Episcopal Committee Is Working on Gay Rite

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1holycatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluegoat said:
I’m sympathetic to your wife’s impulse, but I heard Sean Bean interviewed once and he said that he had never changed a diaper - I have no problem with that theoretically if his wife doesn’t, but if he was my husband he’d be found buried under the basement floor.

I guess he’d only be good as a boy-toy.

More seriously with regard to the rest of the thread - how can people say that TEC isn’t forcing its views on anyone? People who are maintaining an Anglican understanding are being forced to leave their parishes, not being allowed to keep, in some cases even buy, their buildings.

My ACC parish raised millions to restore their historic church after a disaster. But you can bet the diocese wouldn’t let it go if it came down to it.
Click to expand...
I think he is good for whacking Orcs and (as I heard Bernard Cornwell say once), Frogs.

GKC
 
“Obama” and “good job” are not nouns and adjective phrases I’d join together myself…
benidict said:
thank you very much Cmatt. cant comment on the commander in chief, except to say hes doing a pretty good job with the situation in iraq and afghanistan. i applaud his moves. didnt vote for him. wont vote for him. but as far as presidents go, we have had far worse. i almost had a chance to meet him. my daughter was supposed to graduate this year, and he picked her highschool to give the commencement speech. silly kid! she had decided just a few weeks prior not to graduate, and stay another year. boy did she kick herself in the rear! could have shaken his hand. me too! ah well, one of those things. thx again for the prayers Peace 🙂
Click to expand...
 
Not just liberals, we all got him, unfortunately. I think liberals definitely got a liberal sporting their uniform. Filing lawsuits against Arizona, good people who are trying to stop illegal immigration and do what the feds refuse to do—enforce their own laws, championing don’t ask-don’t tell, trying to ram through health care ‘reform’ through reconciliation, attempted to have 9-11 terror trials in NY (thank God the people spoke out and he re-thought that little gem), running us into debt with social programs so that we’ll be in debt until the end of time, sticking the feds into the auto industry, cash for clunkers, using racial terminology in a supposedly ‘post racial’ era, asking the chi-ro to be covered up at Georgetown, the stimulus FDR-wannabee agenda, unemployment checks with no end in sight, cap and trade, constantly ignoring the will of the American people, yeah, he’s no liberal! LOL…This guy makes Carter look like a writer for National Review.
Usbek_de_Perse said:
Liberals will never get a liberal president, just as conservatives are constantly disappointed by those who claim to be conservative.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Not just liberals, we all got him, unfortunately. I think liberals definitely got a liberal sporting their uniform. Filing lawsuits against Arizona, good people who are trying to stop illegal immigration and do what the feds refuse to do—enforce their own laws, championing don’t ask-don’t tell, trying to ram through health care ‘reform’ through reconciliation, attempted to have 9-11 terror trials in NY (thank God the people spoke out and he re-thought that little gem), running us into debt with social programs so that we’ll be in debt until the end of time, sticking the feds into the auto industry, cash for clunkers, using racial terminology in a supposedly ‘post racial’ era, asking the chi-ro to be covered up at Georgetown, the stimulus FDR-wannabee agenda, unemployment checks with no end in sight, cap and trade, constantly ignoring the will of the American people, yeah, he’s no liberal! LOL…This guy makes Carter look like a writer for National Review.
Click to expand...
Not to be picky, but my understanding is that whenever a president makes a television speech, all symbols are covered up - religious ones, coke logos, whatever. Not just President Obama.
 
An article here in California in the Modesto Bee came out a couple weeks back. The ‘supposed bishop’ of San Joaquin installed by the liberal TEC, Jerry Lamb, admits in the article, which I have here on the table, that Katharine Jefforts-Schiori has given he and the other minions of hers, I mean bishops, strict orders that in no circumstances whatsoever are they allowed to sell BACK the land to the conservative Anglicans they conquer. This is about retribution, payback, punishment, and purely punitive nonsense. It has nothing to do with Christ or his Church or the loving charity that Christians are called to. It’s bull.
Bluegoat said:
I’m sympathetic to your wife’s impulse, but I heard Sean Bean interviewed once and he said that he had never changed a diaper - I have no problem with that theoretically if his wife doesn’t, but if he was my husband he’d be found buried under the basement floor.

I guess he’d only be good as a boy-toy.

More seriously with regard to the rest of the thread - how can people say that TEC isn’t forcing its views on anyone? People who are maintaining an Anglican understanding are being forced to leave their parishes, not being allowed to keep, in some cases even buy, their buildings.

My ACC parish raised millions to restore their historic church after a disaster. But you can bet the diocese wouldn’t let it go if it came down to it.
Click to expand...
 
That’s no my understanding, Blue. Other presidents have spoken at Christian insitutions of learning and the Cross or other symbols were not covered up. Funny how the Ford Motor Company logo was kept up when Barry spoke there the other day but the symbol for Christ must be obscured? hmmmmm.
Bluegoat said:
Not to be picky, but my understanding is that whenever a president makes a television speech, all symbols are covered up - religious ones, coke logos, whatever. Not just President Obama.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
That’s no my understanding, Blue. Other presidents have spoken at Christian insitutions of learning and the Cross or other symbols were not covered up. Funny how the Ford Motor Company logo was kept up when Barry spoke there the other day but the symbol for Christ must be obscured? hmmmmm.
Click to expand...
Barry? Have you changed presidents again already?

I’ve looked up to see if I could find what I had read about this - all I found was a lot of conflicting stuff.

It’s a minor matter anyway. I don’t think he is worse than the other ones as far as I can see.
 
gamewell45 said:
There are things that the RC does that we as Episcopal’s find dreadful and it keeps us far apart and most likely will for a long time. However, we won’t force our beliefs on you, nor do we expect you to force your beliefs upon us as well.
Click to expand...
This is a ghastly parody of Christian charity. For one thing, when have the RC’s been trying to force their beliefs on us recently? Teaching that something is true does not constitute forcing it on anyone.

More to the point: if you believe (don’t speak for me or for Episcopalians as a whole) that certain RC beliefs and practices are “dreadful,” then you ought to bear witness to them. You ought to care, because they are your brothers and sisters in Christ. “Live and let live” is a total denial of Christian charity. It says that our brothers and sisters don’t matter to us. Forcing our beliefs on others is wrong, but it’s a perversion of Christian charity. Your attitude shows no charity at all, perverted or otherwise.

This is the same nonsense that the dominant party in TEC spouts with regard to African Anglicans. As a result, we have essentially abandoned our gay African brothers and sisters, by saying to the Africans, “Don’t mess with us, and we won’t mess with you.” The proper Christian response, in contrast, is to say, “You bear witness to us about what you believe is our endorsement of immorality, and we will bear witness to you about your willingness to condone or support violence and persecution against gay people.”

Edwin
 
Bluegoat said:
Not to be picky, but my understanding is that whenever a president makes a television speech, all symbols are covered up - religious ones, coke logos, whatever. Not just President Obama.
Click to expand...
If that were true, then no Christian institution could ever invite a President to speak, period.

That would be *real *separation of Church and state!

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
If that were true, then no Christian institution could ever invite a President to speak, period.

That would be *real *separation of Church and state!

Edwin
Click to expand...
It seems I was misinformed about this. But it made a certain amount of sense to me, since I could imagine such images being taken out of context. :o

That being said, I don’t know that there was some sort of anti-Christian conspiracy going on in this - Obama has been publicly seen in other religious settings.
 
Inside joke among American conservatives. “Barack” liked to be called “Barry” growing up as a kid all the way through into his 20’s. It was when he adopted the Alinski lifestyle that Barack kicked in…
Bluegoat said:
Barry? Have you changed presidents again already?

I’ve looked up to see if I could find what I had read about this - all I found was a lot of conflicting stuff.

It’s a minor matter anyway. I don’t think he is worse than the other ones as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
 
wisdomseeker said:
Matt
i wish i could make sense of what you just said.

any way, Jesus also came in a time which people had many different believes. but He was most concern in Teaching waht He was commanded to teach. and He commands us to adhere to it. hope this helps.
Click to expand...
I wish you could too, Wisdom. God bless and peace.
 
wisdomseeker said:
you opened the can of worm, now eat it.

tell me where is the ennacted law the governs marriage is between a man and a woman in which the courts must go by?
Click to expand...
That’s what Prop 8 was. The state right to define marriage. CA defined it as one man/one woman. What the court is saying is that the state can’t define marriage if the definition discriminates. No where in the state definition of marriage does it say gays can’t get married.

What gays are objecting to is that they want the choice to marry who they want and not who the state says is legal to be married to. Since the real purpose of marriage is to join two people together for the purpose of creating children, two males or two females can’t fulfill this function.

If gays have the choice to marry who they want then it is discriminatory to limit straights as to whom they can marry. So ultimately you destroy the whole concept of marriage because now you must allow polygamy and incestuous relationship. 😊
 
Bluegoat said:
It seems I was misinformed about this. But it made a certain amount of sense to me, since I could imagine such images being taken out of context. :o

That being said, I don’t know that there was some sort of anti-Christian conspiracy going on in this
Click to expand...
I don’t either, unless you consider excessive zeal to comply with a misguided interpretation of the disestablishment clause of the First Amendment an anti-Christian conspiracy!

Edwin
 
vsedriver said:
That’s what Prop 8 was. The state right to define marriage. CA defined it as one man/one woman. What the court is saying is that the state can’t define marriage if the definition discriminates. No where in the state definition of marriage does it say gays can’t get married.

What gays are objecting to is that they want the choice to marry who they want and not who the state says is legal to be married to. Since the real purpose of marriage is to join two people together for the purpose of creating children, two males or two females can’t fulfill this function.

If gays have the choice to marry who they want then it is discriminatory to limit straights as to whom they can marry. So ultimately you destroy the whole concept of marriage because now you must allow polygamy and incestuous relationship. 😊
Click to expand...
thank you. but what i was addressing it was the fact the poster said that the courts do not make laws. i was pointing out to him that yes, it does. you just gave the proof. one court have declared one thing but the other declared another. there is no law in the constitution defining marriage to which all should abide. so the courts are the ones to decide this issue which can become a law. this case can go all the way to the US supreme court. let’s see what happens. i for one think that the gay people will get what they want because we live in the world in which civil rights took the place of God.
 
Contarini said:
This is a ghastly parody of Christian charity. For one thing, when have the RC’s been trying to force their beliefs on us recently? Teaching that something is true does not constitute forcing it on anyone.

More to the point: if you believe (don’t speak for me or for Episcopalians as a whole) that certain RC beliefs and practices are “dreadful,” then you ought to bear witness to them. You ought to care, because they are your brothers and sisters in Christ. “Live and let live” is a total denial of Christian charity. It says that our brothers and sisters don’t matter to us. Forcing our beliefs on others is wrong, but it’s a perversion of Christian charity. Your attitude shows no charity at all, perverted or otherwise.

This is the same nonsense that the dominant party in TEC spouts with regard to African Anglicans. As a result, we have essentially abandoned our gay African brothers and sisters, by saying to the Africans, “Don’t mess with us, and we won’t mess with you.” The proper Christian response, in contrast, is to say, “You bear witness to us about what you believe is our endorsement of immorality, and we will bear witness to you about your willingness to condone or support violence and persecution against gay people.”

Edwin
Click to expand...
Edwin,

I think its strictly a matter of opinion and in this case I cannot agree with you regarding your post. Furthermore I do not feel that we have abandoned our African brothers or sisters rather I think thats an opinion that you came up with on your own and I honestly have no clue how you came up with that. Your entitled to your opinion, just that I do not agree with you on it.

As to my “attitude” showing no charity at all, perverted or otherwise, again I think your way off base to judge someone based on an opinion. To the contrary I feel its very charitable to allow others to be steadfast in the faith of their acceptance without being told by other faith groups that your beliefs are wrong and you should believe our way.

Thats just my opinion. Nothing more or less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top