Gay priests tie the civil knot

[betsy]

I'm sure there are some people in the church (including the pope) who advocated forgiveness, just as there are some people who are married to a person of the opposite sex. On the other hand, there are also some people in the church who advocated military action in afgahnistan, just as there are homosexual members of the church. Why do people want to kick the homosexuals out of the church, but not the people who ignore passages in the bible such as "turn the other cheek" etc...

There was an uproar about those Catholic priests who were exposed in the sex scandal. And I think the Catholic Church had spoken of some sort of rehabilitation or therapy.

But I think priests are told to stop what they're doing. Most parishioners would want them taken out of the service.

If it happened to the Catholic Church (these two priest who married from Church of England), I think they will be given the chance to denounce and repent for their sins. The likely scenario would most likely to transfer them to different far-off parishes.

I must insist that the Church is not condemning and judging the persons. What is being judged and condemned is the action.

[betsy]

But let's be practical. I agree with Sharkman. There is no way that I would change my mind and my belief....and I think, so will you. The Chirstian Church is not the only religion that practices some of these so-called "political incorrectness"....and yet, it is blatantly being singled out by liberal thinkers. So there's really no point in going on unless it's just for entertainment purpose

[betsy]

Well I don't know if you are a Christian.

Just because the passages in this book does not agree to the liberal ideas does not mean its teachings and words are not facts. Just because you cannot understand it does not mean it is not true.

Just because something has not been proven does not mean it is not a fact.

And if I am a Christian I'm not allowed to question authority of the "holy" book, or have my own interpretations? Just because you cannot prove anything you say (other than with a book that hasn't been proven) does not make your arguement and more valid or true than what I have to say.You say I can't understand "it." Please start a biblical thread. I'd love to go verse and chapter with you.

I should have said, "just because ONE does not understand it does not mean it is not true."

Whose authority do you question? A Christian accepts the bible as the word of Christ.

[gnam]

Well I don't know if you are a Christian.

Just because the passages in this book does not agree to the liberal ideas does not mean its teachings and words are not facts. Just because you cannot understand it does not mean it is not true.

Just because something has not been proven does not mean it is not a fact.

And if I am a Christian I'm not allowed to question authority of the "holy" book, or have my own interpretations? Just because you cannot prove anything you say (other than with a book that hasn't been proven) does not make your arguement and more valid or true than what I have to say.You say I can't understand "it." Please start a biblical thread. I'd love to go verse and chapter with you.

I should have said, "just because ONE does not understand it does not mean it is not true."

Whose authority do you question? A Christian accepts the bible as the word of Christ.

Really?? Do Christians also accpet the word of the old testament as the word of Christ?? That would be wierd.

[gc1765]

I'm sure there are some people in the church (including the pope) who advocated forgiveness, just as there are some people who are married to a person of the opposite sex. On the other hand, there are also some people in the church who advocated military action in afgahnistan, just as there are homosexual members of the church. Why do people want to kick the homosexuals out of the church, but not the people who ignore passages in the bible such as "turn the other cheek" etc...

There was an uproar about those Catholic priests who were exposed in the sex scandal. And I think the Catholic Church had spoken of some sort of rehabilitation or therapy.

But I think priests are told to stop what they're doing. Most parishioners would want them taken out of the service.

If it happened to the Catholic Church (these two priest who married from Church of England), I think they will be given the chance to denounce and repent for their sins. The likely scenario would most likely to transfer them to different far-off parishes.

Ok so maybe they won't be taken out of the service, but you yourself said that "The Church of England...and all Christian churches under siege, should make a stand". Do you think the church should also make a stand against any priests, bishops etc. who supported military action in afghanistan instead of forgiveness as it clearly states many times in the bible? If not, why?

[betsy]

Ok so maybe they won't be taken out of the service, but you yourself said that "The Church of England...and all Christian churches under siege, should make a stand". Do you think the church should also make a stand against any priests, bishops etc. who supported military action in afghanistan instead of forgiveness as it clearly states many times in the bible? If not, why?

There is difference between the two scenarios. Those who supports military action (and I'm one of them), do so at their own risk of sinning.

The two priests not only take the same risk...but they also wish to force their lifestyle upon the church, knowing full well that it goes against the faith.

That is what I mean by "under sige".

[newbie]

The two priests not only take the same risk...but they also wish to force their lifestyle upon the church, knowing full well that it goes against the faith.

So does sexually abusing little innocent children, but the Bishops just used to move Priests around until they got caught. Yeah, it's a great organization.

[Black Dog]

I have posted straight from the bible. As a Christian it is my belief that those were the words of Jesus.

The book of Romans was written by the Apostle Paul many years after Christ's death. It is his interpretation of Christ's teachings, not the words of Christ himself. the only books of the Bible that contain Christ's teachings are the four Gospels.

[gc1765]

Ok so maybe they won't be taken out of the service, but you yourself said that "The Church of England...and all Christian churches under siege, should make a stand". Do you think the church should also make a stand against any priests, bishops etc. who supported military action in afghanistan instead of forgiveness as it clearly states many times in the bible? If not, why?

There is difference between the two scenarios. Those who supports military action (and I'm one of them), do so at their own risk of sinning.

The two priests not only take the same risk...but they also wish to force their lifestyle upon the church, knowing full well that it goes against the faith.

That is what I mean by "under sige".

How is it that the priests are forcing their lifestyle upon the church, but not those who publicly support military action? In both cases they know full well it goes against the faith.

[betsy]

So does sexually abusing little innocent children, but the Bishops just used to move Priests around until they got caught. Yeah, it's a great organization.

An expose' or internal investigation by the catholic Church (in connection with the numerous scandals that broke out) indicate that there is some form of a clique that had formed among pedophiles. They tend to protect one another. Churches, like all other places that give some form of authority and access to target victims are usually infiltrated by predators. Schools and Daycare Centers are usual choices of employment by pedophiles. Not all priest choose to become priest for the reason of serving God.

As to your criticism for the priest who sexually abused young children...I am among those many who would want to see them de-frocked.

HOWEVER, if I say "de-frock him!" ...that serves as a cue for QC to bash the church for not forgiving and "turning the other cheek!"

And as I had explained in my response to him above, I think the church gives them the chance to denounce their sins, repent and rehabilitate.

BUT as we see now, that doesn't sit well with you.

So between you and qc, I am between a rock and a hard place. The church be damn if they do, and the church be damned if it dont. OF COURSE, only one solution will make both of you happy: accept homosexuality and damn your faith!

Anyway, your sample is still not the same as the scenario of the two priests who got married. For them to be on a similar level with that of your sample....the two priests will have to "un-tie the knot", denounce their sins and adhere to what the church authority would wish for them to do.

[betsy]

How is it that the priests are forcing their lifestyle upon the church, but not those who publicly support military action? In both cases they know full well it goes against the faith.

You know what, your argument comparing it to war actually does not seem to wash well. If I am not mistaken, it is said in the bible that we should follow the leaders of our state. Give me sometime to check it out.

Anyway, I don't think there's any Catholic priest who preached about going to war in the pulpit. I'll bet there's a lot about praying for peace, or praying for those who suffer in the wars etc.., that kind of stuff.

[betsy]

I have posted straight from the bible. As a Christian it is my belief that those were the words of Jesus.

The book of Romans was written by the Apostle Paul many years after Christ's death. It is his interpretation of Christ's teachings, not the words of Christ himself. the only books of the Bible that contain Christ's teachings are the four Gospels.

I'd still believe Paul and would think of it as accurate interpretations. After all, he was one of the Apostles...and all of the Apostles were recruited to spread the words of Christ.

[BubberMiley]

There is difference between the two scenarios. Those who supports military action (and I'm one of them), do so at their own risk of sinning.

The two priests not only take the same risk...but they also wish to force their lifestyle upon the church, knowing full well that it goes against the faith.

That is what I mean by "under sige".

So one can support bombing children, like in Lebanon, at the risk of sinning in the eyes of god, but it's still different because it doesn't involve "forcing your lifestyle upon the church?" Maybe you're kind of forcing your lifestyle on the dead children though.

[newbie]

Anyway, I don't think there's any Catholic priest who preached about going to war in the pulpit. I'll bet there's a lot about praying for peace, or praying for those who suffer in the wars etc.., that kind of stuff.

Interesting. The Pope has spoken out against the war in Iraq, so who do Catholic soldiers follow? Pope is also against Israel in the mideast conflict. Catholics in Isreal: duck and cover.

[betsy]

Anyway, I don't think there's any Catholic priest who preached about going to war in the pulpit. I'll bet there's a lot about praying for peace, or praying for those who suffer in the wars etc.., that kind of stuff.

Interesting. The Pope has spoken out against the war in Iraq, so who do Catholic soldiers follow? Pope is also against Israel in the mideast conflict. Catholics in Isreal: duck and cover.

It is interesting indeed I find....all these covert attempts at condoning and aiding terrorism. I thought you said you know the bible. Romans 13:1-6.

Well, there's no point in arguing about the bible. We'll never see eye-to-eye.

I have fallen into the trap of bible-quoting. I guess one has to be a believer.

[sharkman]

So one can support bombing children, like in Lebanon, at the risk of sinning in the eyes of god, but it's still different because it doesn't involve "forcing your lifestyle upon the church?" Maybe you're kind of forcing your lifestyle on the dead children though.

The Jewish children or the Lebanese children?

[gc1765]

Anyway, I don't think there's any Catholic priest who preached about going to war in the pulpit. I'll bet there's a lot about praying for peace, or praying for those who suffer in the wars etc.., that kind of stuff.

And these gay priests were preaching homosexaulity in the pulpit?

I still don't see the difference.

[BubberMiley]

The Jewish children or the Lebanese children?

Both.

[newbie]

It is interesting indeed I find....all these covert attempts at condoning and aiding terrorism. I thought you said you know the bible. Romans 13:1-6.

So God put Bush in power?? How about Hitler? Saddam? Clinton???

[betsy]

Anyway, I don't think there's any Catholic priest who preached about going to war in the pulpit. I'll bet there's a lot about praying for peace, or praying for those who suffer in the wars etc.., that kind of stuff.

And these gay priests were preaching homosexaulity in the pulpit?

I still don't see the difference.

Their "rebellion" is not about some citizens of countries crying out for help to be saved from slaughter or oppression.

No one is preventing these two priests from having their so-called marriage. They are opportunists in exploiting the media attention which they know they'll get...to apply pressure on the church to change the words of Christ.

Theirs is only about bullying their way in a Church...bullying a congregation to distort and alter their faith....to accept as normal what their God had called UN-NATURAL! They are nothing more than BULLIES!

And you can't sift through that difference?

You've reduced the reasons for those wars to such low pettiness by comparing them to the actions of two petulant individuals not only bent on getting their jollies with the mockery of a so-called marriage to be accepted in Church.....but also to mocking Christ? Wow!

Terrorists are bullies too, btw. So I guess it somehow adds up.

As a parting comment, I'll just refer this link to anyone interested:

"Marcel was struggling with same-sex attraction when he finally decided to take the big step of calling the local gay hotline.

The person who answered the hotline offered to mail some brochures regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality.

But the materials he received offered a whole new way of looking at what those verses said about homosexuality and he began to wonder if what he had always believed might be wrong.

Instead, it offered religious explanations and arguments that sounded very convincing. So convincing, in fact, that young people like Marcel begin to wonder if there is any reason to continue believing what they used to believe.

People who promote gay theology use a number of broader arguments to argue against the traditional view that homosexual behaviour is immoral."

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_interpret.htm

[gc1765]

Their "rebellion" is not about some citizens of countries crying out for help to be saved from slaughter or oppression.

I agree that afghanistan is a good cause, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't contradict the bible. Especially since the reason for the war was to capture bin laden (rather than turning the other cheek). Helping the opressed people was just a fortunate side-effect so to speak.

No one is preventing these two priests from having their so-called marriage. They are opportunists in exploiting the media attention which they know they'll get...to apply pressure on the church to change the words of Christ.

Theirs is only about bullying their way in a Church...bullying a congregation to distort and alter their faith....to accept as normal what their God had called UN-NATURAL! They are nothing more than BULLIES!

And you can't sift through that difference?

Are you honestly suggesting that the ONLY reason they are getting married is to bully the church? That it's not about love, it's about distorting the words of Christ? Where did you get that idea?

You've reduced the reasons for those wars to such low pettiness by comparing them to the actions of two petulant individuals not only bent on getting their jollies with the mockery of a so-called marriage to be accepted in Church.....but also to mocking Christ? Wow!

Terrorists are bullies too, btw. So I guess it somehow adds up.

I support the war in afghanistan, but then again I don't take the bible literally. If I did take every word of the bible literally, there is no way I could support the war. I think the various passages that I have quoted (I could find more if you'd like) make that very clear.

[Black Dog]

I'd still believe Paul and would think of it as accurate interpretations. After all, he was one of the Apostles...and all of the Apostles were recruited to spread the words of Christ.

But Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus and the original 12. In other words, he never met Jesus, but claimed to have seen him in a vision.

[BubberMiley]

Theirs is only about bullying their way in a Church...bullying a congregation to distort and alter their faith....to accept as normal what their God had called UN-NATURAL! They are nothing more than BULLIES!

They've been oppressed by people like you for hundreds of years and been forced to live underground, and they're the bullies? They want to commit to stable relationships and worship in a church, and you're the christian?