First lesbian bishop to be consecrated by Anglican church in America

[larkin31]

No, “ALL” is the answer. “ALL” is homosexual sex. Why is homosexual sex disordered? It is like putting “ALL” your food up your nose.

Hardly.

Tell that to an infertile couple. Or someone who chooses to be celibate. Or post-menopausal women. Failure to reproduce is not a sin. All you are saying is that humans can’t CHOOSE to do what nature chooses to do for them, that we must submit our morality to the choices made by our genetics. It is an interesting position for a Christian, that biological majority determines morality. Because we can reproduce, because most of us do reproduce for a few years, we must ALWAYS keep our sex open to at least the possibility of reproduction, because we must ALWAYS allow the possibility of the biological purpose of sex. Well, except for the ways to curb reproduction through NFP, of course. Which isn’t, technically, contraception, of course. It is, of course, fine for us to fight the natural course of disease and mortality through all sorts of human and mechanical interventions, but we must not contravene the natural course of reproduction.

Like I said, you are simply oversimplifying a very complex human behavior and a very complex sexual morality system to absolute extremes with only one variable: reproduction.

 

[larkin31]

my friend, the answer to your question is no. there is nothing sinful in finding pleasure in the world. however, when you overstep the bounds of natural law, and Gods law, serious consequences result. i know. i live with them every day. thanks to the free love mentality, we now have aids, herpes, gonnoreah, etc. not to mention blended families, an upward spike in child abuse as a result, broken homes. domestic abuse which i as a military police officer am well aware of, having to respond to these calls. where would you set the limits my friend? or are their no limits? personal pleasure at the expense of what or whom? Peace

Of course there are limits. And STDs have been around for millenia. “Natural Law” is a human concept that does not exist in nature when it comes to behavior or morality. There are physical laws of nature, yes (physics, chemistry), but in terms of behavior one is simply looking to statistical norms when one refers to “natural law,” and that is, of course, not very enlightening when one discusses human behavior and morality.

If you mean to say that families today are worse off than, say, those families of the year 1000 AD, then I would like to know how you are coming to this conclusion. What rosy days of the past are you thinking of?

 

[CMatt25]

you are simply oversimplifying a very complex human behavior and a very complex sexual morality system to absolute extremes with only one variable: reproduction.

Larkin, that’s sometimes what happens when ppl take complex issues and try fitting them into a neat little box.

 

[Contarini]

Of course there are limits. And STDs have been around for millenia. “Natural Law” is a human concept that does not exist in nature when it comes to behavior or morality.

And that’s the heart of your disagreement with orthodox, traditional Christianity.

“Natural law” when it comes to morality is not something that scientists observe out there “in nature,” nor is it (as you seem to believe) simply a human construct. It’s our participation by reason in the eternal law which is God’s nature.

Of course this expresses itself biologically, since we are biological creatures. But not all our biological impulses conform to natural law. Natural law tells us which of our impulses are good ones and under what circumstances. I don’t mean by this that it gives detailed guidelines for every possible situation–there are all kinds of legitimate cultural variations.

P.S. I did not realize (though perhaps I should have taken a clue from your alias) that you were not a Christian. That being the case, much of this discussion is pointless because our differing assumptions go much further down.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I seem to remember him commenting when asked why they allowed gay priests and bishops, he said that the communion voted for that in 1930.

I think you remember wrongly. ++Williams has made it clear that he does *not *believe that the teaching of the Anglican Communion allows for the consecration of practicing gay bishops or for the blessing of SSU’s. He himself, as a private theologian, has suggested that the choice to allow contraception may lead logically to the legitimation of homosexual relations. But he has made it clear that this is speculation on his part and that he does not have the authority as Archbishop to impose his private theological views on the Communion.

Anglicans, like the Orthodox (and I would argue like the early Church), don’t believe that any one bishop should have absolute authority.

Edwin

 

[Stephen168]

Tell that to an infertile couple. Or someone who chooses to be celibate. Or post-menopausal women. Failure to reproduce is not a sin.

You are confusing the act (putting food up your nose / homosexual sex) with the result (starvation / no conception). The act is wrong because it is not consistent with design. You are not allowing the body to function as designed or using the body in a way it was not designed.

All you are saying is that humans can’t CHOOSE to do what nature chooses to do for them, that we must submit our morality to the choices made by our genetics. It is an interesting position for a Christian, that biological majority determines morality.

Our body is designed to function a certain way; go with it and not against it.

Because we can reproduce, because most of us do reproduce for a few years, we must ALWAYS keep our sex open to at least the possibility of reproduction, because we must ALWAYS allow the possibility of the biological purpose of sex. Well, except for the ways to curb reproduction through NFP, of course. Which isn’t, technically, contraception, of course. It is, of course, fine for us to fight the natural course of disease and mortality through all sorts of human and mechanical interventions, but we must not contravene the natural course of reproduction.
Like I said, you are simply oversimplifying a very complex human behavior and a very complex sexual morality system to absolute extremes with only one variable: reproduction.

I’ve already said it is not one variable but it is the one primary unique variable to which you said:

Then we agree.

 

[jlhargus]

This is terrible.

Just be careful not to say you oppose it, or else certain caustic Forum members will call you a Donatist and a heretic!

JL: Why care what an apostate calls anyone, rejoice.

 

[larkin31]

You are confusing the act (putting food up your nose / homosexual sex) with the result (starvation / no conception). The act is wrong because it is not consistent with design. You are not allowing the body to function as designed or using the body in a way it was not designed.

Nor does a celibate. I am not confusing anything at all. Like I said, you are using statistical biological norms and converting them into moral precepts. Which I find odd for a Christian to do. Especially when it is not consistently applied. But we all know that the standards applied to sexuality are not evenly applied elsewhere. Sexuality receives special attention and, I would argue, to a neurotic degree of repression.

Our body is designed to function a certain way; go with it and not against it.

So, I am right: you are defining morality by biological function. Does this apply to fighting disease as well as fighting conception?

I’ve already said it is not one variable but it is the one primary unique variable to which you said:

Then let’s discuss some of those other variables. Let’s start with the application of the idea that we should not contravene the biological norms that God has designed into our bodies. One “condition” I would say that is universal is mortality. Clearly, obsolescence is part of our design. Do you consider it a sin to work against the natural conditions that lead to death?

 

[larkin31]

…P.S. I did not realize (though perhaps I should have taken a clue from your alias) that you were not a Christian. That being the case, much of this discussion is pointless because our differing assumptions go much further down.

Edwin

You know the writing of P Larkin? Awesome!

Which “assumption” do you mean? I actually would prefer if we would get to those, but no one seems to want to here. I state mine straight out (eg, no such thing as “natural law” except as a construct of human thinking). I would love to get to the foundation of “morality” in a discussion; most folks here seem to demur when I keep pushing. I acknowledge that the Bible chastises homosexuality strongly. But folks here seem to want to use some other form of reasoning to defend their position, but these other forms of reasoning are quite weak, IMO. There is no doubt that homosexuality is far from the statistical norm; no one challenges this. But since when does a statistical norm govern morality? What morals are defended this way? Since when does a minority status mean, ipso facto, that one is in a sinning condition? Since when does one have to use ones reproductive organs ONLY for reproduction? This stipulation is NOT put to other organs in the same way. I am asking, WHY NOT? What is the special concern about sexuality? I consider it to be a neurotic concern over control of function and “purity” and fear of the “other”. What another adult does with his or her reproductive organs is a strange concern for the rest of the tribe, except in cases of adultery (several tribal complications can result). The rest about “Natural law” I consider to be weak rationalizations.

 

[larkin31]

Larkin, that’s sometimes what happens when ppl take complex issues and try fitting them into a neat little box.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well said Anna. This really should be a time of prayer for all Churches, but the Episcopal Church in particular at this time in its history. We need an outpouring of the Holy Spirit to heal and mend the damage done by the enemy. I say this as a Catholic. We have had more than our share of problems as the world very well knows.
For those who love their Church, it is a pain that runs very deep. I will pray for the Episcopal Church and for healing for its members.

God bless,

Steve

Praying for all churches including TEC where Christians find Christ.

Matt 18:20, “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

I am one of those viewers and would be happy to pray. I am a RC covert that came from the Episcopal Church 7 years ago. There are MANY good Christian people in the TEC. It’s so sad to see the church ripping apart.

SteveVH, CMatt25, bauerice,

Thank you all so much for your prayers. I am very grateful.

Anna

 

[Stephen168]

Like I said, you are using statistical biological norms and converting them into moral precepts.
larkin31;6670527:

So, I am right: you are defining morality by biological function.

So am I using statistics or am I using body function? You are just grabbing at straws at this point. You seem to have a canned response to Christians which doesn’t apply to what I’ve been saying. 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.

Then let’s discuss some of those other variables. Let’s start with the application of the idea that we should not contravene the biological norms that God has designed into our bodies. One “condition” I would say that is universal is mortality. Clearly, obsolescence is part of our design.

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.

Do you consider it a sin to work against the natural conditions that lead to death?

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.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .The Elijah metaphor is appropriate. But I question to what degree is it realistic or beneficial to stay in TEC? Do the more conservative members actually think they can overhaul a denomination that is nationally extremely extremely liberal and far left of center like that? The TEC is heavily loaded with female priests, feminists, pro-choicers, pro-gay lefties, liberation theology-minded folks, people who are ok with cohabitation and divorce and out of wedlock pregnancy, abortion, etc.? How is it realistic to stick around and change that?

. . . . .I think caucusing with like-minded conservative, orthodox traditionalists is more feasible and productive than remaining in a liberal hotbed that is virtually impossible to change for the better?

. . . . .‘Change from within’ isn’t going to work with TEC. ACNA would’ve been a great competitor and new vision of Anglicanism were it not for the idiotic toleration of female ordination thanks to Duncan and company as well as the openness to evangelical born-agains that mirror a Calvary Chapel episode. Anglicanism is such a wild, wacky, and bizarre pageant, I swear. In so many ways it has the evensong to inspire your soul. Other days it’s like watching the Gong Show.

gurneyhalleck1,

I find your arguments for leaving the Episcopal Church a bit ironic. If Christians worked things out from “within” the Church, we probably would not be having this conversation. We would all be Catholics.

Anna

 

[Bluegoat]

At coffee hour today I was talking with a fellow teacher from years ago. She was in Hanford, a nearby town. When the ACNA was forming, that parish chose to stay TEC. They disagreed with her views about homosexuality being a sin despite her liberal views that women should be priests. She wasn’t liberal enough and they actually ASKED HER TO LEAVE and no longer attend the parish!! They banished her! Then they were angry that the organist was opposed to gay marriage, etc. so they asked her to leave! The vestry told these women they weren’t welcome in that parish anymore and to hit the bricks! So now they drive to our town, 25 miles, and attend our parish. Amazing!!

The Elijah metaphor is appropriate. But I question to what degree is it realistic or beneficial to stay in TEC? Do the more conservative members actually think they can overhaul a denomination that is nationally extremely extremely liberal and far left of center like that? The TEC is heavily loaded with female priests, feminists, pro-choicers, pro-gay lefties, liberation theology-minded folks, people who are ok with cohabitation and divorce and out of wedlock pregnancy, abortion, etc.? How is it realistic to stick around and change that? It’s kind of like pro-life democrats. I see these “Blue Dogs” thinking they can really change things. In the end, guys like Stupak caved pure and simple. Caved. It’s a tsunami of liberalism.

I think caucusing with like-minded conservative, orthodox traditionalists is more feasible and productive than remaining in a liberal hotbed that is virtually impossible to change for the better?

I don’t say this stuff to be a cynic or a grouch but rather I just see it this way realistically. ‘Change from within’ isn’t going to work with TEC. ACNA would’ve been a great competitor and new vision of Anglicanism were it not for the idiotic toleration of female ordination thanks to Duncan and company as well as the openness to evangelical born-agains that mirror a Calvary Chapel episode. Anglicanism is such a wild, wacky, and bizarre pageant, I swear. In so many ways it has the evensong to inspire your soul. Other days it’s like watching the Gong Show.

I’m in the ACC, which isn’t quite as bad as TEC, but almost.

I really can’t see leaving my parish over this stuff at the moment. I mean, if you were in the midst of the Arian controversy, and everyone around you was embracing heresy, and your church wasn’t, would that be the time to bail?

I’m in a parish that describes itself as classically Anglican, that uses the old liturgy and lectionary, that makes the daily offices available in the church,that has an amazing music ministry and a very active inner city ministry, among other things.

I want this parish to be successful beyond the Bishop’s wildest dreams for the liberal parishes, and leaving would not help that.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

With all due respect, Anna, I don’t think you read my post carefully. I said that the conservatives in the TEC should LEAVE the Episcopal Church and work for change from without not from within? My entire post said that it’s fruitless to stay inside TEC and make change? I’m not sure how you inferred or gleaned the irony of staying from my post when I went out of my way to say staying is a wasted, fruitless endeavor? My whole point is these people should BOLT and hit the bricks for either ACNA, TAC, or some other Anglican entity but definitely not TEC.

gurneyhalleck1,

I find your arguments for leaving the Episcopal Church a bit ironic. If Christians worked things out from “within” the Church, we probably would not be having this conversation. We would all be Catholics.

Anna

 

[larkin31]

So am I using statistics or am I using body function? You are just grabbing at straws at this point. You seem to have a canned response to Christians which doesn’t apply to what I’ve been saying. 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.

Warning: graphic sexual terminology follows:

A hand’s function is to hold, you said, which, as you suggest, can be put to several purposes, not all of which need to be for survival. A penis is designed for urination and penetration (conveyance of semen to the interior of a female). In the case of several forms of human sexual behavior, and in the strictest of analogies in my argument, neither the location for the urine nor the semen has been stipulated. If you wish to control the location of the semen, then, to be consistent, one must control the location and use of the hands, the penis for urine, etc. In other words, why say that a hand can be put to any use as long as it holds but then say that a penis can be used to ejaculate ONLY in a reproductive setting?

I repeat: you are applying a standard to sexual behavior that you do not apply to other behaviors. I would just like to know the reasoning on which one does this, and to such an extreme as to stipulate that ejaculation outside a vagina is more of a disordered behavior than, say, holding a gun.

]

 

[benidict]

Of course there are limits. And STDs have been around for millenia. “Natural Law” is a human concept that does not exist in nature when it comes to behavior or morality. There are physical laws of nature, yes (physics, chemistry), but in terms of behavior one is simply looking to statistical norms when one refers to “natural law,” and that is, of course, not very enlightening when one discusses human behavior and morality.

If you mean to say that families today are worse off than, say, those families of the year 1000 AD, then I would like to know how you are coming to this conclusion. What rosy days of the past are you thinking of?

pre 1960s to keep it in our century. the free love mentality, do as you please attitude of the hippies, did much harm to this country. when we did have some standards of behavior, the number of out of wedlock births were down. divorce was a much smaller percentage than we have today. and yes, i would dare say there were less transmissions of std’s. of course, i am only speaking of america. i cant say what was happening in europe during this time. so i will admit, im keeping it in a “neat little box” Peace

 

[larkin31]

pre 1960s to keep it in our century. the free love mentality, do as you please attitude of the hippies, did much harm to this country. when we did have some standards of behavior, the number of out of wedlock births were down. divorce was a much smaller percentage than we have today. and yes, i would dare say there were less transmissions of std’s. of course, i am only speaking of america. i cant say what was happening in europe during this time. so i will admit, im keeping it in a “neat little box” Peace

“Pre-1960s”? Can you be more specific? 1800 is, technically, “pre-1960”.

And, so you know, my mother only became happy in her marriage once she could control her reproduction (after a fourth son in a row) in 1962 and could leave her husband and marry a man she was actually in love with. THAT marriage lasted until death parted them 35 years later. Prior to the divorce there was abuse in the family. After the divorce and in the second marriage, there was none. Status improved all around, except for that rule about the “sin” of divorce. From my point of view, the 60s and “the pill” helped both my family and my mother’s life in particular vastly improve. But this is just anecdotal, I know. My point is only that what one person sees as a tendency toward disorder is seen by another as a move toward greater stability and health. “Free love” had nothing to do with it. There never was such a thing.

 

[benidict]

“Pre-1960s”? Can you be more specific? 1800 is, technically, “pre-1960”.

And, so you know, my mother only became happy in her marriage once she could control her reproduction (after a fourth son in a row) in 1962 and could leave her husband and marry a man she was actually in love with. THAT marriage lasted until death parted them 35 years later. Prior to the divorce there was abuse in the family. After the divorce and in the second marriage, there was none. Status improved all around, except for that rule about the “sin” of divorce. From my point of view, the 60s and “the pill” helped both my family and my mother’s life in particular vastly improve. But this is just anecdotal, I know. My point is only that what one person sees as a tendency toward disorder is seen by another as a move toward greater stability and health. “Free love” had nothing to do with it. There never was such a thing.

my friend. i could bore you with with a story of what my mother was like, and the influences the 60’s had on her and my family. i wont go there. needless to say, the mindset of that era led to many problems, and an early death for her. not to mention disease and disharmony. thankfully i was adopted out, before things got too out of hand. also knowing many who lived during that time, i dont think all these new “freedoms” were the best thing for this Country. also health has declined more since that time. also a sense of responsibility has been replaced with a do what you want at expense of anyone else. I am what matters, i dont care who get hurts in the process. that is the legacy of the 60’s. Peace

 

[CMatt25]

All this 60s talk for those too young to have actually been there has me wanting to sing some 5th Dimension!

Leeeeeeeeeet the sunshine. Leeeeeeeeeet the sunshine in. Ohhhhhhhhhhh leeeeeeeeeet the sunshiiiiine innnnnnnnnn. :yup: Peace :grouphug: