First lesbian bishop to be consecrated by Anglican church in America

[Stephen168]

No problem, vocal cords are for making sounds, mouth is an opening for consumption, hands are for gripping, eyes are for seeing, and reproductive organs are from reproduction. What kind of sounds you make, what kinds of things you consume, what you hold with your hand, what you choice to look at doesn’t matter; that is how we are designed. You can make sounds with your hands but that is not the primary reason why we have hands. It would be disordered to stick peas up your nose when nature tells us they should go in your mouth. If you put all your food up your nose, you would die of starvation.

Why is homosexual sex disordered? It is like putting “ALL” your food up your nose.

The answer is I have been using design and purpose. Our reproductive organs are designed for a unique purpose. There may be other uses but none of them are unique to their design. Using them contrary to their design is disordered behavior.
Now that you want to change the subject, I will consider my point made. Homosexual sex can be shown to be disordered behavior without opening the bible.
This has nothing to do with homosexual behavior but to answer your question: No, maintaining the body to operate as designed is a wonderful thing.

Design and purpose, grasshopper.
Meditate on the unique design and purpose of which you speak; and someday you may be able to snatch the pebble from my hand.

Ok. You see a paradox in condemning the use of reproduction organs for non-reproductive purposes while at the same time not condemning the use of vocal cords to sing a song?

I said “the mouth” to be specific. (I have no objection to any of the body’s organs,internal or external, being put to multiple uses, whether they further pro-creation or not.) I cannot imagine a God that denies non-procreative pleasure, provided that it is consensual and non-abusive or obsessive (a matter of degree). There is no biological imperative that every sexual act be possibly pro-creative, no “natural law,” no design imperative. That a mouth or vocal chords CAN produce song does not mean that they should do so exclusively; same with sexual organs. We know that sex is pleasurable and bonding (generally speaking), and both pleasure and bonding reinforce each other and are positive qualities. Pro-creative possibility is not necessary for either pleasure or bonding, and both of these facts, mutually reinforced, are positive for biological survival, whether the sex is ever procreative or not. Pleasure is the basis of the human bonding from birth on, and is done through or sensory organs. Later in life, that pleasure also develops in erogenous zones and enhances the bonding in mating pairs. This, generally speaking, enhances reproductive results as well, but reproduction is no definitional requirement in the bonding process, nor in the survival of the couple in question. Procreation is not the ONLY function nor ONLY purpose in the erogenous zones of our bodies. To claim that these zones of our bodies should ONLY be put to use in service of the making of more believers in God is a very strange and illogical argument, especially when you also argue from “design” function. “Function” and “purpose” are separate, but associated, issues.

None of this negates the rational understanding I have described.

And the penis has more than one biological function as well. Just saying…

I’m trying to think of a function that women can’t perform without one; except for the reproductive function.

This lack of rebuttal is the rhetorical equivalent of keeping your hands over your ears.

My lack of rebuttal is due to the fact that you added nothing new to the conversation except your parting line, which I did respond to. I had already made my rebuttal several posts before, so basically you had nothing to say in response to my argument except to repeat what you believe. And what you believe does not refute my argument.

Due to your lack of response I will assume you no longer see a paradox in condemning the use of reproduction organs for non-reproductive purposes while at the same time not condemning the use of vocal cords to sing a song.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Your right it doesn’t, but then again the Anglican Church doesn’t follow the 39 Articles anymore as the basis of their faith, as a document it isn’t normative. AND if you read the Articles carefully it doesn’t say they other 5 aren’t Sacraments it says they aren’t sacraments of the gospel, meaning Jesus doesn’t particularly mention them. Many still consider them sacramental rites.

Saying you’ve met Anglicans who don’t believe there are 7 sacraments is like me saying I’ve met Catholic’s who think Anglican communion is just as good as Catholic communion. Just because they believe it doesn’t mean its the official position of their church.

I wasn’t saying that protestantism is more complicated than catholicsm, I was making the point that accusations of simplicity only serve to belittle the faith of those who follow said faiths.

Well, you’ve just pointed out that Anglicans equivocate on the word “Sacrament,” and Catholics don’t.

There are parishes here in Vancouver that would ask you to leave for denying the authority of the 39 Articles. But of course, what, in Anglicanism, provides a “basis” for the faith, in the area of doctrine? It is a direct process to determine whether or not the espousals of a Catholic are consonant with the “official position of their church.” Where an Anglican bishop can deny the bodily resurrection of Christ and remain, to retirement and beyond, in good standing, it is very difficult to determine what the phrase “official position of their church” might mean to Anglicans, because it is not evident that one exists. Even you deny so fundamental a thing as the doctrinal definitions in the 39 Articles.

And you, not I, were the one who used the word “simple” with regards to faith, the faith of Catholics.

I work for a government agency, administering a body of law. In virtually every case where people seek to bend or circumvent a legal provision, one of the arguments presented is “it’s not that simple.” If patriotism be the last refuge of the scoundrel, then complexity may well be the last refuge of the heretic.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[GKC]

Your right it doesn’t, but then again the Anglican Church doesn’t follow the 39 Articles anymore as the basis of their faith, as a document it isn’t normative. AND if you read the Articles carefully it doesn’t say they other 5 aren’t Sacraments it says they aren’t sacraments of the gospel, meaning Jesus doesn’t particularly mention them. Many still consider them sacramental rites.

Saying you’ve met Anglicans who don’t believe there are 7 sacraments is like me saying I’ve met Catholic’s who think Anglican communion is just as good as Catholic communion. Just because they believe it doesn’t mean its the official position of their church.

I wasn’t saying that protestantism is more complicated than catholicsm, I was making the point that accusations of simplicity only serve to belittle the faith of those who follow said faiths.

True.

As I’ve said, many times.

As to Sacraments, 7, 2 of which are Dominical.

GKC

 

[larkin31]

And you, not I, were the one who used the word “simple” with regards to faith, the faith of Catholics.

Actually, you were the one who introduced the “simple” name-calling be calling me and all non-Catholics “simple”.

But I don’t want to enter an argument of whose faith is better than whose. I consider that debate among adults embarrassing.

 

[larkin31]

Of course you do. You are clearly a materialist, and therefore acknowledge no intellect other than the human intellect, and utterly reject the supernatural and spiritual. (As a scientist, I’m quite familiar with the phenomenon of people who claim that science is the only path to knowledge, even in areas it cannot investigate.) The notion that such an approach can possibly comprehend a position of the Catholic Church, positions based on a much wider set of considerations than mere materialism, is comparable to attempting an understanding of calculus and at the same time rejecting the concepts of infinity and the limit.

Only materialists are confounded by complexity, not Catholics, because the materialist framework is too limited. Catholics know that not all truth is simple, let alone comprehensible to the human intellect. It is indeed vanity to assume that there are not truths that humans can apprehend, but not fully comprehend. An insistence on comprehension leads directly to the need to consider sexuality without reference to its role in the coming into the world of new souls, so it can be considered in mere (though somewhat complex) biological terms.

Blessings,

Gerry

here it is

 

[GKC]

Well, you’ve just pointed out that Anglicans equivocate on the word “Sacrament,” and Catholics don’t.

There are parishes here in Vancouver that would ask you to leave for denying the authority of the 39 Articles. But of course, what, in Anglicanism, provides a “basis” for the faith, in the area of doctrine? It is a direct process to determine whether or not the espousals of a Catholic are consonant with the “official position of their church.” Where an Anglican bishop can deny the bodily resurrection of Christ and remain, to retirement and beyond, in good standing, it is very difficult to determine what the phrase “official position of their church” might mean to Anglicans, because it is not evident that one exists. Even you deny so fundamental a thing as the doctrinal definitions in the 39 Articles.

And you, not I, were the one who used the word “simple” with regards to faith, the faith of Catholics.

I work for a government agency, administering a body of law. In virtually every case where people seek to bend or circumvent a legal provision, one of the arguments presented is “it’s not that simple.” If patriotism be the last refuge of the scoundrel, then complexity may well be the last refuge of the heretic.

Blessings,

Gerry

And there have been parishes that cut the Articles from the BCP and used them to kindle the new fire at Easter.

The Articles are historical, established when Elizabeth I decided how she wanted her established Church to be managed. They are normative, and only in a legal sense, for ordinands of the CoE, since it is an Erastian Church. Which does not prevent any Anglican jurisdiction from affirming them, if they choose. Or, from affirming some, and not others, selectively (any Trinitarian Christian would affirm many of them) Or, like TEC, from putting them in the “historic documents” section of their current prayer book.

GKC

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

here it is

Nothing there. FIgures.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

And there have been parishes that cut the Articles from the BCP and used them to kindle the new fire at Easter.

The Articles are historical, established when Elizabeth I decided how she wanted her established Church to be managed. They are normative, and only in a legal sense, for ordinands of the CoE, since it is an Erastian Church. Which does not prevent any Anglican jurisdiction from affirming them, if they choose. Or, from affirming some, and not others, selectively (any Trinitarian Christian would affirm many of them) Or, like TEC, from putting them in the “historic documents” section of their current prayer book.

GKC

My Anglican experience was that it depended, almost, where you were, even within Canada. Two waves of missionaries crossed the country on behalf of Anglicans; evangelicals on a northern path, non-evangelicals on a more southerly one. The former embraced the 39 articles, and so did the Anglican communities they established. The latter, not so much to quite the opposite.

And of course, it’s much easier for the Church of England to accept them than Anglicans in a former colony, where ties to the State of England have been weakened or utterly abolished. Yet I’ve met US Anglicans who embrace the doctrine they contain. They were evangelicals. too.

But the articles seem to be no more difficult to dispose of than anything else, without ceasing to be an Anglican. Should one be surprised at all that the sanctity of marriage and the sacramentality of orders has become optional?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[larkin31]

Nothing there. FIgures.

and who is simplifying?

 

[Padrej]

Quite frankly I do not know why anyone in the Episcopal church has any right to complain. They claim they want to be “inclusive” but yet drive those who are Bible believing and conservative from their ranks. They have ordained practicing homosexuals for a while and got NO REAL flack until recently so they feel a precedent has been set. The people in the pews have remained silent as to what the bishops and others in the hierarchy are dong so they feel they can do just about anything now and get away with it. They are more concerned with being politically correct than spiritually correct and nobody in the laity speaks up, let alone those in the clergy because they are threatened with having their pensions stripped from them if they go against the establishment.

They know if people leave for the more conservative Anglican branches that they are continually infighting for power so who will take them seriously. So as far as I am concerned the laity and those complaining have nobody to blame but themselves because they will do nothing but grouse for a while and shut up and let the presiding bishop have her way. You wanted political correctness, you got it.

 

[GKC]

My Anglican experience was that it depended, almost, where you were, even within Canada. Two waves of missionaries crossed the country on behalf of Anglicans; evangelicals on a northern path, non-evangelicals on a more southerly one. The former embraced the 39 articles, and so did the Anglican communities they established. The latter, not so much to quite the opposite.

And of course, it’s much easier for the Church of England to accept them than Anglicans in a former colony, where ties to the State of England have been weakened or utterly abolished. Yet I’ve met US Anglicans who embrace the doctrine they contain. They were evangelicals. too.

But the articles seem to be no more difficult to dispose of than anything else, without ceasing to be an Anglican. Should one be surprised at all that the sanctity of marriage and the sacramentality of orders has become optional?

Blessings,

Gerry

Perhaps slightly more surprising, to anyone familiar with the history and nature of the Articles.

GKC

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

and who is simplifying?

The one who didn’t write anything.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Perhaps slightly more surprising, to anyone familiar with the history and nature of the Articles.

GKC

Could well be a Canadian thing. It was well into my lifetime before the Anglican Church of Canada came into being, having been, before that, the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada. And the Queen of England also being the Queen of Canada would not introduce quite so much pressure to distancing. The ACofC still prays for her as “our Queen and Governor.”

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[GKC]

Could well be a Canadian thing. It was well into my lifetime before the Anglican Church of Canada came into being, having been, before that, the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada. And the Queen of England also being the Queen of Canada would not introduce quite so much pressure to distancing. The ACofC still prays for her as “our Queen and Governor.”

Blessings,

Gerry

Could be.

GKC

 

[larkin31]

The one who didn’t write anything.

you win

 

[FrJohnB]

Quite frankly I do not know why anyone in the Episcopal church has any right to complain. They claim they want to be “inclusive” but yet drive those who are Bible believing and conservative from their ranks. They have ordained practicing homosexuals for a while and got NO REAL flack until recently so they feel a precedent has been set. The people in the pews have remained silent as to what the bishops and others in the hierarchy are dong so they feel they can do just about anything now and get away with it. They are more concerned with being politically correct than spiritually correct and nobody in the laity speaks up, let alone those in the clergy because they are threatened with having their pensions stripped from them if they go against the establishment.

They know if people leave for the more conservative Anglican branches that they are continually infighting for power so who will take them seriously. So as far as I am concerned the laity and those complaining have nobody to blame but themselves because they will do nothing but grouse for a while and shut up and let the presiding bishop have her way. You wanted political correctness, you got it.

Seems to me like you have covered most all the bases Padre. Looks like the people are finally crying after the proverbial horse is out of the barn and now they want to close the gate. I know some of the clergy that you speak of well who are afraid to speak up for fear of having their pension ripped from them. It is a shame when the hierarchy wield power with such a political agenda rather than one that follows the teachings of the Bible and the historic teachings of the church.

 

[nhylan]

Seems to me like you have covered most all the bases Padre. Looks like the people are finally crying after the proverbial horse is out of the barn and now they want to close the gate. I know some of the clergy that you speak of well who are afraid to speak up for fear of having their pension ripped from them. It is a shame when the hierarchy wield power with such a political agenda rather than one that follows the teachings of the Bible and the historic teachings of the church.

Its also a shame when repeatedly on this forum people choose to ignore the TEC’s theological reasoning for choosing to ordain gay bishops and instead belittling their leadership and turning it into a “homosexual” agenda thing. You are certainly entitled to disagree but what say we stop pretending this is a political move and try and work towards a better mutual understanding of our belief in Christ.

 

[Stephen168]

Have any of your actually read the TEC’s official reason for the ordination of homosexual people? I would check it out.

Have any of your actually read the TEC’s official reason for the ordination of homosexual people? I would check it out.

again… read the paper… speculation is totally useless.

Its also a shame when repeatedly on this forum people choose to ignore the TEC’s theological reasoning for choosing to ordain gay bishops and instead belittling their leadership and turning it into a “homosexual” agenda thing. You are certainly entitled to disagree but what say we stop pretending this is a political move and try and work towards a better mutual understanding of our belief in Christ.

I know, especially after you laid it out so clearly for us. How could we reach any other conclusion?

 

[benidict]

Its also a shame when repeatedly on this forum people choose to ignore the TEC’s theological reasoning for choosing to ordain gay bishops and instead belittling their leadership and turning it into a “homosexual” agenda thing. You are certainly entitled to disagree but what say we stop pretending this is a political move and try and work towards a better mutual understanding of our belief in Christ.

what theological reasoning. it is a political agenda. there is no theological reasoning behind this. i have studied many religions. one of the the things i found interesting is that not even the satanist allow homosexuals to be leaders of their “services”. even anton la vey found this to be dissordered. if they wanted to have their own grottos they could. but what in the world. even a satanist knew that this was not in the best interest of his church. so what possible theological reasoning could a christian denomination have for doing this? not politically motivated???

 

[Padrej]

Its also a shame when repeatedly on this forum people choose to ignore the TEC’s theological reasoning for choosing to ordain gay bishops and instead belittling their leadership and turning it into a “homosexual” agenda thing. You are certainly entitled to disagree but what say we stop pretending this is a political move and try and work towards a better mutual understanding of our belief in Christ.

Excuse me I was first turned down for ordination in the Episcopal diocese of Delaware because I was NOT black female or homosexual and told so to my face. Please do not hide behind “theology” when there is NONE to hide behind. When Asked about the Homosexual issue and theology the bishop said “Jesus never spoke against it” so I asked them to explain Matthew 19: 4-5 when Jesus was explaining the purpose of marriage where it said “FROM THE BEGINNING God created them MALE AND FEMALE and the two shall become one flesh” and he could not explain this. I would like to hear YOU explain Jesus’ own words that God created marriage to be between man and woman and tell me that this is not a political issue that you are pushing for.

When priests are ordained they vow to teach nothing contrary to what is clearly in scripture so by supporting this they are in open apostasy.