Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 11
Woman denied Communion because she's a lesbian
Topic Started: Mar 1 2012, 08:38 AM (4,046 Views)
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

You'd have to show me that passage


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 12:50 PM
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 09:22 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:53 AM
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 07:49 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:32 AM
You have a deficient understanding of omniscience that is predicated on both chronology and the types of things that we as humans can know.
Since you're presumably human, so do you.
That is not a necessary nor even reasonable presumption. My understanding is of omniscience is not predicated on chronology, nor on the types of things that we as humans can know, but rather on what it would mean to know "essence".
It's still just stuff you're making up as you go along. Nobody can truly understand omniscience who is human, since they don't have direct experience of what it really means. It's effectively an asymptote of knowledge, and as such outside our realm of understanding.
You should talk to Ax about that, since he seems convinced that omniscience and free will are incompatible. If he no direct experience of what omniscience really means, then he cannot state definitively that it precludes free will.
Why? Can you show that experiential knowledge is necessary to make the statement I made?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Mar 2 2012, 01:43 PM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 12:50 PM
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 09:22 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:53 AM
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 07:49 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:32 AM
You have a deficient understanding of omniscience that is predicated on both chronology and the types of things that we as humans can know.
Since you're presumably human, so do you.
That is not a necessary nor even reasonable presumption. My understanding is of omniscience is not predicated on chronology, nor on the types of things that we as humans can know, but rather on what it would mean to know "essence".
It's still just stuff you're making up as you go along. Nobody can truly understand omniscience who is human, since they don't have direct experience of what it really means. It's effectively an asymptote of knowledge, and as such outside our realm of understanding.
You should talk to Ax about that, since he seems convinced that omniscience and free will are incompatible. If he no direct experience of what omniscience really means, then he cannot state definitively that it precludes free will.
Why? Can you show that experiential knowledge is necessary to make the statement I made?
I assume you're addressing that to Mr D'Oh, since he's the one who pointed out that problem.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 01:20 PM
Speaking as someone who has come closer to omniscience than almost anyone I know (I live with her), I find it highly unlikely that Ax will be able to shed any light on the subject.
D'Ohmniscience is born. One small step for lamb, one giant leap for humorkind.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Mar 2 2012, 01:34 PM
Quote:
 

You'd have to show me that passage


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
I don't think that Plato's theory of forms and ideas obviously translates into the metaphysics of accidents and essences. What are you basing that interpretation upon?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Mar 2 2012, 10:44 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:53 AM
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 07:52 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:29 AM
So Dewey -- on what grounds if any is someone subject to excommunication from your congregation? Only public apostasy?

Say Dr X, an abortionist who you know also occasionally beats his wife, shows up drunk to your service and approaches the table. You remind of the injunction in 1 Cor 11, but he insists: "Just give me the *(&^%$^& Jesus cookie".

Do you communicate him? He obviously believes in some respect that is the Body of Christ... Are you not also a sort of "guardian" of communion?
Cut to the chase already - would you give communion to Hitler?
He's dead, in case you missed the news.
That reminds me ...
If there are "posthumous baptisms," why not "posthumous communion"?
For orthodox Christians there are no posthumous baptisms -- that's a Mormon thing.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:29 AM
Dewey
Mar 1 2012, 07:35 PM
This woman would have received the Lord's Supper in my tradition. We believe that the sacrament is open to any baptized believer, flawed and imperfect, and even if they carry some doubts - "all those who trust in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," as I say at the beginning of the sacrament. We believe that the sacrament should be entered into prayerfully and with seriousness, but ultimately, only the person himself or herself my determine, consistent with their own conscience, whether they should participate in the meal or not - the minister will not stop someone from participating.
So Dewey -- on what grounds if any is someone subject to excommunication from your congregation? Only public apostasy?

Say Dr X, an abortionist who you know also occasionally beats his wife, shows up drunk to your service and approaches the table. You remind of the injunction in 1 Cor 11, but he insists: "Just give me the *(&^%$^& Jesus cookie".

Do you communicate him? He obviously believes in some respect that is the Body of Christ... Are you not also a sort of "guardian" of communion?
In past centuries and decades, we Presbyterians were known to excommunicate people. In fact, I'm sitting in my church office right now, right next to a file cabinet housing the Session records dating all the way back to the congregation's founding in 1851. They're great reading; in the early days, more than half of what the Session did was to review allegations of church members who allegedly had violated some stance that the church saw as immoral and a sign of spiritual flaw. Many of these records dealt with members who were witnessed attending holiday parties at the Suchandsuch home, or playing cards, or even, God forbid, dancing. The accounts of the proceedings are fun to go through from time to time, if for no other reason than to see just how subjective what we often think is an "objective" understanding of the faith, really is.

But you'd be hard pressed to find an excommunication in our tradition these days. In fact, you won't even find the word in the regulatory half of our Constitution, the "Book of Order." It is our belief that any baptized believer is welcome to participate in the sacrament. To be perfectly honest, many Presbyterian ministers would not even hold to that stipulation, since it is part of our theology that a person is reconciled with God through Christ, through faith, even before the actual time of baptism, and the sacrament is for all of God's people. It has been a tenet of the Reformed tradition since its beginning that there are the "visible church," which is the group of people and the physical institution that we can see; as well as the "invisible Church" - that is, those who are truly part of God's covenant people, who have been reconciled with God through Christ. That, by definition, includes some, but not all, of the members of the "visible church," and some who are not members of any church - and who may even profess no belief in Christ, or God, at all, but who God has, in a way even unrecognized by the person him/herself, sealed them as God's own. This is part of the Reformed understanding of Jesus' Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds, Matthew 13:24-30:

He put before them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he replied, ‘No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

In other words, we really don't know who is, and who is not, actually part of the "true" - i.e., "invisible" church. Many who appear to be God's people actually aren't, and many who may not appear to be, actually are. And it is not our place to put ourselves in the place of God, thinking that we have sufficient knowledge to sort out the wheat from the weeds. Not only do we not have sufficient knowledge to do so, in trying to do so we could very easily create enough trouble through our bumbling that other, true members of the invisible church may be hurt by our sinful assumption that others are not worthy of being considered part of God's people.

Rather than believing that we are "guardians" of the sacrament, given the task of keeping it, and the grace that it is a sign and seal of, away from people in order to preserve the sanctity of the sacrament, we see things quite differently. We are not there to rule people out of the sacrament, but rather to welcome them into it as much as is possible. Do do otherwise would make us obstacles to God's work and bestowing of grace. Rather, we give instruction to those present that they are to examine their own hearts, and only to participate in the meal if they - in their conscience, not mine - desire such communion.

In short, our denominational standard would be, if you have been baptized and can profess that "Jesus is Lord," you are not only eligible, but welcome to the table in our tradition. We do not demand absolute doctrinal agreement with every official position of the denomination. We don't care if you think that certain portions of traditional doctrine are bollocks. It doesn't matter what specifics you believe about the bread and the cup, or what is transpiring within the sacrament. It doesn't matter if you hold doubts or are not even a particularly strong believer, unable to avoid some sins that others can avoid without a second thought. It doesn't matter what you've done in your past. It doesn't matter who you share your bed with. If, in your own heart and consistent with your own conscience, you believe that you trust Jesus as your Lord, you are welcome to the Table. We will not be a stumbling block to anyone who wishes to come to the table, seeking God's love and grace. To do otherwise, in our opinion, puts us in opposition to, rather than in service to, God.

So to answer your hypothetical: Dr. X would be perfectly welcome to participate in the sacrament, provided that his drunkenness was not causing him to be disruptive in the service itself. If he were being disruptive, he would be escorted to the door, but he would not otherwise be ineligible for the sacrament. Neither the fact that he was an abortionist, nor that he was a spouse abuser, nor that he was an alcoholic, would disqualify him from the sacrament. If anything, we would consider him more in need of the sacrament, and therefore just as welcome to the table, as anyone else. Jesus was often criticized for sitting at table with the people who were considered the dregs of his society. He didn't demand that they stop their sinful ways before he agreed to come to the table with them, in order to touch their hearts and lives. We feel that this is an appropriate model for the Lord's Table, and the sacrament, now as well.

"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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somebody else's sock
Middle Aged Carp
Thank you for your very thoughtful response, Dewey. I just want you to know it means a lot to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Copper
Mar 2 2012, 08:42 AM
Has anyone not criticized the priest's refusal?
I haven't.

The woman knew the sort of people she was associating with when she walked through the door.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
:lol:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Steve Miller
Mar 2 2012, 06:59 PM
Copper
Mar 2 2012, 08:42 AM
Has anyone not criticized the priest's refusal?
I haven't.

The woman knew the sort of people she was associating with when she walked through the door.
Indeed she did -- in fact the whole thing looks like it was a set up and she might have even lied about the actual facts of the event.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Oh, so the Catholic church does not discriminate and does give communion to gays and lesbians?

That's the fact that matters.

Denying a sacrament sends a message to ALL members that gays are inferior.
This influences how straight Catholics vote on issues like gay marriage.
This denies civil rights to non-Catholics.

That's why this is not limited to what happens to members in the privacy of their own church.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I don't think the real issue in question is the volume with which she was denied communion by the priest.
"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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Excuse me, but when did the every-blue-moon buttwarmers out in the pews dictate what the Roman Catholic Church does and does not?

If they require Confession and Absolution before Communion, that's just the way it is and you know the rules going in.

If you don't like it, go elsewhere. That's why there are churches, mosques and synagogues all over town.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Give it a rest, Kenny. It's tired and hypocritical. You want your rights while steadfastly denying others theirs.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Jolly
Mar 3 2012, 05:59 AM
If they require Confession and Absolution before Communion, that's just the way it is and you know the rules going in.
Like I said, it beats me why people would attend a church that treats them like second class citizens.

Incidentally, the voices in my head who I believe to be Jesus told me to provide his thoughts on the matter - he said 'just role the rock back, OK?'
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Mar 3 2012, 07:17 AM
Like I said, it beats me why people would attend a church that treats them like second class citizens.


She may be doing what Rosa Parks did, which generates media attention.

This will spread the word about what's going on in there.
This puts pressure on the church to once again change with the times.

This is how social progress happens.
It's political.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Mar 3 2012, 01:09 AM
I don't think the real issue in question is the volume with which she was denied communion by the priest.
Yes it is -- he made every effort to preserve her dignity and not draw attention to it, presumably so it could be handled pastorally afterward (which is what most priests I know do). She was intent on making a spectacle and deliberately profaning the sacrament -- when he did not afford her that, she went to the press.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
he made every effort to preserve her dignity and not draw attention to it....



from the article: “He put his hand over the body of Christ and looked at me and said, ‘I can’t give you Communion because you live with a woman, and in the eyes of the church, that is a sin,’ ” she recalled Tuesday.

She reacted with stunned silence. Her anger and outrage have now led her and members of her family to demand that Guarnizo be removed from his ministry.

Family members said the priest left the altar while Johnson, 51, was delivering a eulogy and did not attend the burial or find another priest to be there.



Yeah right, he showed a lot of tact and priestly dignity. A real pro.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Renauda
Mar 3 2012, 09:31 AM
Quote:
 
he made every effort to preserve her dignity and not draw attention to it....



from the article: “He put his hand over the body of Christ and looked at me and said, ‘I can’t give you Communion because you live with a woman, and in the eyes of the church, that is a sin,’ ” she recalled Tuesday.

She reacted with stunned silence. Her anger and outrage have now led her and members of her family to demand that Guarnizo be removed from his ministry.

Family members said the priest left the altar while Johnson, 51, was delivering a eulogy and did not attend the burial or find another priest to be there.



Yeah right, he showed a lot of tact and priestly dignity. A real pro.

You evidently have no interest in reading contradicting accounts of the event before making your predictable judgment.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
kenny
Mar 3 2012, 08:45 AM
She may be doing what Rosa Parks did, which generates media attention.

This will spread the word about what's going on in there.

Next thing you know word will get out that most priests are devoting their lives to service.

What's this world coming to?
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Comparing this woman to Rosa Parks. Now I have heard it all.

Rosa Parks stood up for her rights.

Kenny would have us applaud a woman who stood up to deprive others of theirs.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Friday
Senior Carp
I'm really sorry Kenny. I usually stay out of these topics, but the more I looked at your comment about Rosa Parks, the more upset I got.

This is NOT political. This is a belief that millions of people share. For you to want to change an institution that you care nothing about is insulting.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
What if Blacks, or left handed people, or red heads were denied communion?

The message is clear.
Gays are inferior.

That's insulting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
You'll catch your death of cold. Here.

Posted Image
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 11