Re: OT: Any Anglicans/Episcopalians in the house?


"Scoop" <2ley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Kq0Mf.797610$_o.619132@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"steveb" <pastor.oslds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140886895.271708.271860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mike,

Discrimination is not necessarily bad. I discriminate all the time --
I choose Coke over Pepsi, aromatics over English, briars over meers. I
would assume you discriminate as well (at least, I hope so). The
question really is HOW one discriminates -- what are the criteria used
to make such decisions? As a Lutheran pastor (Lutheran Church --
Missouri Synod), I am convinced that the Bible needs to form the basis
for discrimination in matters such as this. And the Bible is quite
clear on homosexuality -- it is wrong. Not worse than other sins (like
stealing, lying, having lustful thoughts, murder, misusing God's name,
etc.) but still a sin. And one who chooses to live in sin rather than
in repentance ought not serve as a pastor, let alone a bishop. But
that is just a Lutheran's take on this.

So tell me, how do you square your opposition of homosexuality with the
right to eat shellfish, and all the dietary laws, since the main
prohibition on both are pretty well delineated in the same areas of
biblical law?

And, more importantly, how do you stand on the whole issue of biblical
accuracy, given the extremely well documented differences in the early
Christian gospel manuscripts, not to mention the problematic nature of the
Torah itself, with regards to uniformity? (For those interested, I would
highly suggest reading "Misquoting Jesus" a good introduction to the whole
issue of biblical translation errors.)

Scoop




Scoop,

It's often thought that teachings on sexual orientation are completely an
"Old Testament" matter, they aren't. A careful reading of St Paul's works
especially his letters to the Church in Corinth (among other references)
shed plenty of light on this matter. I rarely make distinctions between
"sins", however, when clergy are to held to specific Biblical standards
which are clearly stated in the Scriptures I think must be carefully
observed. As the "moral leaders" of the Church, clergy are to set the
example of Christ (not the latest fashionable teachings of man) for the
local Church, and larger bodies as their duties require. Personally, I
don't find homosexuality as any greater a "sin" as defined Biblically than
any other sexual sin. However, for a member of the clergy to practice such,
as well as his other often discussed and equally often overlooked other
infractions of fornication, adultery, clearly indicate his inability to
apply Christian teachings in his own life, let alone that of others he is
intrusted to guard, teach and protect. Lest you think I apply this standard
only to one practicing "homosexuality" I would be equally offened were a
hetersexual member of the clergy to defend extra-marital affairs, and the
eventual divorcement of his wife for another woman. These teachings are
carefully dealt with in Paul's letters to the Church at Corinth. The
"sheep" tend to follow the "shepherd" which leads us into such things as Jim
Jones, and David Koresh.

Translational errors well documented and otherwise do NOT invalidate
Christianity or the Bible as a whole. Protestant views range from "Bible
Alone" authority, to "Biblical and Traditional" teachings with everything in
between, Roman Catholic and other Catholic bodies have their own teachings
and traditions as well. The idea that modern discoveries of ancient "texts,
sources, gospels" and such and modern interperatation of these and older
translations have NOT significantly changed Christendom. The Bible whether
one chooses a modern or older translation, it has been suficient to properly
ground Christianity and Christian teachings for over 1500 years, (though not
available to the "common Christian" for that entire period) and will
continue to guide the Church until Christ's bodily return. The modern
desire to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" is not something new, just
more previlant these days. I doubt that anyone can sensibly defend the
alteration of 2000+ years of Christianity and Christian teaching with a list
of their favorite "Bible translation errors". You are not going to be able
to define and exhaustively defend or argue reversal of these central issues
and teachings.

Thanks for listening,

kilted1


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: satire, that blasted art
    ... The Christian Bible as we know it today was first compiled and edited by ... the Catholic Church for its own purposes in the 4th Century C.E. The ... I consider forcing children into religion to be a form of ... teachings of the Catholic Church on faith alone. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: The signs are still there
    ... one of the great teachings of Buddhism is of true tolerance. ... try to convert my wife to another religion. ... childhood Christian indoctrination!). ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: same sex regulations - discrimination against Christians?
    ... to mixed-race couples. ... wrong in thinking that they forbid such discrimination; ... traditional Christian sexual morality. ... I do think that we shouldn't worry about discrimination against ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Was Muhammad a Christian?
    ... You can pick-and-choose among islamic traditions, ... Mahomet was not a christian. ... You offer tradition as evidence, ... No, I do not offer traditional teachings as evidence, I am merely ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Re: Was Muhammad a Christian?
    ... Gordon ... were indeed Christians and the Islamic/Muslim religion was ... that islam was a christian sect before being taken over by ... teachings over the time he was Caliph. ...
    (rec.org.mensa)