| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Those Revoltin' Episcopalians! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 17 2006, 06:18 AM (2,180 Views) | |
| AlbertaCrude | Dec 18 2006, 09:17 AM Post #26 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
You're probably right Jolly. Indeed Jesus Christ appears to have favoured fishermen over all others to lead the Church. Maybe someday we'll finally get a Pope from Newfoundland. Still, what concern is it of anybody's outside of the Anglican faith, who the Church selects as its leaders?
:lol: |
![]() |
|
| sue | Dec 18 2006, 09:21 AM Post #27 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'd enjoy listening to him. He'd probably need a different sort of hat, wouldn't he?
|
![]() |
|
| Phlebas | Dec 18 2006, 09:39 AM Post #28 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I was confirmed Episcopalian, but my wife and daughter are Catholic so I go to Catholic mass. I was pretty much used to gay and women priests. I never had much of a problem with either. I did, however, find that the Episcopal church with their very liberal point of view seemed too much like an "anything goes" attitude to me, and in a way missed at least part of the point of what an organization that takes a lead on moral and spiritual guidance should be. Also, it is true that the NY diocese is very wealthy. I think at one point around the late 1800's and early 1900's they owned about half of the tenements in the Lower East Side, and were one of the largest slum lords of the city. |
|
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D | |
![]() |
|
| plays88keys | Dec 18 2006, 10:37 AM Post #29 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
I, too, am a confirmed Episcopalian and work in an Episcopal school. The associate rector of the church which is affiliated with the school is a woman. I have absolutely no problem with this - it's a direction the Church took which I have always supported. |
| You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Dec 18 2006, 10:41 AM Post #30 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Holy, eh?
|
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 18 2006, 10:52 AM Post #31 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
But Jolly, that's the only kind there are. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 18 2006, 11:00 AM Post #32 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
As far as Sodom & Gomorrah, remember that in the Biblical account, God had decided to destroy the city, and that the angels were sent to take Lot and his family out before the destruction. God's decision was not an impulse reaction to the townspeople wanting to have sex with the angels. It was the overall sinfulness of the residents of the town, not one particular instance, that caused its destruction. I think that this distinction is too often forgotten, and incorrectly focusing on this aspect of the story has contributed in large part to people's impression that engaging in homosexual sex is somehow "more sinful" than all the more garden variety and socially acceptable sins that people engage in every day - even those who are very sincere and devout in their faith, and even those who are ordained for specialized service to the Church. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 18 2006, 11:05 AM Post #33 |
|
MAMIL
|
I guess naming the place Sodom was a bit of a mistake from a marketing perspective, since it meant everyone forgot all about the ghomorrea that was contracted from plain old regular sinning. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Dec 18 2006, 11:32 AM Post #34 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
True. But what was that Jesus told the woman at the well?... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Dec 18 2006, 11:32 AM Post #35 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Impulse or well deliberated, God decided to destroy the city because the behavior of its citizens displeased him?
|
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 18 2006, 11:59 AM Post #36 |
|
MAMIL
|
Shock and awe, followed by all the salt one man can eat. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 18 2006, 12:07 PM Post #37 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yeah, that's pretty much what the text says. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Dec 18 2006, 12:25 PM Post #38 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Dewey, I have trouble with the highly dubious mechanics surrounding the notion that an eternally immortal, perfect and omnipotent and omnipresent being would; 1) make a conscious decision based on empirical observation and 2) that the misbehavior of a few would elicit the very mortal and imperfect emotional reaction from that same immortal entity. In this case the willful destruction of a city and its inhabitants (plus one, Lot's wife, who dared witness the event). Do you not see the non sequitor in this myth(ology)? |
![]() |
|
| OperaTenor | Dec 18 2006, 01:16 PM Post #39 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Show me where in the Bible it says homosexuality, and not homosexual behavior is a sin. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Dec 18 2006, 01:20 PM Post #40 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
You're arguing a classic Catholic position...and as such are accurate. Once one crosses over from concept to action it is defined as sin, no two ways about it. Now, since you've chosen to enter the fray, you can answer the question - What was the last thing Jesus said to the woman at the well? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 18 2006, 01:22 PM Post #41 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I don't have a dog in this fight, but isn't the issue regarding active homosexuals, not merely those with homosexual orientations? Do you personally distinguish between the disposition as neutral and the activity as sinful? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 18 2006, 01:23 PM Post #42 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I didn't say that I don't have trouble with certain Biblical passages, including the ramifications of this one and others. Nevertheless, that's what it says, and I have to address the situation from the standpoint of what the text says versus what I might want it to say. I think that while some would over-literalize parts of the Scriptures, some would also over-allegorize them as well. And I think the potential danger of missing the actual embedded truth of the stories is just as great in either case. As to your point #1: I have trouble with the highly dubious mechanics surrounding the notion that an eternally immortal, perfect and omnipotent and omnipresent being would; 1) make a conscious decision based on empirical observation... Frankly, so would I, but I don't think that's what was actually happening in this story. Look closely at the text: "Then the men set out from there, and they looked toward Sodom; and Abraham went with them to set them on their way. The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice; so that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” Then the Lord said, “How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know.” So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord...." So Abraham is standing in the presence of the Lord and the angels, and they're walking away from Abraham's camp. The Lord starts talking out loud, "Hmm, shall I keep this secret from my servant Abraham? No, I'll tell him what I'm about to do. I'm going to go to Sodom & Gomorrah, and if I find it to be as sinful as I've heard, I'm going to destroy it." Then something interesting happens in the story - The Lord stops in his tracks, while the other two walk on. If the Lord truly needed to physically travel to Sodom & Gomorrah to find out some information he didn't have, why does he not do what he just said he was going to do? Because in this account, God is setting up Abraham in another manner of test. He stands there, waiting to see if Abraham is going to push this issue with him. Imagine the scene: the hot sun baking down on them. A slight breeze kicks up a little sand at their feet. Some flies are buzzing around a fresh pile of sheep manure. There stands Abraham and the Lord in this awkward silence, watching as the two angels are getting smaller and smaller as they walk into the distance. And the Lord waits for Abraham's inevitable questioning and the exquisite account of his bargaining with God for the sake of those righteous that may live in the cities about to be destroyed. You can all but imagine the Lord standing there twiddling his thumbs and staring into space, waiting for Abraham's thoughts to get the better of him. "Then Abraham came near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.” Abraham answered, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?” And he said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” Again he spoke to him, “Suppose forty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of forty I will not do it.” Then he said, “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak. Suppose thirty are found there.” He answered, “I will not do it, if I find thirty there.” He said, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.” Then he said, “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” And the Lord went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place." To me, there is no question that parts of this account were composed to be appreciated as a story, listened to around the fire, and memorized for retelling long before it was written down, to tell an important truth. In this story, like any story, certain narrative tools are employed to convey meaning. And I believe that that is partly what's going on here as well. And in the story, Abraham "passes" the test - he ponders the situation, and the potential plight of the cities' residents, with a spirit of not only justice, but mercy. And in one of the greatest scenes from any Biblical account, Abraham starts in: "Um, Lord, I know that you're all-powerful, all-good, and all that, and far be it for me to second-guess the correctness of your decisions, but... surely, you wouldn't destroy an entire city if there were even only 50 righteous people who also lived there..." And he ever-so respectfully haggles the Lord down bit by bit, arguing for mercy and justice to be shown, for even as little as ten righteous people in the entire city. And surely, God must have been pleased with what he heard from Abraham. Abraham showed a willingness to go to great lengths to seek justice and mercy. But also notice what's going on simultaneously in the story. The angels still proceed to Sodom & Gomorrah. And what do they tell Lot? "Get out of town now, because God is going to destroy it!" "Then the men said to Lot, “Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city—bring them out of the place. For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.” ... When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Get up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or else you will be consumed in the punishment of the city.” But he lingered; so the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him out and left him outside the city." They don't start taking a survey to count how many righteous people there are there. They say point-blank, the decision has already been made. In addition to the Lord's testing of Abraham's heart regarding the situation, comparing the angels' words against the criteria God has set forth to Abraham, God apparently already knew that in this case, absent Lot's family's presence in the city, there were none righteous worthy of further mercy (or who knows, maybe there were multiple groups of angels visiting multiple households that night, sending many more people out of the city? While certainly possible, it isn't relevant to the greater truths that the writer is trying to teach in this story). I believe that the intent of the story is to teach a truth. In teaching that truth, it contains both aspects that are purely literary, to make a comprehensible point in the context of its intended audience. Let's face it, in order to explain many concepts, even we, in our more sophisticated existence, have to fall back on metaphor, similie, and similar tools to convey certain concepts. At the same time, I believe it contains certain aspects that are not merely literary devices. Those aspects include not only that the cities were actually destroyed, and that their destruction was in accordance with God's will, but even more importantly: the reality of God's ultimate sovereignty over creation; God's utter contempt for sin; the reality that God can, has, and will work within creation to achieve God's ultimate ends; God's mercy in saving the remnant of righteous humanity from the same punishment as the non-righteous; and God's wish that those who call upon God would also share this concern for both justice and mercy. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| OperaTenor | Dec 18 2006, 01:36 PM Post #43 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Well, one in particular, yes. Personally, I don't draw the distinction(I feel it's beyond my condonment). However, I believe what a person does with their life, so long as it doesn't impact another person's life, is solely between them and God, and my discernment of it doesn't mean spit. As I stated originally, I believe the majority of the church chose to err on the side of tolerance on the issue and accept him, ownership of the moral high ground notwithstanding. Back to the original hair-splitting, IIRC, nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality prohibited. Homosexual behavior, however, is. Not even remotely as much os social injustice though.... |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 18 2006, 01:52 PM Post #44 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Jesus' words to the woman at the well are applicable to all, and compliance with them is similarly impossible for all. If a person is inelegible to serve an ordained call on the basis that they cannot avoid sinning, there would be no ordinations. People sin. Even if they don't want to. Even with the help of the Holy Spirit in their lives. We're all neck-deep in it, whether we like it or not. And while we have no authority to call sin anything other than sin, or to do other than to continually work to avoid sin, neither do we have any authority to judge others more harshly for their sins than we accept for our own. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Dec 18 2006, 03:07 PM Post #45 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
You're right people ain't perfect. Just look at the story about Jephthah. Couldn't one of those angels been hot-shotted down to earth to barter a reprieve for his little daughter? |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 18 2006, 03:43 PM Post #46 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Indeed, why not? Why couldn't angels have ushered all the innocents out of the World Trade Center, or the Pentagon? Why couldn't angels have kept all the innocents from boarding United 93? Why couldn't angels have kept those climbers off of Mt. Hood, or little children out of the hands of molesters? Because in most cases, that's not the way God allows our broken world to operate. Why? Ask Job. Other than the rather clinical, abstract answer that God does as God wills, and that we can at best only grasp a portion of it (which I nonetheless believe), the only other answer I've ever had to this question is that God has so desired us to be able to experience love - which is only truly possible with the existence of freedom - that, measured against eternity, it is worth a cost that can be absurd, or even hideous. Of course, there's this, too. There's no particular evidence to support (in fact, there are many scriptural examples that would contradict) the idea that God would expect such a sacrifice to be offered by Jephthah. The mere fact that a person in the Bible does something certainly doesn't mean that God requires, or even approves of, the person's actions. This is true of both those considered devout or otherwise. The significance of a story often points in another direction. I think that it was fitting to God that this story become an archetype, a marker in the conciousness of the ancient Israelites that pointed toward the idea of a father sacrificing his only begotten, the great sorrow on the part of both father and child, at the same time as the willingness of the child to accept the situation in order to fulfill what was seen as a higher good. Many would argue that this is a scenario that was repeated in another, even more expensive and tragic scale; and one which the people could then, with at least some parallel, reflect on and relate back to the account of Jephthah and his daughter. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Dec 18 2006, 04:06 PM Post #47 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Dewey, what I want to know is how many Episcopalian churchs/members and how many of other mainline denominations will be leaving (putting themselves up for adoption by churches in Africa...?) and what are the larger implications of this (if there are any). My understanding (and it's not much) is that it will end up being a small number. I've read 9%. If you have any comments about this I'd like to hear them. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| OperaTenor | Dec 18 2006, 04:09 PM Post #48 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
If this is any indication, in the San diego diocese, 8 out of 53 parish churches have split off over this. Oh yeah, and yesterday someone set an arson fire in the basement of the cathedral during Sunday morning services. Fortunately no one was hurt and damage was minimal. There is no indication it had anything to do with the controversy. So far...
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Dec 18 2006, 04:11 PM Post #49 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
We dealt with theodicy last week. No sense rehashing it again.
Fufill a higher good? Interesting, though I'll hold my comment for now.. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 18 2006, 04:15 PM Post #50 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Actually I would suggest considerably less, or not at all. In 2000 years even the Catholic Church has never stated that any one person was in mortal sin. All we can do is look at objective actions, and make some cursory evaluations regarding potential culpability. I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to know oneself objectively -- no one has an Archimedean vantage to see themself -- let alone others. "Know thyself" is a worthy if impossible goal. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |






I'd enjoy listening to him. He'd probably need a different sort of hat, wouldn't he?




11:33 AM Jul 11