Gay Episcopal Church -- Going, Going, Gone
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
Woody said:The word homophobe is a meaningless cliche. From the Wiki:
The fact that "homophobia" contains the word "phobia" leads some people to reject the term outright, and to criticize it as an unnecessarily or even maliciously loaded term, since "clinical homophobia" is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
So you begin your conversation with an uncivil and meaningless accusation. I like women by the way, I really do. I'm married to one. Women turn me on, men are just guys like I am.
Actually it's just you hearing your own diatribe. What's it called when you ascribe your own faults to someone else. There has to be a name for it:
See what I mean? There you go again, judging others by your own motivations.
Actually I think you are the homophobe, whatever that means. You certainly have an irrational fear of something. Is it your own homosexuality?
You know what it's like to have a penis, do you? Do you have one too? When were you transgendered? You're fitting a pattern.
BTW, I didn't know the two guys were gay until the pastor said so the next church service. One of them called him on the phone and harrassed him half to death. They weren't being singled out but they felt like they were. That's what sin conviction does to somebody. As for the greeting experience, I thought it was weird, but I didn't know the guy was gay until later. You should know what it feels like when you are being sized up for sex -- maybe that's an ancient memory for you.
Maybe someday you'll have victory over yourself.
*************
M*W: When I looked at the Wiki definition of "homophobe," your picture was next to it. By the definition YOU cited from Wiki, you fit the definition to a T!
As far as homophobia not being recognized in the DSM, here's an interesting citation:
http://narth.com/docs/calpsych.html
By your even mentioning homophobia not currently in the DSM, it's pretty clear what you're trying to say. You are ADMITTING that you ARE a HOMOPHOBE, and trying to justify it by saying it's not in the DSM, so you would hope we would read into your post that you're not delusional. Hey, Woody, we're not that stupid. Maybe you forgot that this is an "intelligent community" you're trying to delude. Unfortunately, you're only deluding youself. This article decidedly describes you right down to your filthy drawers! I pity your wife.
You are obviously confused. YOU are the one who posted the Wiki definition of "homophobe." Then you go on to say in a later paragraph:
Truth is, I don't have many fears in my life anymore. I've overcome the inane ones I had when I was young and immature. I've had a stroke and two heart attacks, and I'm not that much older than you. My fear is not seeing my grandchildren grow up. I don't fear homosexuals. I have many lesbian/homosexual friends, and they are real friends, not just PC tokens. I enjoy their company, and I am affectionate with them EVEN IN PUBLIC! (Lesbians, too, and I'm not afraid they might be copping a feel or getting sexually aroused, because they KNOW I'm a heterosexual woman, and they aren't embarrassed to be affectionate with ME in public!). Maybe that's just me, Woody, but I'm comfortable with all humanity. Believe it or not, I even have a few christian friends who know they can't reconvert me, even though they may have tried. I can even have intelligent debate with a few of them.
You might be interested to know that 25 years ago, the APA members and DSM editors took action to remove homosexuality as a psychopathology. Therefore, homosexuality is not the disease, homophobia is. After all, it's a "phobia."
http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html
You know what it's like to have a penis, do you? Do you have one too? When were you transgendered? You're fitting a pattern.
Every human being started out with a vagina, including you and every homosexual out there. So, in essence, you are no different than they are physically constructed. It is you who is "fitting a pattern," Woody, not me.
You know, it's really nobody's business to know or assume to know what another person's sexuality is. That should only be between consenting adults in the privacy of their home.
It's pathetic that your pastor would talk about the visitors to your church. The law doesn't allow discrimination of homosexuals, and your church is tax-free. That's a travesty. The most evil people in this country don't have to pay taxes.
And you even thought you were being "sized-up for sex" with them! Woody, your phobias are just too obvious to pull over our eyes! At least it sounds like those guys were tuned into their own natural sexuality, and you're paranoid about being turned gay!!! I know how hard it must be for you to be so attractive to homosexuals but, after all, you are a walking prick!
Sex is not an "ancient memory" for me, Woody. If it weren't for sex, I wouldn't have a job. I deal with it everyday, in fact. It's the second oldest profession. I'm sure you know what the oldest profession is.
Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself, that you're attracted to women? I don't care. Obviously, you want to make sure we all know you are attracted to women.
No, I don't have a penis of my own, but I know where to find one when I need it. I just look for the remote control.
It sounds like you live in one squeaky hermetically sealed bubble, because you are so out of touch with reality. You're also very immature for a man your age. I guess we're going to have to start calling you The Bubble Boy.
Gensis 3:1
All you need is a woman in charge to destroy morality:
She is the very first female leader of the american episcopal church.
The new episcopal leader says gay sex isn't a sin but a gift.
Speaking of gifts, it sounds like some graffiti I saw on the bathroom stall about oral sex. The graffiti said it's better to give than recieve. I guess this is what she has in mind.
Keep your eye on the episcopal church and see what happens next.
from the news story:
First came the woman, then came death. The warning is clear. Watch what happens to the episcopal membership numbers.
All you need is a woman in charge to destroy morality:
She is the very first female leader of the american episcopal church.
The new episcopal leader says gay sex isn't a sin but a gift.
Speaking of gifts, it sounds like some graffiti I saw on the bathroom stall about oral sex. The graffiti said it's better to give than recieve. I guess this is what she has in mind.
Keep your eye on the episcopal church and see what happens next.
from the news story:
First came the woman, then came death. The warning is clear. Watch what happens to the episcopal membership numbers.
Last edited:
Right on brother!
"I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Tim 2.
Down with women teachers, priests, company managers, etc etc etc!
Equality? Fuck that shit, jesus said so.
Next woman that speaks gets a slap.
"I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Tim 2.
Down with women teachers, priests, company managers, etc etc etc!
Equality? Fuck that shit, jesus said so.
Next woman that speaks gets a slap.
It's so funny the things Woody comes out with in an attempt to actually prove the point.
If Woody would be a tolerant person without religion, then it shows you that with religion, his attitudes towards gay people, women and probably countless other fascist ideals commonly shared with Christianity. Rascism? Well, it's inherent in the Bible belt, so I just assume these things.
Although, I do agree with Woody in some respects. It would be nice if women were chained to the kitchen and the bedroom. GO CHRISTIANITY!! WOO!
If Woody would be a tolerant person without religion, then it shows you that with religion, his attitudes towards gay people, women and probably countless other fascist ideals commonly shared with Christianity. Rascism? Well, it's inherent in the Bible belt, so I just assume these things.
Although, I do agree with Woody in some respects. It would be nice if women were chained to the kitchen and the bedroom. GO CHRISTIANITY!! WOO!
Woody said:Gensis 3:1
All you need is a woman in charge to destroy morality:
She is the very first female leader of the american episcopal church.
The new episcopal leader says gay sex isn't a sin but a gift. Speaking of gifts, it sounds like some graffiti I saw on the bathroom stall about oral sex. The graffiti said it's better to give than recieve. I guess this is what she has in mind.
Keep your eye on the episcopal church and see what happens next.
from the news story:
First came the woman, then came death. The warning is clear. Watch what happens to the episcopal membership numbers.
*************
M*W: The Episcopal Church is already broken. That's why a woman was elected -- so she could fix it. Yes, let's do watch those membership numbers.
The very fact that you posted this proves you ARE a homophobe and NOT a christian.
Medicine Woman said:
and how does that constitutes to being homophobe, you are just being presumtious
thedevilsreject said:
*************
M*W: The issue with Woody is he is a homophobe. Obviously you didn't read Woody's post or you would have caught that the new female Episcopal bishop discussed the issue of homosexuality in her electoral speech. However, your post in this regard reminded me that I was wrong about one aspect of Woody. I should have also included that not only is Woody a homophobe, he's a MCP. Do you know what that is? It's called a "male chauvinist pig." By the fact that you defended his sorry ass makes you one, too. Since you seem to have a poor command of the English language, why don't you just STFU? Know what that means???
I am pleased to say that my English Anglican Church (not in any way on the 'liberal 'end) accepts anyone through the door.
We have lots of people who live together but are not married (me included - although I am getting remarried next month - in the church). We may well have homosexuals regularly in the church. I don't know everything about everyone and have no desire to do so! We certainly had one recently when one of the (several) gay friends of my fiancee and myself came to the morning service.
The point is well made by some of the atheists that there are no perfect people in the church. Jesus was never judgemental. We should not be so either. There can be theological discussions for ever and a day about homosexuality but irrespective of that there can be no excuse for singling out homosexuals for special treatment as if they had committed some special sin. This is not 'loving your neighbour as yourself' in any form of the definition. It's also confusing morality with sex alone. Jesus spoke little about sex and when he did, it was always kindly and not judgemental e.g. the woman caught in adultery and the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus reserved his wrath for those who misused money (perhaps some lessons for the USA there!) If you believe in a christian God you have to believe that judgement belongs to Him alone and not to us, exceedingly flawed humans.
kind regards,
Gordon.
We have lots of people who live together but are not married (me included - although I am getting remarried next month - in the church). We may well have homosexuals regularly in the church. I don't know everything about everyone and have no desire to do so! We certainly had one recently when one of the (several) gay friends of my fiancee and myself came to the morning service.
The point is well made by some of the atheists that there are no perfect people in the church. Jesus was never judgemental. We should not be so either. There can be theological discussions for ever and a day about homosexuality but irrespective of that there can be no excuse for singling out homosexuals for special treatment as if they had committed some special sin. This is not 'loving your neighbour as yourself' in any form of the definition. It's also confusing morality with sex alone. Jesus spoke little about sex and when he did, it was always kindly and not judgemental e.g. the woman caught in adultery and the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus reserved his wrath for those who misused money (perhaps some lessons for the USA there!) If you believe in a christian God you have to believe that judgement belongs to Him alone and not to us, exceedingly flawed humans.
kind regards,
Gordon.
I second that Gordon. Jesus said and enacted many times in any number of ways the message "Judge not, that you will not be judged". He said nothing about condemning homosexuality or women priests. I salute the American Episcopal church for taking a stand on both these difficult issues.
I'm not a woman, but just feel like you missed it with the above. Hopefully it was in jest.Woody said:
God gave Adam the charge to have dominion over the garden before Eve was created. Firstly, by having dominion you either allow or disallow certain things to take place. Maybe Adam should have done his job and kept the serpent out of the garden in the first place. Who knows, it could have been the most beautiful creature to observe. At the same time, maybe that creature hung around the forbidden tree just a little too much..maybe even eating the fruit. Who knows. Keep reading
It is easy to blame females, but it really wasn't her fault, it was Adams fault.
When the serpent spoke to Eve by the tree Adam was there. Adam knew the commandments. 1. Dominion over the garden. 2. not to eat the fruit of that tree.
He allowed the serpent to stay in the garden to tempt his wife to sin. He allowed it to happen. He allowed his wife to sin when he had a chance to stop her and kick the serpent out of the garden. Then when God confronted him about it, he blamed Eve instead of covering her mistakes. Love covers a multitude of sins. They may have remained in the garden if Adam would have said, God, I messed it up, it was my fault, I'm sorry. He didn't do that.
Long elaboration, but just to say, that your comment trying to connect woman as a negative thing based on scripture is just silly because it takes a knowledge of scripture to get it.
Medicine Woman said:
Why do you say that? I think the "church" for a long time has gotten it all wrong because they have tried to be a hospital for sinners and a museam at the same time, when they shouldn't be trying to do either.
Biblically, the new jerusalem talked about in Revelations, is to be considered the "church" is not a building or real place, but a people who have accepted the plan of salvation laid out by Jesus. When it speaks of the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. It was talking about Jesus. Who at calvary from his death birthed a bride for himself. Not a physical bride.
I think the church has gotten it wrong because Jesus spent much time studying in the temple with scholars. This would be considered his "church" It wasn't a place for the sinners, but for those that were already considered religious. When Jesus began his ministry, he was amongst the people, not in a building. Traveling, doing the work he needed to do. Preaching on the mountains, in a fishing boat, ect... The sinners don't need a place to come, but they need a people to come to them. The church as a building doesn't need to be a place of beauty or riches, or smugness, because the church buildings purpose is for saints to come together and corporately praise God and reaffirm their beliefs in his moral character and diety.
Quigly said:
*************
M*W: I head that saying from a Roman Catholic priest some 25 years ago. It's not about a "building." It's a metaphor of religious purpose but not necessarily christian purpose. This could apply to any religion.
from the source:
Posted by: ponderingdude at June 21, 2006 09:58 AM:
Well, I have a story and a question about the Episcopalian Church.
Here is the story:
Me and my buddies were watching wrestling on Saturday morning and there’s this newsbreak or something that comes on the TV and, in the course of it, some goopy Eastern news-lady calls the Episcopalian Church the “gay church”, or something like that. And then she called it “tolerant”, too, and she just is beaming and simpering all over about it, like it was the Second Coming, or something.
Well, THAT gay bit sounded intriguing to us – I mean we were all hankering for a bit of JOYFUL spiritual juice and a ‘gay church’ sounded like just the ticket we needed – that, we figured, would UNDOUBTEDLY be one happening, rocking, musical, toe-tapping place where you could let your hair down and just bust loose for Jesus and be as gay as the Lord intended us to be. And the ‘tolerant’ thing – THAT was great, too, cause we done wore out our welcome in most churches in town due to our unrestrained enthusiasm for the Lord (well, except with the Pentecostals but they don’t like us any due to our chewing and Roy’s little problem that he can’t help). We KNEW there was an Episcopalian Church in the big town across the river – and we all agreed we was being directly spoke to by the Lord about a church home.
So the next morning, we loaded up our instruments and all of our speakers and amplifiers in our pickups, gave Roy some Beano, filled our pouches with the finest, and set out, as excited as a bunch of mongrel puppies with a big yellow balloon.
Well, in the interest of brevity, let me cut to the chase. That dad-burned church was the DEADEST dang place I have ever seen or been in – why the old cemetery down the road has got them beat by a MILE for being GAY. We counted fifteen folks in the pews; every man-jack of them pushing a hundred years old, give or take a year or two. The place was so full of oxygen bottles and tubes it looked like a NASA launch facility had exploded. Most of the folks were asleep, although it later turned out that four of them had actually died during the service. Or during one of the services in the past year, they weren’t sure.
The real bad thing, though, was the SMELL. It kind of reminded me of when one of the dogs got bit by a rattlesnake and crawled way up under the house where we couldn’t reach him - and he died. It was July and HOT and he started stinking REALLY bad – we had to move everybody into Mabel’s trailer for a few weeks until that dog passed his prime, so to speak. So this SMELL was what stuck with me most about this church. Sort of a DEAD smell, you see.
There was two priests, well actually one priest and a priestess. The priest was a harassed looking middle-aged guy who I happen to know runs the lingerie shop in that same town. He was nice enough to us. The woman wouldn’t speak to us, or even acknowledge our existence. The priest said that was because she believed we were “Womb-less Abominations before the Great Mother”. Roy denied that vigorously, saying that he had gotten a womb during the Vietnam War, but unfortunately at the mention of the Vietnam War she got all red in the face and passed out. I was faint from the smell and asked for the Scriptures to comfort me and the priest immediately produced the 2004 Democratic Party Platform.
We all got out pretty fast and went down to the river and just contemplated the deep mysteries of the English language the rest of the day.
Here is the question:
How come the Episcopalian Church is called “gay” and “tolerant”? It ain’t the ‘gay’ church it’s advertised as, not by a country mile. And unless I get a danged WOMB IMPLANT, it ain’t all that TOLERANT.
Posted by: ponderingdude at June 21, 2006 09:58 AM:
Well, I have a story and a question about the Episcopalian Church.
Here is the story:
Me and my buddies were watching wrestling on Saturday morning and there’s this newsbreak or something that comes on the TV and, in the course of it, some goopy Eastern news-lady calls the Episcopalian Church the “gay church”, or something like that. And then she called it “tolerant”, too, and she just is beaming and simpering all over about it, like it was the Second Coming, or something.
Well, THAT gay bit sounded intriguing to us – I mean we were all hankering for a bit of JOYFUL spiritual juice and a ‘gay church’ sounded like just the ticket we needed – that, we figured, would UNDOUBTEDLY be one happening, rocking, musical, toe-tapping place where you could let your hair down and just bust loose for Jesus and be as gay as the Lord intended us to be. And the ‘tolerant’ thing – THAT was great, too, cause we done wore out our welcome in most churches in town due to our unrestrained enthusiasm for the Lord (well, except with the Pentecostals but they don’t like us any due to our chewing and Roy’s little problem that he can’t help). We KNEW there was an Episcopalian Church in the big town across the river – and we all agreed we was being directly spoke to by the Lord about a church home.
So the next morning, we loaded up our instruments and all of our speakers and amplifiers in our pickups, gave Roy some Beano, filled our pouches with the finest, and set out, as excited as a bunch of mongrel puppies with a big yellow balloon.
Well, in the interest of brevity, let me cut to the chase. That dad-burned church was the DEADEST dang place I have ever seen or been in – why the old cemetery down the road has got them beat by a MILE for being GAY. We counted fifteen folks in the pews; every man-jack of them pushing a hundred years old, give or take a year or two. The place was so full of oxygen bottles and tubes it looked like a NASA launch facility had exploded. Most of the folks were asleep, although it later turned out that four of them had actually died during the service. Or during one of the services in the past year, they weren’t sure.
The real bad thing, though, was the SMELL. It kind of reminded me of when one of the dogs got bit by a rattlesnake and crawled way up under the house where we couldn’t reach him - and he died. It was July and HOT and he started stinking REALLY bad – we had to move everybody into Mabel’s trailer for a few weeks until that dog passed his prime, so to speak. So this SMELL was what stuck with me most about this church. Sort of a DEAD smell, you see.
There was two priests, well actually one priest and a priestess. The priest was a harassed looking middle-aged guy who I happen to know runs the lingerie shop in that same town. He was nice enough to us. The woman wouldn’t speak to us, or even acknowledge our existence. The priest said that was because she believed we were “Womb-less Abominations before the Great Mother”. Roy denied that vigorously, saying that he had gotten a womb during the Vietnam War, but unfortunately at the mention of the Vietnam War she got all red in the face and passed out. I was faint from the smell and asked for the Scriptures to comfort me and the priest immediately produced the 2004 Democratic Party Platform.
We all got out pretty fast and went down to the river and just contemplated the deep mysteries of the English language the rest of the day.
Here is the question:
How come the Episcopalian Church is called “gay” and “tolerant”? It ain’t the ‘gay’ church it’s advertised as, not by a country mile. And unless I get a danged WOMB IMPLANT, it ain’t all that TOLERANT.
well I must say it's nice to come back, and still see the same old comedians, make's me get this cozy feeling all over.
hello woody, still donning the jesters crown, I see, great looking forward to a few more laughs.
hello woody, still donning the jesters crown, I see, great looking forward to a few more laughs.
Is Bestiality Next for the Episcopal Church USA? By Gary DeMar
6/20/2006
Today’s entertainment, political, media, and religionist propagandists have, in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “defined deviancy down” so that what was morally shocking twenty years ago is acceptable, or at least tolerated, behavior today. Robert Bork, no stranger to moral degradation, having been “Borked” on national television and entered the dictionary as a verb, explains the phenomenon: “Emile Durkheim, a founder of sociology, posited that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can ‘afford to recognize.’ As behavior worsens, the community adjusts its standards so that conduct once thought reprehensible is no longer deemed so.”1
At the same time, these same moral retrofitters are defining their own brand of moral deviancy up. What was considered morally normal thirty years ago—two-parents of the opposite sex married and living together, participation in the Boy Scouts and being protected from homosexual predators, rejecting a pro-death culture, and stay-at-home moms—is now portrayed “as oppressive and shot through with pathologies. ‘As part of the vast social project of moral leveling,” [Charles] Krauthammer wrote, “it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized. The normal must be found to be deviant.’ This situation is thoroughly perverse. Underclass values become increasingly acceptable to the middle class, especially their young, and middle-class values become increasingly contemptible to the cultural elites.”2
Americans have become desensitized when it comes to stories about moral degeneracy. Immoral acts that were once only spoken of in hushed tones thirty years ago are now included in the curriculum of our nation’s government schools and espoused by leaders in liberal denominations. The latest ratcheting up of the moral deviancy bar has come, once again, from the Episcopal Church USA. Its new leader is Katherine Jefferts Schori, bishop of Nevada. In 2003, she voted in favor of the denomination’s openly homosexual bishop. “God welcomes all to the table. People who agree and people who disagree,” she said. “All of the marginalized are most especially welcome at the table.”3 Jesus welcomed the woman caught in adultery, the polyamorous Samaritan woman, the despised collectors, zealous religious revolutionaries, and a man ensnared by his riches. Jesus would have accepted homosexuals. But like the above mentioned group of sinners, Jesus would have required a change in lifestyle to go along with the claim of a change in heart. The woman caught in the very act of adultery was told to “go and sin no more.” Jesus would have said the same thing to the homosexual.
Trained as a biologist, Jefferts Schori says “homosexuality is ‘a given characteristic, not chosen.’”4 There are a number of people who used to engage in sodomy who would disagree. As a biologist, doesn’t Jefferts Schori know the basics of anatomy? Homosexuality (the name itself describes its unreproductive behavior) is contrary to the basics of Biology 101.
Where do we stop with the biological determinism argument? Adultery? Rape? Pedophilia? Murder? Bestiality? It used to be said that “The devil made me do it.” Now it’s “My genes made me do it.”
Homosexuals are identified not by a trait or a gene, but rather by their actions. Without the action, they would be indistinguishable from all other people. It is only when they alter their behavior that they become a group that is recognized as being different. If we were to assume momentarily that homosexuality was genetic, then the most one could conclude is that those individuals were not morally responsible for being homosexual. However, that does not mean that they are not morally responsible for homosexual actions! Merely having the gene would not force one to carry out the behavior. For instance, if scientists were able to document that a “rape gene” existed, we certainly would not blame an individual for possessing this gene, but neither would we allow him to act upon that rape disposition.5
While waiting for our breakfast at a Waffle House just north of Phoenix, Arizona, I picked up a copy of the June 2006 issue of Deer Valley magazine and began reading. An article written by Maricopa County Sherriff Joe Arpaio caught my attention. The title was striking: “Bestiality, an unsavory topic that had to be addressed.” It seems that bestiality is a problem in Maricopa County: “a public servant was caught by a young girl and her father in the act of attempting to engage in a sex act with the little girl’s young pet lamb. . . . Recently a man was sexually abusing four dogs” (29).
Is the Episcopal Church USA ready to welcome these two men if they claim that bestiality is biologically determined? Is a bishopric waiting for them in about twenty years? I can see the denomination’s slogan now: “Sodomy today, bestiality tomorrow! God welcomes all to the table.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline (New York: Regan Books, 1996), 3.
2. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, 3–4.
3. Quoted in Cathy Lynn Grossman, “Episcopalians elect female leader,” USA Today (June 19, 2006), 1A.
4. Quoted in Cathy Lynn Grossman, “New Episcopal leader brings ‘open heart,’” USA Today (June 19, 2006), 5D.
5. Brad Harrub, Bert Thompson, and Dave Miller, “‘This is the Way God Made Me’: A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene’”
Hmmm - Maricopa county, is that where the Skinwalker Indians live?
6/20/2006
Today’s entertainment, political, media, and religionist propagandists have, in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “defined deviancy down” so that what was morally shocking twenty years ago is acceptable, or at least tolerated, behavior today. Robert Bork, no stranger to moral degradation, having been “Borked” on national television and entered the dictionary as a verb, explains the phenomenon: “Emile Durkheim, a founder of sociology, posited that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can ‘afford to recognize.’ As behavior worsens, the community adjusts its standards so that conduct once thought reprehensible is no longer deemed so.”1
At the same time, these same moral retrofitters are defining their own brand of moral deviancy up. What was considered morally normal thirty years ago—two-parents of the opposite sex married and living together, participation in the Boy Scouts and being protected from homosexual predators, rejecting a pro-death culture, and stay-at-home moms—is now portrayed “as oppressive and shot through with pathologies. ‘As part of the vast social project of moral leveling,” [Charles] Krauthammer wrote, “it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized. The normal must be found to be deviant.’ This situation is thoroughly perverse. Underclass values become increasingly acceptable to the middle class, especially their young, and middle-class values become increasingly contemptible to the cultural elites.”2
Americans have become desensitized when it comes to stories about moral degeneracy. Immoral acts that were once only spoken of in hushed tones thirty years ago are now included in the curriculum of our nation’s government schools and espoused by leaders in liberal denominations. The latest ratcheting up of the moral deviancy bar has come, once again, from the Episcopal Church USA. Its new leader is Katherine Jefferts Schori, bishop of Nevada. In 2003, she voted in favor of the denomination’s openly homosexual bishop. “God welcomes all to the table. People who agree and people who disagree,” she said. “All of the marginalized are most especially welcome at the table.”3 Jesus welcomed the woman caught in adultery, the polyamorous Samaritan woman, the despised collectors, zealous religious revolutionaries, and a man ensnared by his riches. Jesus would have accepted homosexuals. But like the above mentioned group of sinners, Jesus would have required a change in lifestyle to go along with the claim of a change in heart. The woman caught in the very act of adultery was told to “go and sin no more.” Jesus would have said the same thing to the homosexual.
Trained as a biologist, Jefferts Schori says “homosexuality is ‘a given characteristic, not chosen.’”4 There are a number of people who used to engage in sodomy who would disagree. As a biologist, doesn’t Jefferts Schori know the basics of anatomy? Homosexuality (the name itself describes its unreproductive behavior) is contrary to the basics of Biology 101.
Where do we stop with the biological determinism argument? Adultery? Rape? Pedophilia? Murder? Bestiality? It used to be said that “The devil made me do it.” Now it’s “My genes made me do it.”
Homosexuals are identified not by a trait or a gene, but rather by their actions. Without the action, they would be indistinguishable from all other people. It is only when they alter their behavior that they become a group that is recognized as being different. If we were to assume momentarily that homosexuality was genetic, then the most one could conclude is that those individuals were not morally responsible for being homosexual. However, that does not mean that they are not morally responsible for homosexual actions! Merely having the gene would not force one to carry out the behavior. For instance, if scientists were able to document that a “rape gene” existed, we certainly would not blame an individual for possessing this gene, but neither would we allow him to act upon that rape disposition.5
While waiting for our breakfast at a Waffle House just north of Phoenix, Arizona, I picked up a copy of the June 2006 issue of Deer Valley magazine and began reading. An article written by Maricopa County Sherriff Joe Arpaio caught my attention. The title was striking: “Bestiality, an unsavory topic that had to be addressed.” It seems that bestiality is a problem in Maricopa County: “a public servant was caught by a young girl and her father in the act of attempting to engage in a sex act with the little girl’s young pet lamb. . . . Recently a man was sexually abusing four dogs” (29).
Is the Episcopal Church USA ready to welcome these two men if they claim that bestiality is biologically determined? Is a bishopric waiting for them in about twenty years? I can see the denomination’s slogan now: “Sodomy today, bestiality tomorrow! God welcomes all to the table.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline (New York: Regan Books, 1996), 3.
2. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, 3–4.
3. Quoted in Cathy Lynn Grossman, “Episcopalians elect female leader,” USA Today (June 19, 2006), 1A.
4. Quoted in Cathy Lynn Grossman, “New Episcopal leader brings ‘open heart,’” USA Today (June 19, 2006), 5D.
5. Brad Harrub, Bert Thompson, and Dave Miller, “‘This is the Way God Made Me’: A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene’”
Hmmm - Maricopa county, is that where the Skinwalker Indians live?
No, beastiality will not be next, Woody.
Secular law is pretty basic and outperforms the USA in so-called moral social-ills.. Two consenting adults are free to have sex, however people do not choose to be homosexual - they simply are.
The American conservative law is full of spin and manipulation. How can you compare rape and beastiality with homosexuality? Morals? Your morals Woody, actually make me feel sick the more I read your posts and I thank God that I don't live in your country which is full of religious fascists like yourself.
Secular law is pretty basic and outperforms the USA in so-called moral social-ills.. Two consenting adults are free to have sex, however people do not choose to be homosexual - they simply are.
The American conservative law is full of spin and manipulation. How can you compare rape and beastiality with homosexuality? Morals? Your morals Woody, actually make me feel sick the more I read your posts and I thank God that I don't live in your country which is full of religious fascists like yourself.
21. United Church of Christ, 1,265,786, reporting a decrease of 2.38 percent.
Another gay church denomination is biting the dust. As ususual, a woman is in charge.
Wednesday, 06/21/06
Denomination welcomes predominantly gay church
United Church of Christ offers 'home'
By ANITA WADHWANI
Staff Writer
Nashville's largest predominantly gay and lesbian church is joining a national Protestant denomination that has seen dozens of churches leave in the last year because of its support for same-sex unions.
Holy Trinity Community Church in west Nashville officially will join the United Church of Christ in an installation ceremony Sunday.
The Rev. Cynthia Andrews-Looper, pastor of Holy Trinity, said that her 250-member church was drawn to the denomination because of its "open and affirming" position on gays and lesbians, in the pews and the pulpit.
In 2005 the United Church of Christ passed a resolution in support of "equal marriage rights for all regardless of gender" and encouraged churches to adopt new wedding policies for same-sex marriages. It has long allowed the ordination of openly gay and lesbian ministers.
"We've really been longing for a home," said Andrews-Looper. "There's a huge need for any church to be involved in something larger than itself. The thing that impressed us about the (United Church of Christ) is they are issuing an extravagant welcome. They are saying in many ways, 'what would Jesus do?' "
The denomination is New England's largest Protestant group, with about 5,700 churches with 1.2 million members nationwide.
(It should not to be confused with theologically conservative Churches of Christ, which are numerous in the Nashville area.)
At least four-dozen congregations have left the United Church of Christ, or U.C.C., between July 2005 — when the resolution was passed — and last January, according to Barb Powell, a denomination spokeswoman. That has helped drive a 10.7% dip in the denomination's overall membership and 4.9% drop in its number of churches over the past five years.
But in the Bible Belt, the United Church of Christ's stance is resulting in something of a growth spurt, attracting not only churches withpredominantly gay and lesbian members, but also others leaving their denominations because of disagreements over their positions on gay and lesbian issues.
Membership is up 79% in the denomination's Southeast Conference — encompassing Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and the Florida Panhandle — where three churches have joined in the past two months and other churches have contacted the denomination to begin the process of joining, according to the Rev. Tim Downs, of the Southeast Conference of the United Church of Christ.
Powell said that one of the reasons the Bible Belt is bucking the trend is that the denomination had fewer churches here than in other parts of the country, making even a few added churches inflate membership rates.
The Rev. Dan Rosemergy, a retired adjunct professor of UCC history at Vanderbilt University Divinity School, said the denomination's growth in the South also could result from a conservative religious landscape.
"I think in the South, there's a greater consciousness and awareness of religion being often defined by the religious right," said Rosemergy, a retired UCC pastor. "So when you have a denomination that offers a place to have a faith home that moves away from that very narrow understanding — in a place where there's a higher profile of conservative religion — there's a greater response."
Andrews-Looper, the Holy Trinity pastor, says her congregation was drawn to the denomination not only because of its stance on gay and lesbian marriage, and its longstanding policy to allow the ordination of gay pastors, but because she found it accepting of her church's theology.
The church is "evangelical in its worship. We do believe in the Virgin birth, (Jesus Christ's) death and literal bodily resurrection, that the Gospel message is that of Jesus Christ and our mission is to get the word out," said Andrews-Looper.
While the church doesn't believe in a blanket literal interpretation of the Bible, it is still more theologically conservative than most UCC churches, she said.
And a key reason for joining a denomination is to be able to pool resources to do mission work, here and abroad, she said.
The 10-year-old church began in an east Nashville living room and has grown to a congregation of 250, moving to a new building in January. Most of the church members are gay or lesbian, but about 10% are not, said Andrews-Looper, who does not generally preach about gay issues from the pulpit.
Many congregation members have left other churches that did not accept their sexual orientation, she said.
Angie Smith, 36, said she had left one of Nashville's largest nondenominational churches after letting the pastor know she was gay. His response, she said: "you're welcome to worship here, but you can't be involved in church life or hold any leadership positions."
"I was looking for a place to serve," said Smith. "If I'm led into a leadership position I want to be able to do that." Smith said joining a national denomination will give her that chance.
"I always felt worse when I left church than when I went in," said Phillip Haynes, 46, who said he grew up Southern Baptist and tried the Catholic Church before turning to Holy Trinity about six years ago. "I left because of the prejudice."
"I could not be myself at church and I always thought that God hated gay people," said his life partner, Steve Deasy, who was raised in a Church of Christ. "This is the first church that's opened its arms and accepted me for who I am."
Another gay church denomination is biting the dust. As ususual, a woman is in charge.
Wednesday, 06/21/06
Denomination welcomes predominantly gay church
United Church of Christ offers 'home'
By ANITA WADHWANI
Staff Writer
Nashville's largest predominantly gay and lesbian church is joining a national Protestant denomination that has seen dozens of churches leave in the last year because of its support for same-sex unions.
Holy Trinity Community Church in west Nashville officially will join the United Church of Christ in an installation ceremony Sunday.
The Rev. Cynthia Andrews-Looper, pastor of Holy Trinity, said that her 250-member church was drawn to the denomination because of its "open and affirming" position on gays and lesbians, in the pews and the pulpit.
In 2005 the United Church of Christ passed a resolution in support of "equal marriage rights for all regardless of gender" and encouraged churches to adopt new wedding policies for same-sex marriages. It has long allowed the ordination of openly gay and lesbian ministers.
"We've really been longing for a home," said Andrews-Looper. "There's a huge need for any church to be involved in something larger than itself. The thing that impressed us about the (United Church of Christ) is they are issuing an extravagant welcome. They are saying in many ways, 'what would Jesus do?' "
The denomination is New England's largest Protestant group, with about 5,700 churches with 1.2 million members nationwide.
(It should not to be confused with theologically conservative Churches of Christ, which are numerous in the Nashville area.)
At least four-dozen congregations have left the United Church of Christ, or U.C.C., between July 2005 — when the resolution was passed — and last January, according to Barb Powell, a denomination spokeswoman. That has helped drive a 10.7% dip in the denomination's overall membership and 4.9% drop in its number of churches over the past five years.
But in the Bible Belt, the United Church of Christ's stance is resulting in something of a growth spurt, attracting not only churches withpredominantly gay and lesbian members, but also others leaving their denominations because of disagreements over their positions on gay and lesbian issues.
Membership is up 79% in the denomination's Southeast Conference — encompassing Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and the Florida Panhandle — where three churches have joined in the past two months and other churches have contacted the denomination to begin the process of joining, according to the Rev. Tim Downs, of the Southeast Conference of the United Church of Christ.
Powell said that one of the reasons the Bible Belt is bucking the trend is that the denomination had fewer churches here than in other parts of the country, making even a few added churches inflate membership rates.
The Rev. Dan Rosemergy, a retired adjunct professor of UCC history at Vanderbilt University Divinity School, said the denomination's growth in the South also could result from a conservative religious landscape.
"I think in the South, there's a greater consciousness and awareness of religion being often defined by the religious right," said Rosemergy, a retired UCC pastor. "So when you have a denomination that offers a place to have a faith home that moves away from that very narrow understanding — in a place where there's a higher profile of conservative religion — there's a greater response."
Andrews-Looper, the Holy Trinity pastor, says her congregation was drawn to the denomination not only because of its stance on gay and lesbian marriage, and its longstanding policy to allow the ordination of gay pastors, but because she found it accepting of her church's theology.
The church is "evangelical in its worship. We do believe in the Virgin birth, (Jesus Christ's) death and literal bodily resurrection, that the Gospel message is that of Jesus Christ and our mission is to get the word out," said Andrews-Looper.
While the church doesn't believe in a blanket literal interpretation of the Bible, it is still more theologically conservative than most UCC churches, she said.
And a key reason for joining a denomination is to be able to pool resources to do mission work, here and abroad, she said.
The 10-year-old church began in an east Nashville living room and has grown to a congregation of 250, moving to a new building in January. Most of the church members are gay or lesbian, but about 10% are not, said Andrews-Looper, who does not generally preach about gay issues from the pulpit.
Many congregation members have left other churches that did not accept their sexual orientation, she said.
Angie Smith, 36, said she had left one of Nashville's largest nondenominational churches after letting the pastor know she was gay. His response, she said: "you're welcome to worship here, but you can't be involved in church life or hold any leadership positions."
"I was looking for a place to serve," said Smith. "If I'm led into a leadership position I want to be able to do that." Smith said joining a national denomination will give her that chance.
"I always felt worse when I left church than when I went in," said Phillip Haynes, 46, who said he grew up Southern Baptist and tried the Catholic Church before turning to Holy Trinity about six years ago. "I left because of the prejudice."
"I could not be myself at church and I always thought that God hated gay people," said his life partner, Steve Deasy, who was raised in a Church of Christ. "This is the first church that's opened its arms and accepted me for who I am."
Last edited:
To Kenny:
I am sorry that you were forced into a religion that you did not want to follow. That is quite wrong. Parents should always let children make up their own minds at the time they are able to. This is why confirmation in the Anglican church is what it says. It is the person who is now mature enough to decide for him/herself confirming what the parents set out for them at their christening. The people concerned are normally teenagers. Of course some protestant denominations have adult baptism (the C of E does them as well as infant christenings. We have them at my church). Children who are not old enough to decide for themselves should not be confirmed. It makes the term meaningless. It is one of the many problems I have with the R.C. Church.
You have left out the rest of Leviticus 25. It is actually about the arrangements for Jubilee Year (one every 50). It sets out what must happen in regard to property and debts (the principle was that land was rented and returned on a sort of lease to this fixed point in the calendar and all debts were cancelled). It is important to understand the background of slavery.
'Historically, slaves were captured. Warfare often resulted in slavery for prisoners if one paid no ransom. It originally may have been more humane than executing those who would return to fight if they were freed.......
In many cultures, persons convicted of serious crimes could be sold into slavery. The proceeds from this sale were often used to compensate the victims, and as a consequence, the criminal might be sold only if he lacked the property to make the compensation. Other laws and other crimes might enslave the criminal regardless of his property; some called for the criminal and all his property to be handed over to his victim.
Also, persons have been sold into slavery so that the money could be used to pay off debts. This could range from a king ordering a debtor sold with all his family, to the poor selling off their own children. In times of dire need such as famine, people have offered themselves into slavery not for a purchase price, but merely so that their new master would feed them.' - Wikipedia.
Whilst I am not making excuses for this form of slavery and we may today find it very odd, this was what existed culturally before the Israelites entered the 'Promised Land'. And it may well have been better to have been a well fed slave than dying of hunger (maybe - it's very hard to relate to a completely alien time and culture). Note the Israelites were not to make slaves of Israelites in what was now their land. they were to help the poor. All this said, this was a very different form of slavery to the type of racial slavery where (black) people from one area in sub Saharan Africa were captured and exported from their native land across the world as slaves.
Whilst slave taking is generally regarded as endemic in this area of Africa between warring tribes, it was muslim arabs who built up a trade from it, taking slaves north and later trading them with others (this is one of the great ironies of the Black Muslim movement). The trade was of course greatly expanded by the European colonial powers (to our great shame) and the principles spread by them to the New World where the practice continued (to the New World's great shame).
It should be noted that whereas in earlier forms of slavery, buying your freedom was often a possibility, in the later racial form it was generally not.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
You have not continued the passage quoted. It continues.
20-21 "If a slave owner hits a slave, male or female, with a stick and the slave dies on the spot, the slave must be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he's not to be avenged—the slave is the owner's property.
22-25 "When there's a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
26-27 "If a slave owner hits the eye of a slave or handmaid and ruins it, the owner must let the slave go free because of the eye. If the owner knocks out the tooth of the male or female slave, the slave must be released and go free because of the tooth. (Message Translation).
Note that if 20 -21 meant no punishment, it would be contrary to 26-27 which allows the slave to be freed for even minor injuries sustained (tooth knocked out). The clue is 'avenged'. Death is 'avenged' by another death ('eye for eye' etc.) so what 20-21 is really saying is that if the slave recovers ('survives a day or two' here is a metaphor), the death of the slave need not be avenged but if the slave dies then it must be avenged. That means the perpetrator would have to be killed just the same as if he had killed a free person (capital punishment was the norm. for murder). Sadly the meaning is confused by some translations using the word 'punished' as in the one you quote has but the original word is Strongs reference '5358 naqam naw-kam' a primitive root; to grudge, i.e. avenge or punish:--avenge(-r, self), punish, revenge (self), X surely, take vengeance'. In the context here with verses 26 -27 taken into consideration, it clearly means something more than mild punishment - 'vengeance' seems far more likely as in the Message translation.
On a different subject note that verses 22- 25 defines a different value between the life of an unborn child and that of its mother. This is what orthodox Judaism has always believed and whilst the subject of abortion is a very difficult one and I am not making any definitive statement on the subject, the statement by some 'Pro-Life' people (including the R.C. Church) that unborn children have the same rights as adult people in scripture is clearly not accurate and cannot be used to support their view.
I agree with your comments about homosexuality. If you empty the church of sinners, you empty it totally. Even if you accept the contentious intepretation of the limited scripture, you should not single out 'this sin' to be greater than any other. We are not here as christians to personally judge what we see as others' weaknesses, we are here to help and love them, whoever they are.
regards,
Gordon.
I am sorry that you were forced into a religion that you did not want to follow. That is quite wrong. Parents should always let children make up their own minds at the time they are able to. This is why confirmation in the Anglican church is what it says. It is the person who is now mature enough to decide for him/herself confirming what the parents set out for them at their christening. The people concerned are normally teenagers. Of course some protestant denominations have adult baptism (the C of E does them as well as infant christenings. We have them at my church). Children who are not old enough to decide for themselves should not be confirmed. It makes the term meaningless. It is one of the many problems I have with the R.C. Church.
You have left out the rest of Leviticus 25. It is actually about the arrangements for Jubilee Year (one every 50). It sets out what must happen in regard to property and debts (the principle was that land was rented and returned on a sort of lease to this fixed point in the calendar and all debts were cancelled). It is important to understand the background of slavery.
'Historically, slaves were captured. Warfare often resulted in slavery for prisoners if one paid no ransom. It originally may have been more humane than executing those who would return to fight if they were freed.......
In many cultures, persons convicted of serious crimes could be sold into slavery. The proceeds from this sale were often used to compensate the victims, and as a consequence, the criminal might be sold only if he lacked the property to make the compensation. Other laws and other crimes might enslave the criminal regardless of his property; some called for the criminal and all his property to be handed over to his victim.
Also, persons have been sold into slavery so that the money could be used to pay off debts. This could range from a king ordering a debtor sold with all his family, to the poor selling off their own children. In times of dire need such as famine, people have offered themselves into slavery not for a purchase price, but merely so that their new master would feed them.' - Wikipedia.
Whilst I am not making excuses for this form of slavery and we may today find it very odd, this was what existed culturally before the Israelites entered the 'Promised Land'. And it may well have been better to have been a well fed slave than dying of hunger (maybe - it's very hard to relate to a completely alien time and culture). Note the Israelites were not to make slaves of Israelites in what was now their land. they were to help the poor. All this said, this was a very different form of slavery to the type of racial slavery where (black) people from one area in sub Saharan Africa were captured and exported from their native land across the world as slaves.
Whilst slave taking is generally regarded as endemic in this area of Africa between warring tribes, it was muslim arabs who built up a trade from it, taking slaves north and later trading them with others (this is one of the great ironies of the Black Muslim movement). The trade was of course greatly expanded by the European colonial powers (to our great shame) and the principles spread by them to the New World where the practice continued (to the New World's great shame).
It should be noted that whereas in earlier forms of slavery, buying your freedom was often a possibility, in the later racial form it was generally not.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
You have not continued the passage quoted. It continues.
20-21 "If a slave owner hits a slave, male or female, with a stick and the slave dies on the spot, the slave must be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he's not to be avenged—the slave is the owner's property.
22-25 "When there's a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
26-27 "If a slave owner hits the eye of a slave or handmaid and ruins it, the owner must let the slave go free because of the eye. If the owner knocks out the tooth of the male or female slave, the slave must be released and go free because of the tooth. (Message Translation).
Note that if 20 -21 meant no punishment, it would be contrary to 26-27 which allows the slave to be freed for even minor injuries sustained (tooth knocked out). The clue is 'avenged'. Death is 'avenged' by another death ('eye for eye' etc.) so what 20-21 is really saying is that if the slave recovers ('survives a day or two' here is a metaphor), the death of the slave need not be avenged but if the slave dies then it must be avenged. That means the perpetrator would have to be killed just the same as if he had killed a free person (capital punishment was the norm. for murder). Sadly the meaning is confused by some translations using the word 'punished' as in the one you quote has but the original word is Strongs reference '5358 naqam naw-kam' a primitive root; to grudge, i.e. avenge or punish:--avenge(-r, self), punish, revenge (self), X surely, take vengeance'. In the context here with verses 26 -27 taken into consideration, it clearly means something more than mild punishment - 'vengeance' seems far more likely as in the Message translation.
On a different subject note that verses 22- 25 defines a different value between the life of an unborn child and that of its mother. This is what orthodox Judaism has always believed and whilst the subject of abortion is a very difficult one and I am not making any definitive statement on the subject, the statement by some 'Pro-Life' people (including the R.C. Church) that unborn children have the same rights as adult people in scripture is clearly not accurate and cannot be used to support their view.
I agree with your comments about homosexuality. If you empty the church of sinners, you empty it totally. Even if you accept the contentious intepretation of the limited scripture, you should not single out 'this sin' to be greater than any other. We are not here as christians to personally judge what we see as others' weaknesses, we are here to help and love them, whoever they are.
regards,
Gordon.