christian behavior. We have enough trouble with Liberalism without handing them ammunition. As for how God will handle her eternal salvation, I would venture a guess that this would be between herself and God alone. Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me." Whether or not her preferences are a choice or something given to her by her birth, it is not for us to decide right or wrong. Like someone said, only in Heaven will we know for sure. However, I don't want to add, here, to any misconception. Merely accepting Christ and not following God's laws carry hefty penalty. Read the book of James if you have any doubts. |
![]() |
|
| SPIKEFISH | Dec 5 2004, 10:20 PM Post #23 |
|
Unregistered
|
A lot of multi-syllable words in use. Ol' Johnny Mill did not, I think, subscribe to the theory that ANY action was OK as long as it was not exposed to the public. Taken to the extreme, beastiality would be OK, as long as it wasn't revealed. Sorry, I don't buy that twisting of his ideas. Now, some expect the public to accept, and condone, behaviour that was abhorrent only 30 years ago. All under the guise that, it doesn't hurt anyone. BTW, consequentialism has replaced utilitarianism as the accepted term. |
|
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 6 2004, 07:37 AM Post #24 |
Knight of the Realm
|
SPIKEFISH, No, John Stuart Mills talked about determining the morality of an action based upon the consequences of that action rather than on the act itself. That is also what leads to "situational ethics." That's utilitarianism and that's how you justified your rant against homosexual acts. I'm sorry if I lost you in the use of "multi-syllable words." |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Ye Olde Unto the Breach · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic | 1:32 PM Jul 11 |
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy







