Posted on 08/28/2007 5:59:55 PM PDT by fgoodwin
The Episcopal Diocese of Chicago included an openly lesbian priest among five nominees for bishop Tuesday, as fellow Anglicans demand that the church bar gay bishops.
The Rev. Tracey Lind, dean of Trinity Cathedral in Cleveland, who has a female partner, will be on the November 10 ballot.
If she wins, she would be the second bishop living with a same-sex partner in the Episcopal Church. New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who has a male partner, was consecrated in 2003, pushing the world Anglican Communion to the brink of schism.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
We are not sophisticated enough to understand the nuance of the Gospels, and any enlightened person would recognize that it is questionable whether that misogynist Paul's letters should remain part of the Canon at all!
Born, baptized and raised a Roman Catholic. Sorry!
This is a wacky religious cult that is centered on promoting homosexuality and replacing Jesus with the United Nations Millenium Development Goals.
Hello,
I’m a Latin Rite Catholic and I’ve been reading these stories and have to be honest and say that I see a consistent “disconnect”.
Most of these articles say the ECUSA is “on the brink of schism” or some other such language.
As an outsider it looks to me like there is a full scale schism (if not multiple) in the ECUSA. Folks seem to be fleeing to Conservative Anglican bodies (or setting up their own) or heading Orthodox or Catholic so they can run across either river as they don’t have time to sink.
Am I wrong? And if I am right, would this really have any impact on what is already happening?
This should be interesting. I have a vote in this election.
If you ever saw or heard their tortured, insane, interpretation of Romans Chapter 1 you wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry.
First off, its hard if not impossible to find a homosexual-advocate "Christian" who really believes scripture is God's Word, inerrant. So that's their starting point with the bible--they pick and choose what to believe in it.
Secondly, most of the attempts at interpreting around the relevant scriptural passages are for purpose of the consumption of well meaning, but but biblically illiterate lay persons. By this I mean the ones making the arguemnts don't believe scripture anyway, and are being fundamentally disingenuous by trying to convince people who still do believe the scripture--what they know of it.
The arguments are illogical and inconsistant, but are as follows:
-Old Testament law doesn't apply..."after all we don't worry about eating shellfish do we?" Of course this ignores 2000 years of church history where OT ceremonial law (such as Kosher food regulations or animal sacrifices)since the book of Acts have never been seen to apply to Christians while at the same time, consistently, OT sexual morals (made even more strict, for example by outlawing polygamy) DO APPLY. The ridiculous thing is that ALL sexual perversions we as a society condemn in morals and law, have their basis in the Old Testament. So throw out the OT rules on homosexuality, and one has no basis to condemn incest, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, etc.
-OT examples of homosexual activity condemned (Sodom and Gammora, the Benjamite rebellion, primarily) are reread into actually being a failure of being "hospitable" to guests (so important, we are told, in Ancient Near East society). Of course this too is contrary to the text, and to the consistent interpretation for more than 2000 years in Judaism and then Christianity. It's really stupid, and clearly just distorting the text to fit one's predetermined goal.
-New Testament: St. Paul is seen either A) as speaking only of abusive homosexual relationships (not "monogamous" ones) or, B)he just had a personal problem...and was a self-hating homosexual himself...
Also ridiculous, esp. "A)" as just a purposeful distortion.
-Jesus is also pitted against Paul "after all Jesus didn't speak against homosexuality!"
Also a dumb point, as Jesus isn't recorded to have spoken to a number of subjects. He wasn't recorded to condemn incest or bestiality either...but Jesus made clear, he AGREED with the OT Jewish Law on ALL POINTS.
So, in the final analysis, the homosexual proponents don't themselves really care what scripture says, but, for public consumption, they do make bogus arguments--usually emotionally based, which talk around the clear teachings of the bible. Many Christians are confused as to the relationship of the OT to the NT, so that is exploited. Also many Christians do tend to pit St. Paul against Jesus, as they don't understand the NT, so, that too is exploited.
Bottom line is though, that the homosexual lobby in the organized Church hate God's Word, and are happy to abuse it to further their agenda.
Then you’ll really see the ‘grits’ hit the fan and more and more Episcopalians will leave. Didn’t they learn their lesson the last time?
More of Satan’s work, mark it. Cast it out, into the swine, into the sea.
I think so too. It would be taken as a deliberate slap in the face to the whole World Anglican Communion, and rightfully so. It could mean nothing else--not only a ridiculous airhead bimbo but a homosexual bimbo at that.
Unfortunately the Anglican Communion and the ABC don’t have the cojones to kick us out — the ECUSA knows this full well.
They’ve been pushing the envelope, and with nothing more than an occassional slap on the wrist, the Communion is reinforcing TEC’s self-destructive behavior.
TEC is betting the Windsor Report is not worth the paper its written on, and that all the huffing and puffing will amount to no more than a bunch of hot air.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.