H
HDLSeanWileyTin
Guest
i’m considering becoming one. i self identify as one. “protestant but catholic”, “catholic lite”. it’s the only protestant religion to be open to the idea of transubstantiation, i think.
- Status
M
masuwerte
Guest
Sure, I’m here 
. I’ve been Episcopalian since my birth and infant baptism 50 years ago. There are a few of us on here.
. I’ve been Episcopalian since my birth and infant baptism 50 years ago. There are a few of us on here.
C
Contarini
Guest
Why is your self-identification particularly important when talking about church membership?
And why on earth would you take the drastic step of leaving the Christian church you are already part of?
It’s one thing if you are able to continue to have full fellowship with your previous church. But the Catholic Church doesn’t allow that. Why on earth leave?
Edwin
S
SteveVH
Guest
I think you should ask if you can attend RCIA purely for informational purposes and learn a little bit more about your faith before you decide to leave. Are you looking for something that suits your own comfort level better or the truth?
H
HDLSeanWileyTin
Guest
i’ve been there, done that. hate their stance on homosexuality and homosexual acts. and PLEASE don’t try to tell me why you think it’s “wrong” cause it’s not wrong, and not all homosexual acts are wrong. so please say nothing if you think it’s all wrong.
K
kimg901
Guest
Are you homosexual? Is this the reason for your attitude towards it? And can you tell us why you think its “not wrong?”
H
HDLSeanWileyTin
Guest
well, i’m not gay but the bible does have instances of gay relationships on a positive note. for example, daniel and darius, the two angels at sodom and gomorrah.
K
kimg901
Guest
Can you qoute the chapter and verse so I can read it too?
Nevermind. Is it Chapter 19?
C
cmodrmac
Guest
if you desire to leave the Roman Catholic Church -do so for the right reasons-In the Episcopal Church we have a number of various groups-
issues of human sexuality are difficult and of course troubling to many individuals-
A good book to read about the Episcopal Church is “Those Episkopols” by Dennis Maynard
issues of human sexuality are difficult and of course troubling to many individuals-
A good book to read about the Episcopal Church is “Those Episkopols” by Dennis Maynard
S
SalusaSecondus
Guest
Uh. Doesn’t God destroy the city of Sodom partly because the men wanted to have gay sex with the two angels?
K
kimg901
Guest
I just read Chapter 19, verse 1 through 29 and there is no names of the 2 angels and no instance of the 2 having any gay relations. Im thinking troll here.
H
HDLSeanWileyTin
Guest
no i’m not. and by the way, salusa, Ezekiel 16:49.
K
kimg901
Guest
Ezekiel 16:49 Now look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in prosperity. They did not give any help to the poor and needy.
Where is there homosexuality in that verse?
T
TheSurvivor
Guest
16:49 Now look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in prosperity. They did not give any help to the poor and needy.
K
kimg901
Guest
I cant think of anywhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is okay. It’s an abomination, plain and simple. Sorry.
C
Contarini
Guest
You aren’t going to get very far on a debate forum telling people not to debate with you. You can’t just declare certain subjects off-limits.
However, there are many Catholics who think as you do but do not become Episcopalian. Are you familiar with the work of Fr. James Alison? He could become Anglican (I say “Anglican,” not “Episcopalian,” because he’s English–of course, the use of “Anglican” by recent conservative schismatics makes things complicated) and be welcomed with open arms. Yet he thinks it’s important to remain Catholic.
Edwin
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Is that your only issue with the Catholic church or the sole issue you want to discuss?
H
HDLSeanWileyTin
Guest
no. my other issue is the forced participation of church in the RCC as well as parts of the RCC’s natural law, particularly masturbation.
J
Jason_Firestone
Guest
No. The Sodom and Gomorrah myth in Genesis follows upon the story in Genesis of the hospitality of Abraham as an example of in-hospitality. It has nothing to do with sex.
Homosexuality as an “orientation” was unknown in the history of human ideas until the late Nineteenth Century.There was no, (supposed), “lifestyle” until the Twentieth Century. The idea of “orientation” arose when Psychology began to develop as a science. All men were assumed to be straight, and only straight, all women straight, and only straight.
There was also no notion of a continuum of sexual behaviors, (such as bisexuality), as science recognizes today. Any “different” behavior was seen as “deviancy” from an absolute inherent norm, which the person was assumed to inherently possess, completely by virtue of birth gender.
In Ancient Israel class and status distinctions were extremely important.
The injunction in Biblical times, (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), was against (assumed), STRAIGHT men, (and only men), (as they ALL were assumed to be straight), engaging in same-sex behaviors. (There is a mistaken use of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in this context also, which is misguided, and I’ll deal with that last).
Why ?
It had to do with class structure, and male status. A male, who held the highest position in society, and held the highest class status, was seen to be “feminized” by penetration, and designated as a social inferior, (female), by a male of lower class status, and thus his status was lowered, to that of a woman.
THAT is the reason the culture forbade it. It had NOTHING to do with sex. It was status, and only status. This concept remains very much, (subliminally and overtly), in place today. This law code, in Leviticus, (the latest law code to be written), is the ONLY place this appears in the Old Testament. The author of Leviticus was very interested in the “equality of all” before God. It was that author’s agenda. He also said strangers, and others from outside Israel were all to be treated with equal rights and dignity, which was a departure, from other texts and codes. It is ironic, indeed, this equality has been turned on it’s head, to treat gay people, less equality. The author of Leviticus WANTED all people treated equally, and that is why he wrote the injunction into the text, in the first place, to PREVENT inequality. The ideal society for this author was classless, and that could not happen if a male penetrates a male, and makes him thereby, a lower class. It’s about class, not sex.
This cultural origin was true in the Old Testament culture, as well as the New. That is the reason it ended up in the Bible, and the ONLY reason it was there.
The law in the Old Testament : “You shall not lay a male as with the laying of a woman, it is an offensive thing”. (note: the correct translation is NOT, “it is an abomination”). (The word “toi-va” is used, and in archaic Hebrew, EVERYWHERE else is translated, “an offensive thing”).
Why is this important ? Because there are levels of “offensive things”, and levels of meanings of “offensive things”. There were a number of levels of offensive things in the Old Testament.
#1. was something which was offensive to God, and this was the worst.
#2. was something which was offensive to other peoples and cultures, (for example the same word is used with reference to some foods being “offensive” to other cultures, (as hagas might be to Americans), or for example the Egyptians didn’t eat, with non-Egyptians, as that was “offensive”, or in today’s language, “bad manners”.
#3. was something which was just generally “offensive”, with no further relational attribution.
So it can be “offensive” to some people, but not everyone, and is relative to the situation, or to god, or just in general.
The injunction against male same sex behavior is the third kind of offensive. It’s not related to either God or anything, or anyone else. (There are other verses around it that are stated to be offensive to God, but not this one). So in this text, it is offensive to the authors of the text, and that specific culture, (only).
Same-sex behaviors (upper class man penetrated by same class or lower class men), was forbidden, for class reasons. Equal class men, doing non-penetrating activity, or women together was not forbidden. ( Woman with woman, in general, was not addressed, and the class issue was not important.)
In Genesis 18, there is a myth about the hospitality of Abraham, (he welcomes two strangers, who turn out to be angels), as that was an important cultural value, in a society where a wandering desert dweller could get lost, and die.
The myth is followed closely by it’s counter example of in-hospitality in the Lot myth, (Sodom and Gomorrah). It is not about sex. It’s a counter example to the hospitality story, of in-hospitality. The context is important.
ref : Drs. Shawna Dolansky, and Richard Elliott Friedman, “The Bible Now”, and “Who Wrote the Bible” and Dr. William Schneidewind, “How the Bible Became a Book … The texualization of Ancient Israel”.
I’m an Episcopalian.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
That is what I thought.
- Status