Gay priests tie the civil knot

[sharkman]

I usually refrain from getting into these discussions because in the end, they really don't help anybody. This type of communication is poorly suited for such discussions in my view. I can't tell if you are goading me or really think what you've put above, for instance.

If you don't want to discuss with me that is fine, but yes I do really think what I wrote.

Edit: The way you used condone above, it seemed like you meant does Jesus say anywhere homosexuality is wrong. But condone doesn't mean that, so I'm confused.

My mistake. I meant to say condemn. Sometimes I get those words confused

So, I guess you have no other response to my latest remarks? I bet I didn't change your mind!

[gc1765]

I usually refrain from getting into these discussions because in the end, they really don't help anybody. This type of communication is poorly suited for such discussions in my view. I can't tell if you are goading me or really think what you've put above, for instance.

If you don't want to discuss with me that is fine, but yes I do really think what I wrote.

Edit: The way you used condone above, it seemed like you meant does Jesus say anywhere homosexuality is wrong. But condone doesn't mean that, so I'm confused.

My mistake. I meant to say condemn. Sometimes I get those words confused

So, I guess you have no other response to my latest remarks? I bet I didn't change your mind!

No, I didn't respond because I didn't think you wanted to discuss it. But since it appears that you do, here it goes:

It does not say God made them homosexuals. It says he gave them up to their vile passions. This means they had developed vile passions and God stopped protecting them from the effects of these passions

Yes, you are right here. I meant to say he let them become homosexuals, not that he made them.

At any rate, you don't seem familar with what is infered with mentioning heathens and tax collectors and what place they had in that society. They were shunned and avoided. I don't know if that means they were put out of the church. Like I said earlier on this point, my memory was a little inaccurate

Well that would appear to contradict what I said earlier, that only God/Jesus can judge what is and what is not a sin. It also says if he sins against you, not if he sins against God.

[betsy]

What about this passage from the New Testament?

Titus 1:10-16

For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision(Jews):

Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Do you believe that?

That quote is from Paul's Letter to Titus. Below is the ENTIRE passage.

"I left you in Crete for you to put in order the things that still needed doing, and to appoint church elders in every town. Remember my instructions: an elder must be without fault; he must have only one wife, and his children must be believers and not have the reputation of being wild and disobedient. For since he is in charge of God's work, the church leader should be without fault. He must not be arrogant or quick tempered, or a drunkard, or violent, or greedy. He must be hospitable and love what is good. He must be self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the message which can be trusted and which agrees with the doctrine. In this way he will be able to encourage other with the true teaching, and also show the error of those who are opposed to it.

For there are many who rebel and deceive others with their nonsense, especially the converts from Judaism. it is necessary to stop their talking, because they are upsetting whole families by teaching what they should not, for the shameful purpose of making money.

It was a Cretan himself, one of their own prophets who said, "Cretans are always liars, wicked beasts, and lazy gluttons." and what he said is true. For this reason you must rebuke them sharply, so that they may have a healthy faith, and no longer hold on to Jewish legends and to human commandments which come from men who have rejected the truth.

Everything is pure to those who are themselves pure; but nothing is pure to those who are defiled and unbelieving, because their minds and conscience had been defiled. they claim that they know God, but their actions deny it. they are hateful and disobedient, not fit to do anything good."

It is interesting to see that the very passage you chose as a sample holds the answer to some of the arguments in this very topic we speak of.

Did you know that and deliberately chose not to include it....or were you distracted that you were not actually aware of its relevance to the topic? If it is the latter, perhaps we should say you were "led" to it by divine providence? Consider it a sign?

I would just like to point out again what I've answered above regarding unruly, vain and deceivers, a description which I think mirrors what those two priests are doing to the church.

"For there are many who rebel and deceive others with their nonsense,..."

I find that the entire passage is really about the conduct of a church leader appointed and ENTRUSTED to spread the words and teachings of Christ. That the Jews were mentioned at all in particular....along with other non-Jews I must add....was just as an example. But the true message is about that of being a true church elder spreading the teachings of Christ.

It does really emphasize in warning of rebellion and of deceiving others.

Anyway, do I believe the whole passage in its entirety?

Yes.

[betsy]

Btw, isn't it that Christianity has nothing much to do with the old testament. It all begins with Christ and His teachings.

[Argus]

Kudos to them for doing what they want, regardless of what anyone else says.

Yes, hopefully we will be able to shift our society to that of Somom and Gomorrah soon.

What righteous priest wouldn't want that?

You mean Sodom and Gomorrah?

Do you honestly believe that God is going to destroy our society because two priests want to get married? Doesn't this go back to the argument that I was having with sharkman that the laws of the Old Testament are apparently irrelevant?

All the laws of the bible are technically irrelevent. That's not the point. Regardless of what you think of it Christianity has frowned on homosexual practices for eons. Too bad, so sad. I'm sure the homosexuals can live with that. The thing which gets me is that people who are practicing homosexuals seem to feel that not only should they be accepted by churches, but they should be respected and made into priests.

I'm not a practicing Catholic, but if I ran into a gay priest I'd ask him just what parts of the bible he did and didn't believe in. Because no matter how you guys pick and choose various references to try and support the view that the bible accepts homosexuals it's overall message is clearly against homosexuality. So for people to want to be Christian priests and take the bible as their sacred text to want to be involved in homosexual sexual acts is just truly bizarre to me. Either you believe in it or you don't. And they obviously don't. So why are they priests anyway? To me, it's like those child molesting priests. Why are you a priest anyway? Because the job pays well and you like rooms with high ceilings? Come on! Go get a job as a pimp or something! By the texts of your religion you're going straight to hell anyway!

[jdobbin]

That quote is from Paul's Letter to Titus. Below is the ENTIRE passage.

"I left you in Crete for you to put in order the things that still needed doing, and to appoint church elders in every town. Remember my instructions: an elder must be without fault; he must have only one wife, and his children must be believers and not have the reputation of being wild and disobedient. For since he is in charge of God's work, the church leader should be without fault. He must not be arrogant or quick tempered, or a drunkard, or violent, or greedy. He must be hospitable and love what is good. He must be self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the message which can be trusted and which agrees with the doctrine. In this way he will be able to encourage other with the true teaching, and also show the error of those who are opposed to it.

For there are many who rebel and deceive others with their nonsense, especially the converts from Judaism. it is necessary to stop their talking, because they are upsetting whole families by teaching what they should not, for the shameful purpose of making money.

It was a Cretan himself, one of their own prophets who said, "Cretans are always liars, wicked beasts, and lazy gluttons." and what he said is true. For this reason you must rebuke them sharply, so that they may have a healthy faith, and no longer hold on to Jewish legends and to human commandments which come from men who have rejected the truth.

Everything is pure to those who are themselves pure; but nothing is pure to those who are defiled and unbelieving, because their minds and conscience had been defiled. they claim that they know God, but their actions deny it. they are hateful and disobedient, not fit to do anything good."

It is interesting to see that the very passage you chose as a sample holds the answer to some of the arguments in this very topic we speak of.

Did you know that and deliberately chose not to include it....or were you distracted that you were not actually aware of its relevance to the topic? If it is the latter, perhaps we should say you were "led" to it by divine providence? Consider it a sign?

I would just like to point out again what I've answered above regarding unruly, vain and deceivers, a description which I think mirrors what those two priests are doing to the church.

"For there are many who rebel and deceive others with their nonsense,..."

I find that the entire passage is really about the conduct of a church leader appointed and ENTRUSTED to spread the words and teachings of Christ. That the Jews were mentioned at all in particular....along with other non-Jews I must add....was just as an example. But the true message is about that of being a true church elder spreading the teachings of Christ.

It does really emphasize in warning of rebellion and of deceiving others.

Anyway, do I believe the whole passage in its entirety?

Yes.

Many Christians still find that the passage smacks of anti-Semtism and don't use it in their churches even if the lesson is about deception and rebellion.

[Charles Anthony]

It will be interesting to see if the Church of England treats them the same as it would treat a heterosexual priest who commits fornication.

That's for the Church to decide.

If the Church of England decides to treat these homosexual priests differently from how they would treat heterosexual priests who commit fornication, I will boldly say that this Church of England is not being fair.

Here's some references on what I was refering to. Matthew 18:15-17 deal with someone who sins in the church. My memory was slightly off as this was concerning sinning in general.

On homosexuality being wrong, Romans 1:26-27 spells out that it's wrong.

Thanks for the references.

Yes! Thanks for the references indeed!!

The first reference doesn't say anything about not being allowed to belong to the church, it just says "treat them as a pagan (or heathen depending on the version) or a tax collector". I imagine that only God could cast the first stone against a pagan or tax collector.

Who cares about gay priests?!? After looking up the full passage myself, I now have more ammunition against taxes and God on my side! Call me a ChristiAnarchist from now on!

All the laws of the bible are technically irrelevent.

I agree, nevertheless. Ho, hum.

[gc1765]

All the laws of the bible are technically irrelevent. That's not the point. Regardless of what you think of it Christianity has frowned on homosexual practices for eons. Too bad, so sad. I'm sure the homosexuals can live with that. The thing which gets me is that people who are practicing homosexuals seem to feel that not only should they be accepted by churches, but they should be respected and made into priests.

I'm not a practicing Catholic, but if I ran into a gay priest I'd ask him just what parts of the bible he did and didn't believe in. Because no matter how you guys pick and choose various references to try and support the view that the bible accepts homosexuals it's overall message is clearly against homosexuality. So for people to want to be Christian priests and take the bible as their sacred text to want to be involved in homosexual sexual acts is just truly bizarre to me. Either you believe in it or you don't. And they obviously don't.

Well that goes back to the point I have been trying to make all along. The bible may say that homosexuality is wrong, and you accuse these priests of picking and choosing what they want to believe in. As you said yourself "either you believe in it or you don't". Well if that's the case, then either you believe "Do not judge others..." (and other similar references) or you don't belive in Christianity at all. So why is it not OK for these priests to ignore the part in the bible about homosexuality, but it's OK for the church and others on this forum to think they can judge these priests and believe they don't belong in the church?

[Charles Anthony]

So why is it not OK for these priests to ignore the part in the bible about homosexuality, but it's OK for the church and others on this forum to think they can judge these priests and believe they don't belong in the church?

Easy: if we accept God's judgment back upon us.

Take a look at the entire passage. I will repeat your quote:

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:1-2

The Church of England (or you or I or anybody in this forum) may choose to judge somebody because we are not afraid of being judged in the same measured way.

[gc1765]

Easy: if we accept God's judgment back upon us.

Take a look at the entire passage. I will repeat your quote:

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:1-2

The Church of England (or you or I or anybody in this forum) may choose to judge somebody because we are not afraid of being judged in the same measured way.

I think Jesus meant that as more of a threat, if you judge others you will be judged (which is a bad thing). Anyways that's just one passage, there are others:

"And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?...You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Matthew 7:3-5

Jesus is saying do not judge others if you are a sinner, because you would be a hypocrite. How many in the church are without sin?

or this;

"3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.

"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

John 8:3-11

Once again only Jesus may judge and condemn, since he is the only one without sin.

or this:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Matthew 5:38-42

or this: "But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,"

[sharkman]

Here is some food for thought. Matthew 7:15-20 tells us to look at the fruit in the lives of leaders and prophets. We are to decide if they are true or false prophets by their fruit. That is a spiritually discerned judgement. It seems there are judgements we are not to make and others we are.

When we punish our children for some wrong doing, is that not a judgement? If someone comes into a church and says God told him that we should give him all our money, are we to give and not judge the fruit in his life and discern whether he's of God or not?

Here's a page that covers these thoughts.

[gc1765]

Here is some food for thought. Matthew 7:15-20 tells us to look at the fruit in the lives of leaders and prophets. We are to decide if they are true or false prophets by their fruit. That is a spiritually discerned judgement. It seems there are judgements we are not to make and others we are.

When we punish our children for some wrong doing, is that not a judgement? If someone comes into a church and says God told him that we should give him all our money, are we to give and not judge the fruit in his life and discern whether he's of God or not?

Here's a page that covers these thoughts.

I'd say your examples are just one more example of contradictions in the bible. That is one more reason for me personally not to take the bible literally word for word, but to only extract out the essential aspects of how to live a decent life, which in my opinion would include do not murder or steal, honour your parents, forgiveness, and at least trying not to judge others as much as possible etc... If two priests want to get married, they have not commited a sin against me, so I personally will not judge them. If you want to judge them that is your perogative.

[sharkman]

I'd say your examples are just one more example of contradictions in the bible. That is one more reason for me personally not to take the bible literally word for word, but to only extract out the essential aspects of how to live a decent life, which in my opinion would include do not murder or steal, honour your parents, forgiveness, and at least trying not to judge others as much as possible etc... If two priests want to get married, they have not commited a sin against me, so I personally will not judge them. If you want to judge them that is your perogative.

If you believe the bible has contraditions, I guess that is your business. To me, either something is right or wrong, even with extenuating circumstances. If someone wrongs someone else even if it's in another country, it's still either right or wrong. What those two priests are doing is wrong. I'm not passing God's judgement on them, I'm just saying they are out of line with God's truth as laid out in the Bible.

[gc1765]

If you believe the bible has contraditions, I guess that is your business. To me, either something is right or wrong, even with extenuating circumstances. If someone wrongs someone else even if it's in another country, it's still either right or wrong. What those two priests are doing is wrong. I'm not passing God's judgement on them, I'm just saying they are out of line with God's truth as laid out in the Bible.

There does appear to be a lot of contradictions in my opinion. Do a google search for "bible contradictions" or something similar, they probably have a more comprehensive list than I could come up with.

[newbie]

The truth of the matter is that Jesus said NOTHING about this topic. If it was that important, or that much of a sin, don't you think he might cover it? I believe Jesus message is/was to love our fellow man/woman. His ministry was about love and forgiveness, not judgement and condemnation: "Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt.22:37-40.

[betsy]

The truth of the matter is that Jesus said NOTHING about this topic. If it was that important, or that much of a sin, don't you think he might cover it? I believe Jesus message is/was to love our fellow man/woman. His ministry was about love and forgiveness, not judgement and condemnation: "Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt.22:37-40.

On the contrary, Jesus DID SAY something about this topic. If it was not that important, then why did he have to say this?

"I left you in Crete for you to put in order the things that still needed doing, and to appoint church elders in every town. Remember my instructions: an elder must be without fault; he must have only one wife, and his children must be believers and not have the reputation of being wild and disobedient. For since he is in charge of God's work, the church leader should be without fault. He must not be arrogant or quick tempered, or a drunkard, or violent, or greedy. He must be hospitable and love what is good. He must be self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the message which can be trusted and which agrees with the doctrine. In this way he will be able to encourage other with the true teaching, and also show the error of those who are opposed to it."

Besides, plain common sense dictates why on earth should the church...or any man-made organization for that matter...have someone who do not believe in the doctrine to preach that very doctrine? Will you hire someone to represent you knowing you'd be butting heads every step of the way? Why go through that head-ache?

How effective would that representative be in giving a FULL, UN-EDITED information if he does not agree with some of your important policies? Will the Liberals hire a Conservative PR guy?

And He also talked much of deception by the devil....of preparation and redemption, the way to His Kingdom.

[betsy]

His ministry was about love and forgiveness, not judgement and condemnation: "Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt.22:37-40.

"THou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."

Does that love manifest itself by undermining His teachings...chipping at the rock on which He built His church...causing not only dissension among His followers but also causing confusion in an arrogant attempt to supplant and revise the doctrine?

It is a strange way of showing love. I thought we do not seek to destroy what we profess to love.

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Do we not wish redemption for those we love? Did Christ not instructed to help others see the way to His kingdom. Is not spreading the words of Christ one of the greatest act of love...for the rewards to those who are saved goes way beyond mere material or earthly trinkets?

Anyway, this topic is not really about love and hate.

[gc1765]

On the contrary, Jesus DID SAY something about this topic. If it was not that important, then why did he have to say this?

"I left you in Crete for you to put in order the things that still needed doing, and to appoint church elders in every town. Remember my instructions: an elder must be without fault; he must have only one wife, and his children must be believers and not have the reputation of being wild and disobedient. For since he is in charge of God's work, the church leader should be without fault. He must not be arrogant or quick tempered, or a drunkard, or violent, or greedy. He must be hospitable and love what is good. He must be self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the message which can be trusted and which agrees with the doctrine. In this way he will be able to encourage other with the true teaching, and also show the error of those who are opposed to it."

Where does it say anything about homosexuality here? Aside from saying he must have only one wife, not that he must have a wife, and if that's the case not being married is as much of a sin as homosexuality.

Besides, plain common sense dictates why on earth should the church...or any man-made organization for that matter...have someone who do not believe in the doctrine to preach that very doctrine? Will you hire someone to represent you knowing you'd be butting heads every step of the way? Why go through that head-ache?

How effective would that representative be in giving a FULL, UN-EDITED information if he does not agree with some of your important policies? Will the Liberals hire a Conservative PR guy?

A priest who does not preach turning the other cheek & not judging others is just as guilty as a priest who is a homosexual. In fact, if anything they are more guilty given how much emphasis Jesus put on these two things compared to homosexuality.

[betsy]

On the contrary, Jesus DID SAY something about this topic. If it was not that important, then why did he have to say this?

"I left you in Crete for you to put in order the things that still needed doing, and to appoint church elders in every town. Remember my instructions: an elder must be without fault; he must have only one wife, and his children must be believers and not have the reputation of being wild and disobedient. For since he is in charge of God's work, the church leader should be without fault. He must not be arrogant or quick tempered, or a drunkard, or violent, or greedy. He must be hospitable and love what is good. He must be self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the message which can be trusted and which agrees with the doctrine. In this way he will be able to encourage other with the true teaching, and also show the error of those who are opposed to it."

Where does it say anything about homosexuality here? Aside from saying he must have only one wife, not that he must have a wife, and if that's the case not being married is as much of a sin as homosexuality.

Well, he didn't say..."He must have one SPOUSE."

He didn't say "he must be married." So it is a given that if he is indeed married, he must have only one wife.

[betsy]

A priest who does not preach turning the other cheek & not judging others is just as guilty as a priest who is a homosexual.

Why? Where did you get that?

[betsy]

A priest who does not preach turning the other cheek & not judging others is just as guilty as a priest who is a homosexual. In fact, if anything they are more guilty given how much emphasis Jesus put on these two things compared to homosexuality.

This is what Jesus had said of homosexuality.

"Because men do this, God had given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they themselves are punished as they deserve for their wrongdoing."

Romans 1:26

[betsy]

And here is what He had to say about temptation.

"If anyone should cause one of these little ones to turn away from his faith in me, it would be better for that man to have a large millstone tied round his neck and be thrown into the sea. So if your hand makes you turn away, cut it off! It is better for you to enter life without a hand than to keep both hands and go off to hell, to the fire that never goes out."

Mark 9:42

[BubberMiley]

Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they themselves are punished as they deserve for their wrongdoing."

Romans 1:26

What sort of shameful things do you think he was referring to? I've heard that men in those times would even wash each other's feet! Eeew!

[gc1765]

He didn't say "he must be married." So it is a given that if he is indeed married, he must have only one wife.

No. He said he must have only one wife. Meaning he must not have more than one wife. A homosexual does not have more than one wife, he has zero wives, which is the same number of wives as an unmarried person.

A priest who does not preach turning the other cheek & not judging others is just as guilty as a priest who is a homosexual.

Why? Where did you get that?

From many places in the bible. Do you want the quotes? There are many passages where Jesus talks about turning the other cheek & not judging others. You accuse those two priests of preaching the bible when they don't believe every word of it....I don't see priests advocating forgiveness. After 9/11 how many priests stood up and said "let's turn the other cheek" or "let's love our enemies"? None that I can think of. And why do these priests deserve more condemnation than someone like pat robertson who advocates murder, which definately goes against the bible?

A priest who does not preach turning the other cheek & not judging others is just as guilty as a priest who is a homosexual. In fact, if anything they are more guilty given how much emphasis Jesus put on these two things compared to homosexuality.

This is what Jesus had said of homosexuality.

"Because men do this, God had given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they themselves are punished as they deserve for their wrongdoing."

Romans 1:26

Did Jesus himself say this?

[Shakeyhands]

Not having read through this entire thread, i would just like to add, as a moderately conservative (certainly not one of the new age type waving their arms in the air) Anglican, I couldn't give a rats ass if those two want to be married. And I will add that no one else should either.