"Do you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own, you were bought at a price."

---

This is one of the deepest truths in the Bible.

It is the truth which Eve rejected, and so many since her.

We all, ladies and gentlemen, have been bought at a price - paid for in blood by God and by Christ.

Only fools are so ingrate as to not be thankful and grateful enough to give up their cherished sins...so that that price might not have been paid in vain.

And our bodies (and thoughts) are meant to be beautiful and Godly and pure.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

Unfortunately, ++Akinola is making the basic mistake of assuming that ECUSA, ACoC, and the CoE actually maintain any organizational relationship to Scripture. This has been officially and publicly denied by all three organizations (we can no longer call them churches...), so who is he going to convince? Some of us appreciate the information, but the ones who need to "listen" have long since ceased doing so. Not to ++Akinola, but to their God.

I would remind everybody on this board that this is exactly the problem: if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation 2Cor5:17a

The folks at 815 are claiming that their interpretation is "a new thing," brought about by the Holy Spirit. To 815, sodomy is equivalent to eating shellfish and pork, and that God has spoken to them, as He did to Blessed Peter, in a dream, telling them that a little "nancy's your uncle" is ok.

So let's look at it:

Is equating sodomy to eating shellfish and pork a new thing? Yes. It is. Never before in the history of mankind has this sort of activity been approved.

Did God speak to them in a dream? Who the hell knows? You could say yes, but we already know 815 has lied before, so what would keep them from doing it again? And it doesn't count that the lying was for somebody's own good, because that has always been debatable.

Would God change the physics of reproduction? Einstein didn't think so. Einstein is smarter than everybody at 815 put together.

Is a little "nancy's your uncle" ok. Physical evidence suggests that the "nancy" bits are not only tissue damaging but unhealthy in result as too much of it tends to affect the bladder, pancreas, gallbladder, liver, and stomach from the backup. The "uncle" bits tend to spread diseases such as TB, syphillis, and other STDs due to undue pressure on preventative devices which break about 52% of the time when used in non-vaginal sexual proclivity. As noted before, clinical field research among our closest relative, the Bonobo's Chimp, appears to show that bisexuality is a prime norm and that "homosexuality" is not present, even in obsessive subjects. Other clinical research among humans seems to show that single-sex partnering studies are too small to be conclusive, and what evidence there is can be read either way in EVERY case. Logically, same-sex partnering appears to be a form of arrested development. There is no question, then, as to whether same sex practicies are ok, scientifically. It only remains to be shown just how UN-OK the practice is.

Will all the sodomites go to hell? Why bother? They cause their own hells by tinkering with their tinklers. Seriously, since same-sex proclivity is more of an act of arrested development like sex outside of marriage, then, in and of itself, it is merely tawdry and in trenchant bad taste (did I say that?) Halitosis of the soul, if you will. But obsessive arrested developmental activity of any kind will eventually lead to mental instability. Look at famous gays and their feemail counterparts: they must continually re-initiate themselves politically in order to maintain their delusion. I have been been observing a lesbian couple now for about three years. They recently broke up for no other reason than one partner was sick of the need to reassert her "lesbianess." She told me that it wasn't working because it was stupid. She still liked men. Not two days later the other lesbian told me about the same thing, but from her angle.

So, is it all about politics? Not really. It's all about free will and politics. Nothing curbs free will more than a good political battle. We monkeys love to associate. And nothing is more pleasurable than to groom as a group. If, as arrestedly developed sexual beings, we can groom ourselves into believeing our state of sexual arrest is legitimate, then we can obsess with impunity until we die or go nuts.

But then, what do I know; I'm only a dog.

DTWD

Understanding that our bodies are temples to the Lord was abreakthrough moment for me. Mind you, my temple is in need of repair and maintenance! But deliberately defiling it is something else again.

The more I see of this mess, the more I see what happened to US culture, etc., the more I come to understand that the Puritans were right in one particular area: We and we alone must take personal responsibility and not trust our soul to any other man. If you do, you risk being led astray...

Those who are still here in ECUSA are fighitng behind enemy lines, so to speak, and need this infomration to be effective.

Think of it as a domestic missionary field!

Oh goody. Bible quotes and a wise bishop to interpret them for us. Aren't we fortunate! Dear Peter, I am having trouble with some of what is in the Bible. I know that every word of the Bible is literally true, and God expects us to obey very word. Would you please help with these items? And please, I know there are other wise Bible experts on this site, please feel free to help me as well. Thank you.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obliged to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread. (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Gee, since you put it that way I guess I'll just run out and have anal sex with the first willing male. I was wondering why sex with another man was bad. Steve, thanks for putting me straight (no pun intended). We are all amazed that you can quote Bible verses that have absolutely nothing to do with sexual morality.

Let me see if I got this right. If I go out and touch a dead pig then it is OK for me to go and have anal sex with another man. I was wondering how you and ECUSA could come to these conclusions in such an intelligent way. Isn't this just so amazning? I must be going so that I can stop off at the local gay bar for some action, that is after I go find a dead pig to touch of course, at which time this sex will be OK with God and His Divine Plan. Thanks again for the brilliant insight, you added so much to the debate.


Wherever there is a penis and an anus to be found there you will find Steve also.
John+

Steve,

There is deep and consistent truth in the Bible, from start to finish, about God's sexual and marital morality - and about the meaning and purpose of male and female. It is not hard to discern or understand. It was also modeled and explained perfectly by God's son. It's also obvious from the design of our bodies.

It's only people who do not want to abide by any Godly or biological or natural truth, or who are in love with their sexual sins, who cannot see or understand it.

And yes - there are Levitical rules that we no longer need follow (and the Bible explains why) - but God's basic morality has not ever changed.

You are free, as Father Cochran implies, to try to copulate with any animal, object, or anus you desire.

But don't think that such abuse of your (and anothers') body is condoned by a loving God. It's not.

Don't think you're setting a Godly example for children; you're not.

Don't think you don't anger that loving God when you do that. You do.

Don't think there are no consequences. There are.

Don't think that that is what God wants for you in love; He doesn't.

I say all of this out of love for you. Otherwise, Steve, I wouldn't bother.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

We should at least be grateful that neither frsteve nor kurtthomas has yet responded to Archbishop Akinola with their usual racist comments. Maybe we could start a pool about who will be the first on this thread to be overtly racist, and when.

BTW, Stevie, since you seem to insist on people using your title, don't you owe the same courtesy to the Archbishop?

Charlie+
For the day is coming when they will no longer bear sound doctrine, but will gather around them preachers to tickle their ears. II Timothy 4:3f

Oh please.

What does it mean “there are Scriptures”? Is the plural referring to the Koran, the Talmud and others, besides the Bible? Or is it referring to “certain pieces of Scripture” which, as it seems, Peter goes on to muse about?.

I mean, either “The Scriptures” –every bit and piece of it- are the Word of God to be obeyed to the detail, or they are not. Or is Peter suggesting that only certain parts deserve our attention and fulfilling? Has Peter become a Bible shredding, selective liberal?

Well, yes, that’s all Virtueonline got from Akinola. And a head patting. Not even an interview, David? I mean, isn’t Peter aware of this website being “the voice of orthodox Anglicanism” or something to that effect? Couldn’t he do any better but giving you what, still hot from the –I assume, liberal- Xerox machine he was giving to any breathing creature around?

I am waiting for the next instalment to, finally, find out, say, what does God say about the internet, or cell steam research, the boy scouts, my neighbour’s bad breath, pretzels or these funny spots that the sun has been giving me around the left wrist. I mean, there MUST be something there about all of that!

I would agree wholeheartedly, but still no clue as to where does the homosexual rant fits in. I personally can’t remember the last time Peter gave Virtueonline a similar document in regards to, say, the implications for Peter’s own personal freedom of being driven around in a bullet-proof limousine.

When do we start this holy carnage? I mean, it’s in the Bible and all. Is DV going to provide the weapons, is this a bare-hand thing, or should we just call the cops? 911! There’s a gay couple living down my street!
Oh please. Not Sodom and Gomorrah AGAIN. Aren’t we getting a forecast for the next sulphur rain or anything? Since I am not gay and, as said, there’s a gay couple living down my street (as there’s one living down your own street, dude) don’t I get to know beforehand when to run away? Please?

However, Shepperd comes to mind. Now those were "truly, literal Bible believing thugs", that´s for sure!

When we can call ourselves Christians and twist the Bible to fit our social times.

Where have our values gone?
Just how have people become so swayed that they think they can pick and choose which scripture they can live by and which they don't?

Well, here's my "conservative, Bible thumper" opinion... it's SATAN! That's right, he needs more souls. So he's whispering to ECUSA and other's of the same ilk to "recognize the times" to "get with the program" to "stand with our gay brothers and sisters". Oh yes, he's cunning indeed... and many folks are fooled by this. And, may I remind you these are folks that "supposedly" KNOW scripture, but have no regard for it. Such is this FRSteve as he calls himself.

It is people like frsteve, kurtthomas, and other liberal ECUSA's that have given the word "Espicopal" a tainted name. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU THAT TWISTS SCRIPTURE TO FIT YOUR SINFUL NEEDS! I can only pray that you repent before your death. You are both children of God, and as such He loves you. But you do not recognize the Bible as The Word, this is your downfall.... as was Satan's. Repent now and come back to Jesus... He has room for you in His Loving arms. Please consider these words. God indeed has a better plan for you both instead of following the serpents tongue.

Respectfully submitted and always in His Light.

As usual _steve is just serving up his demented self as if he thinks it's funny. Kool-Aid steve is a living blasphemy who denies the infallible word of God and then wonders why the ECUSA Churches are becoming so empty. Most likely he has never traveled to the far east or Africa to witness the explosive growth of the Christian Church which rejects homo/lesbosex. He probably only sits at home in front of his computer and reads about what is going on. If so, then whatever he says can be discounted as nothing but ramblings of a sociopath. The Holy Spirit can work wonders with him if he lets the Holy Spirit invade him but, gauging from his bloviating that hasn't happened yet.

Oh...Mother Steve...where to begin....

How about the beginning:

a) You can't burn a bull on the altar because you are not of the Aaronic priesthood. And you can only burn a bull on the altar in the Temple in Jerusalem. I don't know if you have noticed lately but the Temple is a wee bit run down lately in Jerusalem.

b) You can't sell your daughter into slavery. That's not what that passage deals with you bone-head. It's about a bondswoman..an arranged marriage...something that goes on all the time around the world and in this county. How much dowry you could get for your daughter would be up to you..."Father"....

c) Unless you're really into kink...I wouldn't expect you to touch your wife during her period. Besides this was speaking of thoses going to the Temple....and it ain't there anymore.

d) Operative words....neighboring nations....ie Pagans! During their defensive battles and the taking of the Promised Land, the Jews acquired some slaves. But there were so many rules about keeping them that not many Jews had them. Besides, it was understood that the Pagans were to be taught God's ways and if they converted would be set free at Jubilee...if not they were deported.....something we should try with revisionist ECUSA priests!

e) Sabbath breaking is not an automatic capital offense. The accused was to be tried in Religious Court under the rules of evidence....much like our "Judeo"-Christian derived court system today.

f) Slurp...HHmmmm..munch....Sorry, don't mean to eat with my mouth full but these crab claws are DELICIOUS! Can't get enough of them since Jesus declared all food to be clean! Besides this has nothing to do with homosexuality being made clean as well by "new" revelation. According to Paul, it's still an abomination in the New Testament as well as the Old.

g) You couldn't approach anyway...you are not of the Aaronic line of priests.

h) No lopping off heads for lopping off hair. This had to do with God's disdain for all things Pagan and this hairstyle was uniquely pagan....the very ones who were trying to destroy God's chosen people.

i) Footballs have been made of cowhide or vinyl butylene rubber for nearly a hundred years. And even if they were still made of pigskin, then feel free to go out about 20 yards and veer left....no danger of sin. Remember...you can't touch a dead pig's CARCASS! Didn't your mother teach you that one you moron?

j) My uncle has a farm......E AY...E AY...Oh. No capital offense here, just a visual picture of God's cautioning His people not to mix with Pagans or bad things would happen. Just look at ECUSA!

SSHHEEESH, Father Steve, I don't know what seminary you went to but it was a complete waste of time and money. On second thought, if it was an ECUSA seminary I imagine you were a straight A student.

Besides, Mother Steve, if you are going to post a smart-assed list of questions like that, make sure they're original. This list has been floating around the web for years.

"I am waiting for the next instalment to, finally, find out, say, what does God say about the internet, or cell steam research, the boy scouts, my neighbour’s bad breath, pretzels or these funny spots that the sun has been giving me around the left wrist. I mean, there MUST be something there about all of that!"

---

Dear telodi,

You have no idea how sad I am for you.

Years ago, in my youth, I was a committed atheist, who saw nothing in or about God in my life, and believed nothing I was told about Him. I thought the Bible was idiocy, and I thought the idea that Christ was truly God's son was insanity.

But the truth was, I was completly blind to something that is invisible, when the heart makes it so. And if something is truly invisible to you, you will, ipso facto, never see it.

And you will, of course, think others are delusional, and hallucinatory, for claiming to see what you do not. And I, just like you, used to scorn those others.

But there is something infintely beautiful and glorious, right in front of you, but it cannot be seen while you are in your present state.

And to get from there to where you can see, you need either some true faith, chosen of your own accord, or you need a drop of the true grace of God. For me, it was the latter, and I thank God every day for opening my scaled over eyes.

For I tell you; I was truly blind, and now I see.

I so much pray that you will be as graced as I was.

God's mercy is great indeed. He even came after a horrific sinner like me, who could not see by myself, who could not understand what the fuss was about sin.

And I'll tell you this: If your eyes are one day opened to what so many others see, you will be bowled over the beauty and wonder of it. It is worth many thousands of times more than the sins which tempt us.

I pray that such may happen, out of love for you.

And I tell you: When it happens, you will know.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

Esso,

The point about saying that Steve is where the penis and anus can be found is that Steve is never bothered with issues of evangelism, the Church growing in far off lands where Christians are overtly persecuted, and so forth. The point is this, you only see him in issues of anal sex.

The other ridiculous part of my earlier post is that Steve makes a point to quote (or reference) the Bible in areas that may not sit well with our 21st century sensibilities. This is standard fare when you can’t argue on merit. Confuse the issue and talk about everything else under the sun except the point being debated. That is why I said Steve had added nothing to the debate. We are not debating the morality or immorality of slavery, various dietary codes, or other codes of holiness for the Ancient Hebrew people. We are talking about the above article in which Abp Akinola discusses Scripture as it pertains to sexual morality. We aren’t talking about telodi’s gay neighbors or mine. As an aside I haven’t asked the sexual preference of my neighbors nor do I pretend to know either if in fact any of my neighbors are homosexual.

The article is not about all Scripture, the article (once again) is about BIBLICAL SEXUAL MORALITY. We do not have the time or space here to do a line by line exegesis of every verse that Steve does not like. It is a petty game designed to muddy the waters. Steve, if you want to contribute then please do so by staying on subject. You could start by explaining why homosexual acts are good and without muttering some words about slavery, shrimp cocktail, and polyester blends. Mark my word Steve will not be unable to put forth any kind of rational argument supporting his view that somehow homosexual acts are godly. Come on Steve can you accept the challenge? Or, is it going to be some other rant that has nothing to do with the subject?

Everyone here will see that Steve cannot stand up to the challenge. My guess that it will be more of the same of his first post or he will not answer. In either case you will see that he is incapable of supporting his view.

John+

"The article is not about all Scripture, the article (once again) is about BIBLICAL SEXUAL MORALITY."

---

You betcha, Father Cochran. That is what it is about. God's sexual morality, like all of His morality, is given to us out of His love, and so that we may be helped in the transformation into Christ-like beings, and so that we may abide by God's love in heaven.

Poor telodi and Steve. Such a gift is in their hands, and they do not understand.

And of course you're right. They cannot argue or debate rationally, because they do not truly understand what the debate is about to begin with.

I do not know how they can be reached. Such is, of course, the tragedy every Christian suffers daily in this world.

With much Christian love,

Esso

Rootbranch,

First word: touché

Second and so forth: I must admit I do not have the patience for such a thoughtful rebuttal. Thanks and God bless.

Esso,

Another great post as always. Thank you for your witness of the Gospel and its life transforming message. How appropriate as we will soon be celebrating our Lord’s own Transfiguration.

John+

frcochran makes a good point - we should challenge steve to "come out" of his skeleton infested closet and give a dissertational defense of homo/lesbosex and why it is godly - I doubt it will happen. Why I doubt??? steve and his leftist minions are like mules - no heritage to be proud of and no hope for posterity, since gays by nature can't procreate by themselves.

I recall a hymn with two lines that go:

He is his own interpreter
And he will make it plain

These perverters of Scripture never met the Interpreter. Very, very sad.

Johannes,

Of course Steve can't. He has already made his statement, and what he did was bring into the debate everything except that which is being debated. My guess is that if he says anything more it will be something like, "Well you know people now think that King David and his buddy Jon boy were homosexual together." Or, some other empty argument.

John+

PS
Neill I can't agree more

Hey RootBranch,

I really envy (I know, I know, I'm not supposed to..) your deep understanding of the Old Testament.

Where did you acquire it? What would you (or others) suggest for me?

Esso

frcochran wrote:
We are all amazed that you can quote Bible verses that have absolutely nothing to do with sexual morality.

Good Father,

Steve demonstrated two things in his post: (1) he can cut and paste tripe that has been around the Internet since Moby Dick was a minnow (give it a rest, Steve; it was lame then and still is); and (2) he continues to show an inability to discern eternal truths from cultural contexts. What makes the latter worse is that he also refuses to look to the faith once delivered to help his thinking get unmuddled. Tis the plight of the revisionists, I'm afraid. Sadly, we are all worse for the wear.

Hopefully DTWD will agree to become his tutor/psychotherapist. I'm told she either cures or devours.

telodi wrote:
I mean, either “The Scriptures” –every bit and piece of it- are the Word of God to be obeyed to the detail, or they are not. Or is Peter suggesting that only certain parts deserve our attention and fulfilling? Has Peter become a Bible shredding, selective liberal?

This from the person who stated elsewhere that mankind has something to offer to the Gospel? You would expect us to take anything you say about scripture seriously because...?

Why do you bother, telodi? What is your point?

Well, esso, frc, CTsister, RB, et al: looks like ya'll have got this one under control.

- some really good posts.

I thank God that He has blessed me all my life with truly Godly teachers who know, understand, and believe His Word. And are not afraid to teach it, preach it, and now stand and fight for it. (all that and in the D. of FL)

++Akinola is more proof that there are true believers in the communion and God is raising them up for such a time as this!

- MisterT

Hey, esso -

Maybe f_steve would be willing to give you a few lessons on the exegesis of Mosaic Law.

- Apparently he is an expert...

MisterT wrote:
I thank God that He has blessed me all my life with truly Godly teachers who know, understand, and believe His Word. And are not afraid to teach it, preach it, and now stand and fight for it. (all that and in the D. of FL)

You have a good spirit about you, MrT. I appreciate your Christian charity (even if you DID leave me out of your kudos). You bring a level head to the conversation and continue to remind us Whose we are. The latter is very important when dealing with the trolls and legitimate revisionists. Thank you.

BTW, are you still wearing all your bling? I hope not. Way too ostentatious!

Frcochran,

You wound up that vitriolic ranting saying: “Gee, since you put it that way I guess I'll just run out and have anal sex with the first willing male”.

Well, make sure he consents. And also make sure he´s not a minor. Otherwise, you would be a no-good, paedophile, and rapist criminal. Can you be that responsible? Good.


Rootbranch,

Not touching my wife during her menstrual period?

I mean, not having sex with her?

Not even genital sex?

Why?

Besides the apparent fact that you don´t, besides the fact that these same outdates biblical warnings show us that Jews were –some still are- particularly concerned about all things bloody –did you like that burger you just had?- why the heck shouldn´t I?. You think she´s gonna hurt? I mean, it´s not like YOU have to take care of any of the aftermath, dude.

My guess is that you have the right to do whatever you find holy and biblical and everything with your own wife –there are some really juicy Bible verses on that regards, but you seem to know your way around the Bible- but leave us –and our no-problem-with-sex-during-period wifes- alone! (My only wife has no problem whatsoever with that… provided we BOTH look after the proper and necessary arrangements for the occasion).

So I can´t touch a pig´s carcass. What if I work at a slaughter house? Should I use a proxy worker, over my religious fear to be smitten over such HUGE ABOMINATION?

On the issue of being aware of the homosexual orientation of my neighbours… they were introduced to me as a couple, 8 years ago. We still wave at each other when driving by and have shared occasional jokes at yard sales and open air theatre plays.


Esso,

If (if) I was expected to get all emotional about how you have come from being a complete self-centered individual to… whatever you now may be, sorry. Try someone else.

Personally, whether as a child, teenager or young adult, I never dared to hold such definite, ego-filled beliefs about any religious group or doctrine: the way I saw it and -to a large extent, still see it- is that one either participates or doesn’t participate from politics, religion and sex, the three most deceitful and yet fertile areas of the human conscience-at-work.

Until shortly before I approached a minister and asked to be baptised, my main qualm with Christianity was, indeed, the huge gap there seemed –and still seems- to be between words and works. Having come to understand that the Christian faith is all about reconciliation in God, through Christ, in the Spirit, from our constantly self-denied human ambiguity –just because Jesus did just that, over and over again, and, read this, DIED over it- I rose to what God was calling me to do. Step in the water, that is.

You seem to expect and hope that my eyes will, at some point, open to reading a Bible excerpt that calls homosexual sex an abomination, as if it was the final, absolute, exact, timeless and definite word on the subject. However, you seem to purportedly ignore that “part II” of that same excerpt explicitly calls for the termination (i.e. murder) of those involved in such acts. Sorry, I won’t.

You dare to assess what kind of state I presently am. Whoever told you there was such chance for a web coach potato who does not even know where I may come from, in whatever sense. That, esso, is your plain arrogance and self-righteousness at work. You also seem to believe to know what “true faith” is. You seem to believe that your eyes have been opened. As a matter of fact, you seem to believe that you now “see”, that you have been, somehow, graced to a higher degree than I may have been, delivered from being a sinner to now being… what?

Your previous postings, your addictive recurrence to the use of derogatory language when talking about people who don’t even know as such, your constant switching from behaving like a ultra-con fascist to a condescending neo-puritan is nothing I may be willing to believe, not this bit. I mean, for just one classical example in your obsessed taking on this particular issue, when was the last time you posted a self-description as a hetero-vaginal-urine individual? That’s right. Never.

Love knows no boundaries, no limits, no human brokenness. Your signature, which reminds me so much of those ugly, impersonal, neatly printed Christmas cards, is yet another sign that your ego will soon have to take a room somewhere else in town, on account of having filled your entire house AND the basement.

Am I sad for you? Not, actually. You seem to be having a good jolly fun banging the “absolute Bible faithfulness” dead horse, here, while the hungry are STILL at your doorstep. I am rather concerned that you don´t seem to see the difference –nor do the fat, well paid, ego-inflated fanatical global south prelates who prefer to see the thousands die before accepting that the world is not limited to their power-thirst oyster- between… what Bible verses was that again?—Leviticus 18.22, 20.13 AND Matthew 25- between the little ones about whose welfare –or lack of it, for that matter- Jesus DOES talk about, OVER and OVER and the fact that he is not recorded, not once, making ANY allusion to homosexuality or anything remotely familiar with it.

Those are biblical facts, pal, and you should bow your head before that. Or something.


And, finally: Johannes….

Never mind, man. Some people belong inside a bottle, some people don´t.

First off, thanks be to you Father Cochran. I always seem to find the patience needed to unzip a liberal's facade of wit and intellectualism.

Second, to you Esso. Thanks, but I'm no great Torah scholar. But I find the OT ever more interesting and revelatory in my search to know who my Father in Heaven is. (Comes from never knowing my birth father and being a bit estranged from my adoptive father) That's right...Root has 3 daddies! SSSHHHHhhhh....shouldn't say that too loud, Griswold might give me a hug and make me Bishop!


Anyway.....here are some things that help me in my OT quest.

First, go to synagouge.....OK OK.... I'm being a bit cute, but what I mean is go to a Messianic Jewish Congregation sometime. Quite illuminating and interesting also to see the similarities between our liturgies.

Second. Google some Torah studies. You'll find some great Rabbinical studies as well. Just remember to pray for wisdom and understand you will not find the sometimes necessary prophetic linkage to Messiah that is needed for proper OT exegesis in some passages.

Third, while not strictly an OT study guide, "Through New Eyes" by James B. Jordan is second only to the Bible for me as the most influential book I have ever read. It's thesis is firmly rooted in the OT and it will change your outlook on the world forever. You will never....NEVER see the world the same again.

Fourth, also not a strict OT study book, but once again firmly grounded in OT is "The Pre-Wrath Rapture" by Marvin Rosenthal a Messianic Jew. Third most influential book I have ever read. I was a 15 year dyed in the wool Tim LeHaye Left Behinder worshipping in the Church of the Late Great Planet Earth at the feet of Hal Lindsey Pre-Tribber....until the day I read that book 12 years ago. And learned a lot about OT as well.

By the way, I believe that Jordan's "Through New Eyes" is out off print but you can find it for free at
www.freebooks.com/docs/2232_47ehtm

Enjoy!

Fr_Steve, are these serious arguments against the direct authority of Scripture or are you just offering some cheap shots, and will continue to hold your opposition even if every point is resolved?

If you think the mainstream Christian tradition has never successfuly dealt with these points, then we can probably fix things up fairly easily. Most of your points hang on what seems to be little grasp of the Law-Gospel distinctive that occurs in different ways in Christian reading of the Bible. You seem to be offering a very "flat" and woodenly literalistic reading of the Bible

But if you are just offering a list of fairly simplistic rejoiners why not state your real concerns so we can discuss that?

telodi, the first part of your post seems to make this same procrustean bed "all or nothing" error. Again, if it's just ignorance of the last 2000 years of Christian Bible reading practices, please say so and we can try and show how we can take the Bible seriously and base things on particular statements the Bible say without being committed to the Koran et al.


The latter section seems to raise the question of the Bible's inability to speak on topics like the internet or cancer. Again, if that's a real issue, spell it out so we can talk it through properly.

The final section seems to be a concern about the morality of the Bible - whether it teaches evil. Once more with feeling - if that's a real issue, please set up the concern in a way that we can hear it properly, and wrestle with it with some integrity.

At the moment both posts just seem a bit ignorant and simplistic - and as though you are trying out arguments that aren't really the reasons why you are taking the stance you do. From what I've seen of Steve I'm sure that impression is wrong. Why not recast them in a better way?

Well, I never claimed that the Bible is absolutely right and to be vertically obeyed over this, that and that other issue, while this one, that one and that other one issue would require, let us say, the help of the church tradition and, at points, even the use of human reason. The Bible is the Bible is the Bible, and no page, versicle or chapter are marked as "must" while others aren't.

So, do they kill homosexual people, or WHAT? It's there, dude!

On the other hand, are we talking about the same tradition that has been handed down through the ages, so often, by homosexual theologians, lay people and prelates?

The one problem about all this seems to be that, contrary to what other christian families have tried to do -denial and erect huge closets- some anglican provinces are trying to be a bit more honest about the origin, implications and ordering of homosexual orientation. Esso has got some freaky stats on, say, the way the RC church has dealt with it, and still their big enchiladas -both the deceased and the present ones- are quoted around here like, some kind of Church Fathers, or something.

Ummmm...telodi, if you have to put on a raincoat so as not to soil your wahoo what does that say about the act itself. But to each is own.

On the matter of pig carcasses...just plain ol' sanitary concerns now my boy. Back in the OT the restriction was a word picture for the Hebrews....a visual warning through dietary restrictions for them not to defile themselves with Pagans, thus potentially destroying the blood-line which would bring forth the Messiah, not just for them but for the world entire. Even for you. You should appreciate that one time restriction. Of course, it has been abolished now under Christ's own edict.

AHHH! but what about homosexuality and the point that Jesus never said one word about it.

Well telodi....Jesus said nothing about Naziism, Suicide Bombers, internet porn, Paris Hilton or a whole plethora of current and not so current topics. For one thing, it wasn't His purpose to espouse a million and one points of view. Besides there are and were things so obvious they needed no further illumination. Remeber telodi, Christ said that if you knew Him you knew the Father. He said He came to do the Father's will only. It was Christ's Father's will to kill every living thing in Sodom & Gommorrah, many of whom, perhaps most were homosexuals. Christ was right there with the Father. When the Father gave the edict against homosexuality, Christ was right there in approval with the Father.....Remember telodi.....THE TRINITY....GOD IN THREE PERSONS? WHAT ONE DOES THE OTHERS AGREE....WHAT ONE SAYS THE OTHER AGREE.

So Jesus did not have to go over anyting as obvious as homosexuality being an abomination. It was quite obvious the first time the father stated it. But just to make the point, the HOLY SPIRIT guided Paul to reiterate the fact that homosexuality was an abomination.

Sorry, your neighbors wallow in abomination and so do you by your tacit approval.

What Would Jesus Say? Well....read what the Father said.

A friend just dropped by and I'm out of time, but there's a question: "
What Would Jesus Say? Well....read what the Father said."

You mean, the kill-them-homosexuals part? It's just what I've been asking all along!

"So do they kill homosexual people, or WHAT? It's there, dude!

Dude....you still don't get it. WE DON'T LIVE UNDER THE LAW ANYMORE! It is not our place to kill anyone nor is anyone here advocating such action, much less Bishop Ankinola. But you're are absolutely correct, the punishment for homosexuality was death.

Which begs the question why? Because in the act of homosexuality, you create the ultimate symbol of rebellion against God. You say to Him that my pleasure is superior to any design You may have had for these body parts, the highest purpose being to endow us humans with the God like ability to create life from base materials just as God formed us from the earth.

When a man spills his seed into another man's rectum from which his waste comes out, he is telling God, even in his ignorance, that this God like ability to create life is nothing more that sh*t!

You would do well to bone up on your Bible reading telodi. Did you know that the flaming picture of Hell perpetuated through out the ages comes from a real place outside Jerusalem known as Gehenna. In ancient days, the valley outside the city of Jerusalem, known as Gehenna, was the communal trash bin, a 1st century landfill. And to keep all that garbage and refuse from overwhelming the valley, it was set afire. Of course the fire never went out because there was always more garbage to be thrown in to feed the flames. The Bible mentions Gehenna several times and it was translated as Hell in The King James. But Hell is a real place you can visit today in Israel. It was a waste dump. Much like a man' s rectum. And when a man spills his seed there, he is literally sending it to Hell.

Now tell me.....just what do you think God could think of any differently about that act, other than it is an abominiation.

Dude

Also, telodi, do a real study of Leviticus sometime. It will become fairly obvious that most of the crimes or offences that brought on the death penalty or the possibility of the death penalty were cases which involved the destruction of or inhibition of life.

Makes sense though. God could have stopped Creation with the formation of the universe and the planets. But He created life in all its glorious manifestations. The penultimate being Humanity.

Now think about this for a little bit telodi.....capital punishment for the destruction of God's ultimate creation...human life...is understandable. I'm not presuming you support the modern day death penalty, just go along with me here for a sec.

But what about homosexuality? Well, here's a double spit in the eye of God. God created a suitable helper for Adam after Adam had named all of the animals. I'm sure Adam enjoyed the animals company and the animals lived with Adam with no fear. But the animals had something the ulimate creation did not.....a mate, a helper, a companion of like kind. God saw this, sensed this, and thus created Eve. And Eve was not created solely from the earth but from Adam's rib....She was truly like him and of him....a perfect companion.

Perfect being the operative word here. A female... not another male...was the PERFECT companion. Now when a man takes another man's flesh, knowing full well that he will never father a child from that man's butt, he is saying to God, "YOU SCREWED UP....MY PERFECT COMPANION IS MY MALE LOVER! MY ABILITY TO PROCREATE IS MEANINGLESS COMPARED TO MY LUST! **CK YOU, GOD!"

Also too is the inability to create life. The homosexual is telling God this most precious of gifts, the ability to be like you God in the act of creation is nothing compared to my lust for my partner's flesh. If God is Life, then the homosexual in the act of lust is Anti-Life personified.

Remember telodi....there is a reason that although you find homosexuality in nature, they are always a small minority of each species population. Life is all about begetting life. And nature hates death. Which is why the homosexual animal's gene pool never gets refilled....they die out before they get the chance.

God or nature.......the choice is yours to believe....but the answer is the same.

"Jesus DOES talk about, OVER and OVER and the fact that he is not recorded, not once, making ANY allusion to homosexuality or anything remotely familiar with it."

---

Well, telodi, you're just plain and completley wrong on that.

Jesus tells us, in Matthew and Mark, that sexual immorality (porneia) defiles us. That, for him, a devout Jew, and at the same time the Son of God, most certainly included homosexual acts.

Jesus also told us that man and woman were meant to be combined into one new flesh.

God created men and women and their reproductive organs for a loving purpose. As RootBranch said, using them in a perverted and filthy way is like saying F-you, God. That is neither loving God (the prime commandment), nor loving the one who is being sodomized (the second prime commandment).

It's like a kid's taking a new car his parents gave him and then using it in a demolition derby. It's taking something wonderful and precious the parents gave him out of love, and saying, F-you, mom & dad.

That's really bad news, telodi.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Thank you frcochran for helping me focus the argument - not the empty runarounds by _steve.

Pax Christi,

Johannes

"You dare to assess what kind of state I presently am."

---

Yeah, telodi, I do.

Like I said, if you should come to see what you currently cannot, you'll know what I was talking about.

Until that time, you won't, and you obviously don't.

I hope you do one day.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

P.S. You've used about every insult for me one can think of. Maybe another two or three paragraphs of that spew will make you feel better. Go ahead, the therapy's free. Anything I can do to help I do gladly.

"Enjoy!"

---

Thanks RootBranch. I will take your advice, and I will.

Best,

Esso

OK telodi - I'll assume this is a response to my asking for a restating of your argument.

Well, I never claimed that the Bible is absolutely right and to be vertically obeyed over this, that and that other issue, while this one, that one and that other one issue would require, let us say, the help of the church tradition and, at points, even the use of human reason. The Bible is the Bible is the Bible, and no page, versicle or chapter are marked as "must" while others aren't.

So, do they kill homosexual people, or WHAT? It's there, dude!

I would suggest that few people think that reason, tradition, and experience help us understand some parts of the Bible but not others. Usually people either say that we don't use them to understand the Bible at all (a wrong position in my view) or that we use them to understand the Bible in all places (the historic Anglican understanding of the quadrilateral in my view).

What historically is rejected is that reason, tradition, or experience can give us things that we need to know for salvation or to live a God-pleasing life, or that they can in any way overturn what Scripture says.

Having said that, the NT seems to indicate two things about the OT law.
1. That the OT law says something of abiding validity (Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount makes a number of points explicitly and implicitly on these lines).
2. That the OT law doesn't apply to Christians in the same way that it did for Israel.

The position you are critiquing that people look to the law to see what is wrong and right, but then don't follow the commands to kill offenders is grounded in the way the NT treats the OT. A number of moral arguments are made on the basis of the OT law, but capital punishment within the church is never argued for.

So, my question telodi is, do you think that Jesus and the apostles are guilty of this kind of double-think that you are accusing people of? And if not, why not?

On the other hand, are we talking about the same tradition that has been handed down through the ages, so often, by homosexual theologians, lay people and prelates?

The one problem about all this seems to be that, contrary to what other christian families have tried to do -denial and erect huge closets- some anglican provinces are trying to be a bit more honest about the origin, implications and ordering of homosexual orientation. Esso has got some freaky stats on, say, the way the RC church has dealt with it, and still their big enchiladas -both the deceased and the present ones- are quoted around here like, some kind of Church Fathers, or something.

Yes we are talking about the same tradition. It has also been handed down by murderers, blasphemers, unbelievers, liars, etc. Unless you are a Donatist telodi then the fact that homosexuals have been part of the history of the Church is no more an argument that that is acceptable behaviour for a Christian then the fact that every other kind of moral behaviour can be found in the church's history.

Do you think God only includes good people in the church?

Honesty about homosexual orientation is a good thing. You might need to give me some content about what is included under your term 'honesty' before I can meaningfuly interact with it. I mean, I can hardly defend a lack of honesty, can I? But that begs the question as to what those terms mean...

telodi - I pity you. You presume I'm an alcoholic. If I was, I wouldn't care to post anything. You don't even have the courtesy to prove to this list why homo/lesbosex is godly. Therefore YOU are a living fraud. You care for nobody but your egomaniacal little self. Homosex/lesbosex is love of self, ergo egomania. What's the point you are trying to make? You are only fooling yourself with your rants about Archbishop Akinola.
Your problem is with God, not with this list, but then again, you don't care - egomaniac. You have not won over anyone - you're to busy wallowing in your own prevarication and preeminence. You say you care for the afflicted? By your screeds you are only afflicting the already afflicted, but then again you don't care. Therefore thou art lying to thyself, then again, you don't care. When are you going to stop lying to yourself??? Do you care??? Methinks not. Your bloviating is just digging a deeper hole but, again, you don't care. You have wasted tons of bandwidth vomiting your displeasure of the finality of Gods Law as given in Holy Scripture but you don't care. What's the point you are making? How have we humans made better the Kingdom of God? Humans have not, but you don't care. God doesn't need us. He could snuff us out while we sleep and we wouldn't know about it, but you don't care. God Wants Us, but you don't care, otherwise we wouldn't be having this fruitless conversation. Then again, you don't care. You have shown yourself to be an agnostic not in need of God.

Levor,

“I would suggest that few people think that reason, tradition, and experience help us understand some parts of the Bible but not others. Usually people either say that we don't use them to understand the Bible at all (a wrong position in my view) or that we use them to understand the Bible in all places (the historic Anglican understanding of the quadrilateral in my view). What historically is rejected is that reason, tradition, or experience can give us things that we need to know for salvation or to live a God-pleasing life, or that they can in any way overturn what Scripture says”.

Here we would have to get down to “what Scripture says”. Or, what´s the same, who´s reading. To you, it may well look like some portions throw a very sharp light on a certain thing, to the Church Fathers –with allegory coming out of their ears- quite another thing, and, to me, quite another. But what I certainly don´t do is to pretend carrying on a life supposedly subjected in its entirety to the biblical demands –whatever the subject may be- because that is, ultimately, impossible.

I see the Bible as a situational-received witness of what God has worked through history in the long pilgrimage of the human race in the context of God’s creation, and how to pursue that pilgrimage with the highest conscience of our common humanity and, thus, changeability. What was ok at a certain point along that pilgrimage –slavery, women subjection to husbands, cosmological views and others- is not any longer, and the other way around. One requires a fresh, open, self-aware approach to, maybe, understand that, for example, washing people’s feet at the mall is not exactly what Jesus was looking forward to when convincing his disciples to allow him to do just that for them.

However, at times we are awaken by the sudden realization that, while we may be jealous observers of certain threads in that scripture-tradition-reason-experience witness, others, sadly and embarrassingly, we leave to their own devices. I do have to go back to Matthew 25 because, even though Jesus´ teaching abounds in parables and commandments about our duties towards the little ones, still there was a need to underline that, in certain cases, the little ones were to be put first. And the sad truth is that we don´t. And if we don´t try really, really hard –the evidence tells us that we don´t- to put the little ones first, it feels a little strange that we should turn to such difficult exegetical manoeuvres –as the present thread shows- to understand that, indeed, A and B are clearly forbidden in this, that and that other Bible text, while the hungry, sick and imprisoned are so clearly pointed out to as the first and foremost recipient of our Christian zeal.

“Having said that, the NT seems to indicate two things about the OT law. 1. That the OT law says something of abiding validity (Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount makes a number of points explicitly and implicitly on these lines). 2. That the OT law doesn't apply to Christians in the same way that it did for Israel.”

For me, the OT says something valid whenever it tickles what is repeated, once and again, in the witness we´ve received about Jesus teachings and works and we don´t want to and won´t talk nor do a thing about or, at least, certainly not enough. While those who struggle with scriptures in order to understand what Christ-like way ahead there may be to go on with the mission of reconciling the world –not its morals, language, fashions, or news flashes, but its hunger, its homelessness, its brokenness that slaves humans and creation alike- with God, in Christ, through the Spirit, are labelled as either communists, radicals and lefties –see the infamous “episcobable” section to the right of the window- those who sit on what they claim to be eternal truths about “moral” values and behaviours are, for some strange reason, saluted as “orthodox” and “Bible believing”.

“The position you are critiquing that people look to the law to see what is wrong and right, but then don't follow the commands to kill offenders is grounded in the way the NT treats the OT. A number of moral arguments are made on the basis of the OT law, but capital punishment within the church is never argued for.”

Since we are talking tradition (religious executions performed by romans and protestans alike), experience (if you are USA based, chances are that you will sit in a death sentence –not capital punishment, but death sentence- debating jury), reason (all the “good” arguments death sentence supporters usually hoist) and .. scripture!, sending a fellow human being to induced death may just do do trick. So don´t go too far believing that death sentencing is never argued for within the church. At least, there are only a incredibly small number of protesters who tend to show up on the eve of executions to prove otherwise.

”So, my question telodi is, do you think that Jesus and the apostles are guilty of this kind of double-think that you are accusing people of? And if not, why not?”

Jesus and the apostles, I believe, were too busy trying to make sense of what the Messiah was all about, what the Reign of God was all about, what Jesus´ death was all about. Their problems with OT laws and narratives come up now and then in the Gospel, and it was always a “what now” situation, and not a pre-fixed course of action or thought.

“Yes we are talking about the same tradition. It has also been handed down by murderers, blasphemers, unbelievers, liars, etc. Unless you are a Donatist telodi then the fact that homosexuals have been part of the history of the Church is no more an argument that that is acceptable behaviour for a Christian then the fact that every other kind of moral behaviour can be found in the church's history. Do you think God only includes good people in the church?”

Our differing point here would be, I don´t see homosexual people (not rapists, manipulators, deceivers, cheaters, all of which we can also find among the hetero crowd, but homosexual people who find that they do live out their sexuality, and not only their sexual urges, in the context of a same-sex union) as criminals. I just don´t because what they do –reread the above- is participate from a mutually consented union.

Homosexual people have been part of the Church for ages and we are still trying to find out, and we have since before the whole Robinson affair came to light, how much damage they brought along. The fact that Robinson himself was elected by a diocese where he had worked for 20 years should throw a bit of light on that one.

Personally, I don´t think God includes anyone in the Church. The same way I don´t think God "includes" anyone in the path of a tsunami, or a serial killer, for that matter. The church is an earthly vessel and to claim that its membership roll is somehow controlled by the Almighty is, for me, ridiculous. I mean, I am a church member, for heaven´s sake.

“Honesty about homosexual orientation is a good thing. You might need to give me some content about what is included under your term 'honesty' before I can meaningfuly interact with it. I mean, I can hardly defend a lack of honesty, can I? But that begs the question as to what those terms mean...”

I suggested asking Esso about some figures of sexual abuse among the romans. Although I would not doubt that many of those involved were not into niceties such as “long standing, commited” relationships, the fact that the roman church would not even bother to discuss the fact of the high numbers of homosexuals among its clergy, worldwide, should have some responsibility in the sad events we have come to learn about during the last 20 years.


Esso,

“Well, telodi, you're just plain and completley wrong on that. Jesus tells us, in Matthew and Mark, that sexual immorality (porneia) defiles us. That, for him, a devout Jew, and at the same time the Son of God, most certainly included homosexual acts.”

Was Jesus talking Law, or Heart? Was he pointing out to this particular bit of a scroll, or actually freeing us so we could dare to be honest before God and accept ourselves as who we are, and not only was what society expects us to be, and change and grow according to our neighbour´s well being? Isn´t sexual immorality more related to our manipulation of our humanity and our neighbour's, than to our honest, open, self-acknowledging use of those gifts? Isn’t your “most certainly included” a bit too weak of an evidence as to dare to put the words “homosexuality is evil” sentence in Jesus´ lips? If Jesus was a devout Jew, why didn’t he stone the adulterer woman to death?

”Jesus also told us that man and woman were meant to be combined into one new flesh”.

Now, Paul bothered to offer us a slightly ampler interpretation of just that, quoted by… Akinola himself!: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church.".

Apparently, Paul had a wider imagination in this particular regards.

“God created men and women and their reproductive organs for a loving purpose. As RootBranch said, using them in a perverted and filthy way is like saying F-you, God. That is neither loving God (the prime commandment), nor loving the one who is being sodomized (the second prime commandment).”

We would have to start talking about “actual”, “manual”, “expressly purported” divine creation of human beings. I myself, silly as it may sound, tend to go more in the evolutionary road. Eventually, human beings as we know ourselves came to stage and, were able to discern God´s continuing self-revelation (God´s grace being in that God reveals himself) and, thus, find a place for the “revelationees” in it. Seeing the outcome of the human race performance throughout what we know as history, and assuming that the story of the fall is an afterwards reflection on all of the above, I fail to see the direct connection between what´s between my legs –or my wife´s- and, say, tsunamis –also God´s creation and, still, mightily destructive.

”It's like a kid's taking a new car his parents gave him and then using it in a demolition derby. It's taking something wonderful and precious the parents gave him out of love, and saying, F-you, mom & dad”

I can´t help not being serious here, esso, but that poor kid –that human being- would be saying fuck you, not to his parents, but to himself. The parents, once the car is on high speed around the demolition derby, are waaay out of the question. The problem we are having now is that some homosexual people –see clarification above- are neither saying fuck you god nor using their sexuality in a demolition derby. They are coming to terms with what, who, how they are, they are turning to God and asking for the grace to be respectful, loving, caring and responsible with who, what, how they find themselves to be. The cliché of an homosexual person as immature, irresponsible, lust-filled and in all idiotic is, for better or worse, wearing out. Ask the electing synod delegates from New Hampshire, all of which are not homosexual, stupid or any of that.


Johannes,

Deducing that you have, not a drinking, but a serious drinking problem comes from reading what you spend your time typing about. Usually not about the issue at hand, most of the times hiding in insults from what you won´t bother to even think about, and in all behaving as… well, as someone who has a big drinking problem. Funny that I have not taken a similar view about any other poster around. It may just be that you are yet another e-prophet, but as I don´t see a need for such, the idea that you have a drinking problem keeps coming to mind every time I read your most desperate, inane postings.

(I do believe you should drop the bottle, though).


ps. Why this ultra-negative view about human faeces? Do you really think poo is such a bad thing? Compared to what? Let´s not mix-up aesthetics with ethics or, even worse, morals. Playing games with human faeces is one thing, labelling it as the worst among the worst -or as a symbol thereof- is quite another. (I don’t do either, by the way)

“Well, telodi, you're just plain and completley wrong on that. Jesus tells us, in Matthew and Mark, that sexual immorality (porneia) defiles us. That, for him, a devout Jew, and at the same time the Son of God, most certainly included homosexual acts.”

Was Jesus talking Law, or Heart? Was he pointing out to this particular bit of a scroll, or actually freeing us so we could dare to be honest before God and accept ourselves as who we are, and not only was what society expects us to be, and change and grow according to our neighbour´s well being? Isn´t sexual immorality more related to our manipulation of our humanity and our neighbour's, than to our honest, open, self-acknowledging use of those gifts? Isn’t your “most certainly included” a bit too weak of an evidence as to dare to put the words “homosexuality is evil” sentence in Jesus´ lips? If Jesus was a devout Jew, why didn’t he stone the adulterer woman to death?

----

I'll be glad to answer your questions, telodi.

First, if you really believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - that he is a part of God who came to earth for a short time in actual human form, then you believe precisely what he said (because it is GOD talkin' to you). When he says sexual immorality defiles, then that's GOD talkin' right straight at you. And yes, for Jews, God's people, of which Jesus was one, descendent of David, etc. etc., homosexual acts were and had always been sinful (abominable). The word used in the Bible encapsulates all the different acts which Jews knew to be sinful (homoacts, bestiality, incest, etc. etc.). The fact is, Jesus condemned sexual immorality. Further, a great many of the people closest in time and space to the Son of God condemned sexual immorality, many condemened homosexuality explicitly, many condemned the unchaste, and even the last few lines of the Bible warn against unchastity. I believe those warnings. Indeed, sexual sins are more mentioned in the New Testament than almost any other.

As for the 'use' of those gifts - you use a Godly gift for what it was intended - and it is obvious from the Bible (and from common sense) that it was meant to bind man and woman, and that it is meant to produce new human life. Two homosexual men may feel lust for each other and want to engage in deviant sexual acts - so may an unmarried man and woman - so may a married man with a woman not his wife. Slaking ones lust in those ways are all condemned in the Bible and are not Godly. (And we live in a worldwide sexual holocaust today, precisely because people refuse to listen to God on such.) Millions of homosexuals and non-homosexuals and children die daily from AIDs. All of that is completely unnecessary, and would vanish for simply listening to God. The average homosexual man has multiple venereal diseases and loses twenty to thirty years of his life, simply for refusing to believe God. The truth is, God gives us His morality out of love.

Oh yeah - and Jesus condemned lust as well.

Finally, Jesus was talking law AND heart. Jesus came, in part, to show us that God's law has to be understood in the heart - otherwise you get the Pharisee kind of situation (all law and no heart). But Jesus did NOT suggest that we not be obedient to God. Rather, he required that of us. He came to transform our hearts, while still being faithful and true and obedient to God (just as he himself was).

And yes, Jesus took away the punishment for sexual sin (death), because he himself would bear that death for that sin. But remember, serious unrepented sins, including sexual sin, bring soul death. That has never changed. Jesus came to provide a way for you to repent and be saved. But of course, many fools in this world spit at that gift. That is the way of soul death and hell.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Right on, Father Steve and telodi!! Give 'em a polemical punching out!!

Why don't you damned Akinolaites GET OUT OF OUR CHURCH!!!

"Why this ultra-negative view about human faeces?"

---

As I was saying, telodi, blindness is easy to diagnose.

Here's something you can hold, telodi. All things Godly are beautiful - because beauty comes from God.

Thus - a teenage boy's lying to and using a girl to get sex (even if she wants it) is sinful, and does not come from God, because it is not intrinsically beautiful.

A man's copulating with a man's anus and mixing his life-bearing seed with another man's feces is not beautiful, and therefore not of God. Indeed, a man's enabling another man to abandon his true manhood is harming his neighbor. That is not beautiful or loving. That is sinful and unGodly.

Homosexuals are called, like we all are, to true love (as God perfectly defines it). Using each other in a disordered and filthy way to slake their lusts, and to deny the purpose of their reproductive organs, is not part of that.

Finally, homosexuality is NOT genetically determined, and therefore, it's constant promotion is incredibly harmful to youth, many of whom are drawn into that world - full of AIDs, disease, early death - and away from the true Godliness and goodness of learning to be male or female, and marriage and the begetting of children.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

"Why don't you damned Akinolaites GET OUT OF OUR CHURCH!!!"

More convolution from the Loon Left. As recent actions within the Anglican Communion have clearly demonstrated, it is the intolerant revisionists who should leave Christ's Church...just as the Montanists, Marcionites, Arians, and Donatists have done in ages past when they went off the deep end and refused to hear the words of Christ's compassionate but firm church. Like them, ECUSA will one day be a chapter in a seminarian church history text entitled, "The Demise of ECUSA and their Radical Incusionist Heresy."

"Seeing the outcome of the human race performance throughout what we know as history, and assuming that the story of the fall is an afterwards reflection on all of the above, I fail to see the direct connection between what´s between my legs –or my wife´s- and, say, tsunamis –also God´s creation and, still, mightily destructive."

---

What's between your legs, telodi, is a gift from God, given to you out of love, and with serious rules for its use. Indeed, what is between your legs allows us to engage in the most serious and Godly act that a man can really commit - the creation of another. Used to slake lust selfishly, in a millions other situations, completely spits at what God intends, and only leads to unlove, disease, death and soul death.

Tsunamis are natural events over which you have no control or responsibility. Occasionally, certain natural events are direct acts of God - though we are not given, in most cases, to know which are which.

Essodalori

Kurtthomas: "Why don't you damned Akinolaites GET OUT OF OUR CHURCH!!!"

Because it is not YOUR church, it is Jesus Christ's holy catholic church.

You can go start your own little cult or join one in progress if you want to, but even then He will pursue all in it who have their name written in the Book of Life, because he has promised his love and proven his victory at Calvary.

The notion that it is YOUR church reveals a somewhat immature or idolotrous concept of what the church is.

Jesus came to set us free from such pharisaical teaching.

Akinola, in his godly submission to our Lord, is being used by God in holy pursuit. If you give Jesus your heart, he might use you to do the same.

Stranger things have happened.

As a formerly committed atheist, I had a strange and wonderful thing happen - a personal relationship with the risen Lord. I pray that you too (U2) may know him personally and powerfully. This is his desire too. May His will be done!

In Christ,

SheepFeed

Telodi,

That was certainly a long post and I did read if from end to end. So, please pardon me if it is impossible to respond to every point; however, a couple of points stick out to me the most, and all kidding aside.

First: the “Hooker stool” has changed from three legs to four with the latest addition of “experience” now being thrown in. I don’t have a problem with “experience” as an addition. But, what I do have a problem with is that some legs are now longer than the others. The “stool” allusion is used because of the harmony of the legs and the resulting functionality of the seat. You can’t sit (nor stand) on a stool that has unequal legs. Judging from your post Scripture’s leg is getting shorter and the experience leg is getting longer. The stool is now useless in its current form.

Second: you seem to justify homosexuality in the instance in which two people mutually consent to these acts. That is simply not a reasonable argument. If I consent to commit a crime (say rob a liquor store) I am not viewed as a consenting adult, but rather I am a conspirator. Consent between two people does not make an act holy. God has declared such things unholy in both the OT and the NT, and the issue is settled. No matter how much my wife and I consent to having a sexually open marriage it is still sinful. My “consenting” partner and I don’t make God’s laws, God does.

Finally: I still haven’t heard a single reason why homosexuality is or could be a holy act deigned by God.

John+

PS
Yeah Kurt is delusional in that he believes it is HIS Church.

"Consent between two people does not make an act holy."

---

Father Cochran is right, telodi. But there is more!

Two alcholics can buy each other alcohol, so they can each get smashed. It's perfectly consensual, but they are harming and degrading each other.

A boy can lie to a girl to get sex, and the girl can give him sex in return for his attention. That's consensual - but each has selfish motives.

Two homosexual men selfishly use the bodies of the other, and keep each other in sexual perversion, and away from what sex is for (not to mention damage to the body).

A man can have sex with a horse, and the horse might be willing; that's also consensual.

But if you think the man is doing the horse good, or vice versa, or that promotion or glorification of bestiality is good, then you're wrong.

Remember - Christians have two basic moral rules. The second is to love neighbor as self; and sadly, if two are selfish, two can engage in selfish consensual acts under that rule.

The first is to love God with all heart, soul and mind. Under that rule, selfish consenual acts are out.

Many people accept the Golden Rule in principle, but forget the higher rule higher up. The result - mutual consensual degradation, prostitution, pornography, homoacts, bestiality, etc. etc. and death, disease and soul death.

God (and Christ) know what they are doing. Trust them.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

frcochran wrote:
First: the “Hooker stool” has changed from three legs to four with the latest addition of “experience” now being thrown in. I

This has actually been around in the Methodist church for sometime now where it is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and originates from Albert Outler's brilliant study of Fr. John Wesley (Wesley, you recall, was an Anglican priest). In the Methodist church there is also a broad misunderstanding of what "experience" means. By it, Wesley meant the experience of the church, both past and present, not the everyday experience of the secular world. Wesley believed--as do all good orthodox--that present experience must be informed and guided by the collective experience of the past.

Of course, since the revisionists reject the faith once delivered, they have by de facto, eliminated this fourth leg of experience as a legitimate tool on which to base their arguments. Hence, it is quite disingenuous for them to use a leg they have discarded to defend their innovations. This should surprise none of us who are used to dealing with the revisionists' specious and vacuous arguments. Since they have no truth on which to stand, they must rely on an amalgam of half-truths, omissions, and lies to produce a gospel that is pleasing to them. While orthodox are not immune to this form of blatant idolatry, the arrogance of today's revisionists in embracing their idolatry is breathtaking.

E-prophet you say, telodian? The length of your nonsensical screed tells this list that you are. You are no closer to proving that homo/lesbosex is godly than pigs are going to sprout wings and fly. Your problem is with God, not with anyone else. Your fetish about alcohol is amusing but misguided. Your insistent execrations of Holy Scripture tells me that you had a very bad childhood experience. It wouldn't surprise me if you were sexually abused as a child since that often leads to sexual confusion in later years. There is also the component of not having a biological father in one's life. Lay off the hard-drugs telodian, they're messing your mind up.

Esso,

Let me try to do this in an orderly fashion, or something to a similar effect:

You said

“First, if you really believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - that he is a part of God who came to earth for a short time in actual human form, then you believe precisely what he said (because it is GOD talkin' to you). When he says sexual immorality defiles, then that's GOD talkin' right straight at you. And yes, for Jews, God's people, of which Jesus was one, descendent of David, etc. etc., homosexual acts were and had always been sinful (abominable). The word used in the Bible encapsulates all the different acts which Jews knew to be sinful (homoacts, bestiality, incest, etc. etc.). The fact is, Jesus condemned sexual immorality. Further, a great many of the people closest in time and space to the Son of God condemned sexual immorality, many condemened homosexuality explicitly, many condemned the unchaste, and even the last few lines of the Bible warn against unchastity. I believe those warnings. Indeed, sexual sins are more mentioned in the New Testament than almost any other. As for the 'use' of those gifts - you use a Godly gift for what it was intended - and it is obvious from the Bible (and from common sense) that it was meant to bind man and woman, and that it is meant to produce new human life. Two homosexual men may feel lust for each other and want to engage in deviant sexual acts - so may an unmarried man and woman - so may a married man with a woman not his wife. Slaking ones lust in those ways are all condemned in the Bible and are not Godly. (And we live in a worldwide sexual holocaust today, precisely because people refuse to listen to God on such.) Millions of homosexuals and non-homosexuals and children die daily from AIDs. All of that is completely unnecessary, and would vanish for simply listening to God. The average homosexual man has multiple venereal diseases and loses twenty to thirty years of his life, simply for refusing to believe God. The truth is, God gives us His morality out of love. Oh yeah - and Jesus condemned lust as well. Finally, Jesus was talking law AND heart. Jesus came, in part, to show us that God's law has to be understood in the heart - otherwise you get the Pharisee kind of situation (all law and no heart). But Jesus did NOT suggest that we not be obedient to God. Rather, he required that of us. He came to transform our hearts, while still being faithful and true and obedient to God (just as he himself was). And yes, Jesus took away the punishment for sexual sin (death), because he himself would bear that death for that sin. But remember, serious unrepented sins, including sexual sin, bring soul death. That has never changed. Jesus came to provide a way for you to repent and be saved. But of course, many fools in this world spit at that gift. That is the way of soul death and hell”


Esso, I am marvelled at your zeal in regards to what Jesus (God) is recorded as saying, in the Gospels, specifically the bits about morality and all. However, it would be interesting if you could go on and tell me how much zeal are you currently investing in the “go and sell all your possessions and give the bounty away to the poor” part, among many others in which he clearly teaches that charity and generosity should always precede plain-words-only-morality-face-saving-and-others-judging-crap. Otherwise, you can expect me to respect any religious persuasion you may be from (and rest assured I will) but certainly don’t expect me to acknowledge any kind of consistency therein. And consistency –not religious persuasion- is what led Jesus to the Cross and beyond. Or are you suggesting that his agonizing quoting of Psalm 22 at the cross was a way to make it clear that the prophecy had been fulfilled? Please!!!!

Funny you should mention AIDS. And I dare to say “funny” because, if homosexuality is such an unknown phenomena in Africa, why is that continent housing … what huge percentage is it of the worldwide AIDS infected people is it? Or is it that muslim and traditional religion folks –and, of course, those South African, no-good liberals- are the ones to blame for the literal carnage that AIDS is causing there?

And if AIDS is such a priority for sexuality-“orthodox” folks, how come Akinola and Co are throwing fire on those who´ve been helping many African regions to fight AIDS –including those who elected a homosexual man whom they have known for 20 years as their bishops, as well as those who chose to trust the NH synod´s good judgement in that matter?

On the other hand… I would suspect idolatry is far more alluded to in the Bible as a sin than any sexuality-related issue may be. As a matter of fact, most references to “sexual disorder” seem to be connected to the prevalent belief, at different times in history, that people got their sexual priorities all screwed up before, and not after subduing their faith and religious hopes to what was referred to as idolatric (sp?) cults. Which was a rather sad –and, many times, unsuccessful- way for the Big Enchiladas among the Jews at the time to exert some kind of “denominational control”.

- - -

"Why this ultra-negative view about human faeces?"

“As I was saying, telodi, blindness is easy to diagnose. Here's something you can hold, telodi. All things Godly are beautiful - because beauty comes from God. Thus - a teenage boy's lying to and using a girl to get sex (even if she wants it) is sinful, and does not come from God, because it is not intrinsically beautiful. A man's copulating with a man's anus and mixing his life-bearing seed with another man's feces is not beautiful, and therefore not of God. Indeed, a man's enabling another man to abandon his true manhood is harming his neighbor. That is not beautiful or loving. That is sinful and unGodly. Homosexuals are called, like we all are, to true love (as God perfectly defines it). Using each other in a disordered and filthy way to slake their lusts, and to deny the purpose of their reproductive organs, is not part of that. Finally, homosexuality is NOT genetically determined, and therefore, it's constant promotion is incredibly harmful to youth, many of whom are drawn into that world - full of AIDs, disease, early death - and away from the true Godliness and goodness of learning to be male or female, and marriage and the begetting of children”


I am sorry, Esso, but your tiring, elongated, Purpose-driven-life-sounding-like answer has nothing to do with what you (I believe) were supposedly answering to. Some of your “most inspired” postings are related to showing homosexuality’s inner lack of virtue by its relationship to human faeces. I can perfectly understand if you don’t exactly fancy the idea of a stuffed Mr. Hankey as a Christmas present for either of your kids, but pretending to gain some kind of higher ground over the regular portray of homosexuality as “a shitty subject” is, at most, superficial.

(A google search would provide anyone with tons of enema recipes, which would rule out the faeces issue, but I digress)

There’s also your –in my opinion- narrow view of sexual relationships as genital-related only. When that is taken to the predictable extreme of only sanctioning sexual relationships that are intended to bring about “life”, i.e, a fetus/es, well, I hope your wife is happy with that. One would think, if that’s so –and, reading what you post, I tend to believe that it is so- that you seem to be using all that extra-time before the puter with rather great enthusiasm and zeal.

We would then have to jump to self-satisfaction and, I fear, your low view of such practices, given that they don´t lead towards “the begetting of children”. Then it becomes obvious that we are looking at things from two waaay apart points of views.

What’s between my legs is, the way I see it, the outcome of an extended, complicated process of evolution. God’s love having anything to do with what I inherited from “inferior” animal races truly escapes my intelligence.

And, in regards to using my penis and testicles for anything but “begetting of children” as a sure way to “unlove, disease, death and soul death” is, again, something at which we look at from waaay too different points of view. The one genital-related disease I´ve ever got was an urethra infection, thanks to dunks and dunks of water I drank during a 2 weeks staying in the mountains (it was either risking that, or dehydration, and I´ve been dehydrated before, so thanks, but no thanks… and I had no “magic drops” at the time), and most stats will tell you that a huge percentage of males do suffer from it at some point in our lives.

The way I see it –must be my age, worldview, education, values or somethin´- homosexuality, far from being the problem, is actually one way, among many, in which our potential as human beings is liable to misuse, abuse, denial, power-thirst manipulation and ego-slavery. But so are other ways of sexual relationships, and politics, and religion and, in regards to (bad) religion and (even worse) politics, good ol´ Akinola seems to be giving away a class-A demonstration as we speak.

Now, and let me quote this, “Tsunamis are natural events over which you have no control or responsibility. Occasionally, certain natural events are direct acts of God - though we are not given, in most cases, to know which are which”.

If you are really saying that SOME things are really-God-involved and SOME aren’t, then our points of view are not only faaaar too different. They don’t even play in the same league, so to speak. I should note than, even when you accept that we are not given to know which are which, you certainly seem to know the existence of a difference in regards to God’s involvement therein. Well, that’s a tricky, awful-surprise-parties loving, sometimes-I-do-sometimes-I-don’t, no-good god you’ve got.

Consensual bombing or poisoning is not holy either so, however illuminating you may find that analogy, it´s not so for little ol´ me.

Got work to do. But, please, don’t expect me to go through all of the above AGAIN. To begin with, you and me –and, for what it seems, our respective wives- are looking in two waaaay too different directions as to even pretend there’s any common ground to lift dialogue from. Which is, I would guess, something quite similar to what has just happened in LA. Besides, although using the little English I know can be enlightening at some points, mere fun at others and always educational, in instances like this supposed dialogue –you talk about shit, I talk about human ambiguity- it becomes a tiring, eventually fruitless effort.

Well, telodi in a rare moment of lucidity finally admitting to a tiring, fruitless effort - how candid! Esso doesn't talk about shit. He speaks about the wages of sin is death. Esso has shown time and again that your position does not add up. There is nothing godly about homo/lesbosex and you can't prove to the contrary.

"However, it would be interesting if you could go on and tell me how much zeal are you currently investing in the “go and sell all your possessions and give the bounty away to the poor” part, among many others in which he clearly teaches that charity and generosity should always precede plain-words-only-morality-face-saving-and-others-judging-crap."

---

Well, telodi. I spent two years in a dirt poor village in Africa, where I worked my butt off to help the wonderful people there - and I continue to help them in various ways. I spend a great deal of time on the weekends in charitable works. I have made a fair amount of money since, and I and my wife help a LOT of people with it. We plan to die poor, the way Jesus tells us is best. We live well below our means, and do not use much of our money for ourselves.

You don't hear me talk about that much, because that is not in contention by the leaders of the church.

You hear a lot from me about sexual morality, because that is what our church leaders are plain out lying about.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

"Funny you should mention AIDS. And I dare to say “funny” because, if homosexuality is such an unknown phenomena in Africa, why is that continent housing … what huge percentage is it of the worldwide AIDS infected people is it? Or is it that muslim and traditional religion folks –and, of course, those South African, no-good liberals- are the ones to blame for the literal carnage that AIDS is causing there?"

---

AIDs is primarily homosexual in America and primarily normal-sex related in Africa. It has hit the African continent hard, because, like homosexuals in America, a lot of people in Africa are greatly promiscuous.

Following God's loving morlality would stop AIDs in its track. Indeed, that the only thing that will work (other than a cure); condoms do not.

No one need get AIDs. People get AIDs, for the most part, by engaging in immoral acts. That's the truth.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Let me preface this with this is not a pile-on telodi kind of moment. But, I agree with Johannes and esso that telodi is not proving that homosexual acts are godly. In fact telodi is going back to my original complaint I had with Steve's post which is clouding the issue by getting off subject with long protracted rants that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Sexual Morality.

I am truly interested in what telodi has to say, so, I would request that telodi state his position again with regards to "Sexual Morality" and how homosexual acts can be (or are) holy acts deigned by God. I don't care about stoning our neighbors for wearing a cotton and polyester blend or for touching dead pigs. I too get very long winded at times, but I would like to read telodi's position in succinct terms and without all the extra trimmings that seem to be (at least in my mind) very ambiguous.

telodi, it is doubtful that you can change my mind, but it is very possible that I might be able to understand why you believe the way you do.

John+

"On the other hand… I would suspect idolatry is far more alluded to in the Bible as a sin than any sexuality-related issue may be."

---

You're part right, telodi. Idolatry is part of the bigger problem.

The desire for sex because it feels good, and divorced from its Godly purpose is but one form of idolatry.

Just look at society today. Illicit sex, by far, is one of its biggest idols.

All that comes from that is death, disease, family breakdown, degradation and soul death.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

"What’s between my legs is, the way I see it, the outcome of an extended, complicated process of evolution. God’s love having anything to do with what I inherited from “inferior” animal races truly escapes my intelligence."

---

You're right, telodi, it does.

I'll be happy to talk to you about God and evolution (and the creation of the universe), if you want.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

"If you are really saying that SOME things are really-God-involved and SOME aren’t, then our points of view are not only faaaar too different."

---

It is self-evident, telodi.

Jesus is a result of God's intervention in this world.

The fact that you got a flat tire this morning is most likely not.

That you may have treated someone in a particular way today is a result of your doing and free will.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

"but pretending to gain some kind of higher ground over the regular portray of homosexuality as “a shitty subject” is, at most, superficial."

---

No, it's the truth. Homosexual acts, for the majority of homosexual males, involves shit, and for a great many, the actual ingestion of shit.

That's pure degradation.

Teaching that such is normal or Godly or good to children is child abuse and millstone territory.

Essodalori

"I talk about human ambiguity..."

---

Humans are ambiguous, telodi. God is not.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

..Consensual bombing or poisoning is not holy either..

How do you know? Did someone tell you this was true? If your knowledge was a priori, who told you it was true? If your knowledge was arrived at by observation, where did you witness these things? And should we have you arrested? If you know this by logic, how could you, since consensual sodomy, bombing, and poisoning as well as non-consensual tsunamis are all involved in destructive activity. Or is it bad to you because it is done to more than one person at a time? Does this mean that it is bad for many but not bad for a few? And does not this make your theology "exceptional?" But exceptionalism of this kind is an a priori concept. So, who told you one action was ok and the other was not - or that they were all of a kind?

Finally, who made you Mr. Webster? I find your definition of sex inaccurate. The only person I know who has defined the act of sex is former president Clinton. He seems to think that "oral" is not sex. Could this also be true of "anal?" If so, then you are wrong. If not, again, WHO told you so?

Señor telodi, you're going to be able to piss off God for only so long with your jejuene treatment of his people. And then, as Sun Tsu might say, He will have the pleasure of watching your efforts float slowly by.

Daisy, the Wonderdog

Kurty wties;""Right on, Father Steve and telodi!! Give 'em a polemical punching out!!

Why don't you damned Akinolaites GET OUT OF OUR CHURCH!!""

And here all along I thought it was Christ's church!

"""Would God change the physics of reproduction? Einstein didn't think so. Einstein is smarter than everybody at 815 put together"""

God will not, but I am sure someone has the idea of either conception in the rectum or a rectal uteribe transplant.

Hey P et DTWD,

Ya know, prezKlinton and his don't ask, don't tell policy really muddied the waters and then seeing him march stiffly into church with Bible in the arm revealed to me that he was a dark horse. The National prayer breakfast in 1994 when Mother Teresa and the klintons plus the gores standing together and Mother Teresa then asking: "What is the greatest threat to world peace?" Abortion!!! Abortion and gay rights was and is the issue du jour for the dems. Ever since that prayer breakfast I have nothing but scorn for the demonicrats and the day they get my vote is the day they pry it out of my cold, dead fingers.

Pax Christi,

Johannes

JRoss, Did you know that telodi, kurty and stevie are but stragglers who have traveled back in time to fight for the sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies. They are truly Left Behind. They cannot and will not prove that homo/lesbosex is godly.

Pax Christi,

Johannes

And what about you, Herr Johannes? Do you travel back in time to your favorite period, when the Reich murdered Jews, Gays, Commies, etc.?

Well, you must certainly have a hero in the new Pope of Rome, his Hitler Youth background and all. If you admire the National Socialists so much...

Stop, Kurt. Have some nobility and honor.

Johannes never condoned anything remotely associated with Jew, gay or gypsy murder (nor would he ever). You know that perfectly well.

Fight like a man, not like a child.

Essodalori

Dear Esso, thanks for holding kurt responsible. I fully expected he would speak some nonsense. He can't help but say careless things since he follows the law of man, not the Law and Gospel of God.

Pax Christi,

Johannes


P.S. I think I hit a nerve that is associated with one's teeth as witnessed by the extreme agony it caused.

Kurt, Do you imply that the Pope is or was a National Socialist? Had that been the case John Paul II would not have entrusted then Cardinal Ratzinger with the enormous responsibility he had, nor would the College of Cardinals have elected him as Pope. I am stunned by your ignorance.

telodi, thanks for the considered response. I'm sure you've had some thoughtful things to say to some other people since you posted this - but I can't take the extra hour or so it would take me to work through that and integrate a response to this. So I'm just going to interact with your response to me.

Here we would have to get down to “what Scripture says”. Or, what´s the same, who´s reading. To you, it may well look like some portions throw a very sharp light on a certain thing, to the Church Fathers –with allegory coming out of their ears- quite another thing, and, to me, quite another. But what I certainly don´t do is to pretend carrying on a life supposedly subjected in its entirety to the biblical demands –whatever the subject may be- because that is, ultimately, impossible.

telodi, we are communicating entirely by the written word. And yet we seem to be able to achieve some basic understanding of each other. It seems to me that your argument here is self-refuting. If it was really so impossible for us to understand something that has been written then why would you write such well argued post to argue that?

Your own practice suggests that the reader is not that determinitive in the practice of reading.

And I'm probably going to need to know why it would be impossible to live my life totally subject to the Bible's commands. I'm trying to do that at the moment and have for the last 17 years or so. What aren't I seeing?

I see the Bible as a situational-received witness of what God has worked through history in the long pilgrimage of the human race in the context of God’s creation, and how to pursue that pilgrimage with the highest conscience of our common humanity and, thus, changeability. What was ok at a certain point along that pilgrimage –slavery, women subjection to husbands, cosmological views and others- is not any longer, and the other way around. One requires a fresh, open, self-aware approach to, maybe, understand that, for example, washing people’s feet at the mall is not exactly what Jesus was looking forward to when convincing his disciples to allow him to do just that for them.

I have always found this quite alarming, maybe you can help me with it. Are you saying that it was good to kill homosexuals at one stage and now is evil? That once racism was right and now it is wrong? How do we find out when the moral parameters change?

If that is the case, then do you think that the Global South are actually articulating the right morality for the church in their part of the world, it is just that a different morality is right for the Global North?

And if so, what happens if a homosexual moves from one part of the world to the other?

Maybe you do the see the Bible as "a situational-received witness of what God has worked through history" - but I'm not sure that that is how the Bible itself encourages you to see it. It isn't really true to the self-testimony of the thing being looked at. And it isn't in line with how the mainstream Christian tradition has seen it either. Why should I trust your vision over that of the Bible itself, or over that of the mainstream tradition?

And the footwashing incident is not that convincing for me. Most moderately intelligent adults can work out the difference between an example that illustrates a principle and a pattern that has to be copied to the letter. It has got nothing at all to do with whether morality changes. If you'd wanted to argue that in Jesus' day we should serve one another, but the human race has changed and now we should prey on one another, that would have been more pertinent to your argument, I think. As it is, you seem to think that Jesus' action enshrines an abiding moral norm that we should still follow.

However, at times we are awaken by the sudden realization that, while we may be jealous observers of certain threads in that scripture-tradition-reason-experience witness, others, sadly and embarrassingly, we leave to their own devices. I do have to go back to Matthew 25 because, even though Jesus´ teaching abounds in parables and commandments about our duties towards the little ones, still there was a need to underline that, in certain cases, the little ones were to be put first. And the sad truth is that we don´t. And if we don´t try really, really hard –the evidence tells us that we don´t- to put the little ones first, it feels a little strange that we should turn to such difficult exegetical manoeuvres –as the present thread shows- to understand that, indeed, A and B are clearly forbidden in this, that and that other Bible text, while the hungry, sick and imprisoned are so clearly pointed out to as the first and foremost recipient of our Christian zeal.

I think there's a good concern here. What I'm not sure is how you can hold this in light of what you've said. You've critiqued the kind of view that you see being held on two points:
1. It looks at only some scriptures and passes over others.
2. It doesn't take into account that morality changes over time.

Why don't these two points apply here? Why is the homosexual material irrelevant, but the concern for little ones not? Why is the concern for little ones still part of human morality?

For me, the OT says something valid whenever it tickles what is repeated, once and again, in the witness we´ve received about Jesus teachings and works and we don´t want to and won´t talk nor do a thing about or, at least, certainly not enough. While those who struggle with scriptures in order to understand what Christ-like way ahead there may be to go on with the mission of reconciling the world –not its morals, language, fashions, or news flashes, but its hunger, its homelessness, its brokenness that slaves humans and creation alike- with God, in Christ, through the Spirit, are labelled as either communists, radicals and lefties –see the infamous “episcobable” section to the right of the window- those who sit on what they claim to be eternal truths about “moral” values and behaviours are, for some strange reason, saluted as “orthodox” and “Bible believing”.

I found it hard to follow you at every point here, so forgive me if I get something wrong. There's a number of points, in no particular order.

1. The "episcobable" section - I don't pretend to be happy with how everyone argues their case. If you see me labelling you or someone unfarily, call me on it. If you see me passing over behaviour in someone with similar views to me that I don't pass over in someone with different views, call me on it.

But there is also a place for all of us to listen to how others ridicule us. I hate it when I'm on the receiving end, it is often unfair. But it often helps us see what others find disreputable about us. While Virtue is being unfair, and I don't defend that, the point he is making is that often liberal God-talk is disingeneous and inflated, that it sounds too much like something out of Yes Minister. Do you think that criticism is completely off base?

2. The terms 'orthodox' and 'Bible believing' aren't that controversial I think. "Orthodox" refers to the mainstream Christian tradition, and particularly the creeds. Orthodox people are people who believe what the Church has historically stood for. "Bible believing" is a recognised way of describing that who hold that they should believe what the Bible teaches and do what it commands. What do you find objectionable in these terms?

3. What seems to be the core of you point - about mission to the world and brokenness, I couldn't quite get. Could you restate it for me?

“The position you are critiquing that people look to the law to see what is wrong and right, but then don't follow the commands to kill offenders is grounded in the way the NT treats the OT. A number of moral arguments are made on the basis of the OT law, but capital punishment within the church is never argued for.”

Since we are talking tradition (religious executions performed by romans and protestans alike), experience (if you are USA based, chances are that you will sit in a death sentence –not capital punishment, but death sentence- debating jury), reason (all the “good” arguments death sentence supporters usually hoist) and .. scripture!, sending a fellow human being to induced death may just do do trick. So don´t go too far believing that death sentencing is never argued for within the church. At least, there are only a incredibly small number of protesters who tend to show up on the eve of executions to prove otherwise.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Historically Christians have generally been in favour of capital punishment. My point is that the NT doesn't teach that that is something that should be done within the Church as a responisbility of Church leaders - and again that has been basically held to ever since. Even in the Middle Ages, usually the Church didn't have direct control over excutions, they were normally carried out by the secular leaders.

So again, I think the NT appeals to the OT for moral right and wrong but doesn't feel bound to apply the attendent penalties. Did you want to contest this or argue that they are being consistent when we aren't?

”So, my question telodi is, do you think that Jesus and the apostles are guilty of this kind of double-think that you are accusing people of? And if not, why not?”

Jesus and the apostles, I believe, were too busy trying to make sense of what the Messiah was all about, what the Reign of God was all about, what Jesus´ death was all about. Their problems with OT laws and narratives come up now and then in the Gospel, and it was always a “what now” situation, and not a pre-fixed course of action or thought.

Again, I think it is hard to read that out of the texts. The texts don't come across as people stumbling around trying to guess at the meaning of things. The texts come across as authorative declarations of the meaning of things and authorative declarations of the implications of that meaning. What evidence are you basing this view of Jesus and the apostles on?

“Yes we are talking about the same tradition. It has also been handed down by murderers, blasphemers, unbelievers, liars, etc. Unless you are a Donatist telodi then the fact that homosexuals have been part of the history of the Church is no more an argument that that is acceptable behaviour for a Christian then the fact that every other kind of moral behaviour can be found in the church's history. Do you think God only includes good people in the church?”

Our differing point here would be, I don´t see homosexual people (not rapists, manipulators, deceivers, cheaters, all of which we can also find among the hetero crowd, but homosexual people who find that they do live out their sexuality, and not only their sexual urges, in the context of a same-sex union) as criminals. I just don´t because what they do –reread the above- is participate from a mutually consented union.

Naughty. My examples were not limited to criminality, but were examples of immorality both criminal and not. Your response that homosexuals aren't criminals is shooting a target I'm not holding up.

I'll restate it again.

You argued:
Homosexuals have been part of the Church that has handed down the tradition to us. Therefore the tradition can't claim that they are in the wrong.

My argument:
Every type of sin has been part of the Church that has handed down the tradition to us. Therefore you are implicitly arguing that the tradition can't call anything sin.

I think your argument removes any issue of right and wrong from Christianity. Just because sinners are in the Church does not mean that Christianity doesn't consider that to be sin.

Homosexual people have been part of the Church for ages and we are still trying to find out, and we have since before the whole Robinson affair came to light, how much damage they brought along. The fact that Robinson himself was elected by a diocese where he had worked for 20 years should throw a bit of light on that one.

Damage is one thing. Right is something else. I suspect that anyone rejected by the Church for being immoral suffers some damage if they continue in that behaviour and remain in the Church. The existence of suffering does not mean that the sufferer is in the right. Does it?

“Honesty about homosexual orientation is a good thing. You might need to give me some content about what is included under your term 'honesty' before I can meaningfuly interact with it. I mean, I can hardly defend a lack of honesty, can I? But that begs the question as to what those terms mean...”

I suggested asking Esso about some figures of sexual abuse among the romans. Although I would not doubt that many of those involved were not into niceties such as “long standing, commited” relationships, the fact that the roman church would not even bother to discuss the fact of the high numbers of homosexuals among its clergy, worldwide, should have some responsibility in the sad events we have come to learn about during the last 20 years.

I'm still not sure I've got your point here, but I'll try. You are pointing out that the Catholic church isn't being honest about the number of homosexual clergy in its ranks. I agree. It is, in my view, an unfortunate tendency that Catholicism has to wrestle with because of its combination of sacramentalism with making eternal life partly depend on our good works.

But I would say that honesty means to be honest that this can't continue and act on the basis of your morality. Don't have openly homosexual clergy. And don't set things up with some kind of gentleman's agreement of 'don't ask, don't tell'. Sure, some people will lie. But run your Church with integrity.

But I suspect that that is not the solution that you think would be 'honest'.

"" Kurt, Do you imply that the Pope is or was a National Socialist? Had that been the case John Paul II would not have entrusted then Cardinal Ratzinger with the enormous responsibility he had, nor would the College of Cardinals have elected him as Pope. I am stunned by your ignorance."""

St. Paul killed Christians at one time, so we should not read him now? ECUSA unaminously rejected the Faith Once Delivered by Christ to the Apostles, so I guess Paul is out. For them at at least. It is not what we did, but what we continue to do that offends our Father. There I go again, Father is not PC.

In regards to the death penalty for sins in the OT including homosexuality.

What always seems to be lost is that the Hebrews agreed in advance to submit themselves to God. They were consenting adults.

Acts 15 demonstrates that that sexual immorality remains as a holdover of a minimum requirement for Christians.

Look, you people, just answer the question.

Um Earth to Telodi, Earth to Telodi, come in please!

NEWS FLASH:

MATTHEW SHEPPERD WAS KILLED IN A DRUG DEAL GONE BAD. MEAN, WICKED HOMOPHOBE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS MURDER.

END NEWS FLASH

Do you copy Telodi? What's the frequency???

Quote:

Glad to see you've overcome that problem, telodi.

Quote:

You've come to the root of the matter, so to speak!

These selfish twerps -- the Revisionists/homosexualists -- do not want the responsibility of raising children. For them, "It's all about me!"

That's it. No room for babies, no room for diaper changes. No room for God. No room for ideas to enter their selfish, self-indulgent skulls.

But look at the bright side: these selfish ones are also not reproducing. In a few short years, their defective DNA will have purged itself from the gene pool. This is a very temporary annoyance for the rest of us.

"What always seems to be lost is that the Hebrews agreed in advance to submit themselves to God. They were consenting adults."

---

Thank you, Time-to-go.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Telodi must have been fun as a college sophomore (ie, smart-dumb). You can imagine the conversations with his own father ... The silly sophomoric arguments and self-justification must have driven them nuts.

Quote:


Dude: first of all, calm youself before you break into hysteria.

Secondly, how, exactly, is this accusastion not an accurate description of YOURSELF???

You seem to be pretty damned righteous and certain that YOU know what "our" faith is all about. So much so that you have spent hours straightening us out of our errors.

Hmmmm.

Must be nice to know everything. Especially when it lets you "do your own thing, man".

Also, nice ad hominem ("couch potato" etc.).

"Also, nice ad hominem ("couch potato" etc.)."

---

A clever and profound attack on telodi's part! (I'm singed, I'm singed...)

Esso

This chain of comments has been very provocative.
I read the posts of telodi. That is, I try to read them and put together some comprehension of what he is saying. He believes in evolution. That much I understand. Does he believe that we are not created? And does he believe that the creation story is a false story made to provide an excuse for the domination by one particular genetic group?
As I have posted elsewhere, if human beings are simply the result of evolution (genetic modification by an unkown force combined with natural selection), we are pretty much free to do what we want. Evolved beings can write (and rewrite) their rules as they evolve. And if we are evolved, it follows that we are continuing to evolve as I write.
I personally have no problem with natural selection. My problem is with genetic modification. Designer-free genetic modification has gotten steadily more difficult to believe in as I have watched time pass. The trapping of photons in chlorophyll? The mechanism is astonishing. It has taken really fast laser pulses to begin to tease out how this happens. It takes TWO photons to generate enough power to accomplish the chemical change of storing energy. And the two photons have to come in with a precisely quantified difference in time. Now my ability to suspend disbelief has snapped. Would not trapping one photon come before trapping two? And trapping one does not provide sufficient energy to shift a molecular bond. No reproductive advantage adheres to trapping one photon. I’m sorry. I am an unbeliever here. I do not believe chlorophyll evolved. I believe it was created.
Have you ever studied the Krebs cycle? Have you ever studied (in detail) the manner in which the genetic material in hemoglobin folds up in a red blood cell? The folding is 3-space folding. A single flaw in the genetic material gives us a sickle-cell disease. Not only do the polymer DNA strands contain genetic blueprints, but they contain them in such a way that the whole thing packs neatly in a 3-dimensional clump. Otherwise cell nuclei would look very odd.
And then there is the coding. It takes a triplet of bases in the DNA strand to code for a single amino acid. And I have seen hints that beginning to read at a different base pair may code for something different. And then there is all the “junk” DNA. A most regrettable term, as all it means is that we don’t know yet what all the other stuff codes for.
So the first question which I would direct to KurtThomas, telodi, and Fr_Steve is one concerning our origin. I would not ask them how they interpret Scripture. I would not ask them about sexual morality. I would not ask if they are baptized, believe in Jesus, celebrate the Eucharist regularly, or tithe. I would not ask if they ever touch pork or have sold all their earthly possessions. I would not ask about their religious experience.
I would ask them, “where do you come from?”
What answer they give will determine whether an intelligent conversation can take place. If they come from accident, then no conversation is possible. There is no good reason to have regard for Abraham, Moses, Jesus, the Church, the Scriptures, or tradition if you are accidental. As Bennison has written, people wrote the Bible, so people can rewrite it as well.
I believe that God created me. I believe that He created me in His image, able to reason, able to love, able to care. I believe that I am no accident. I did not come to this belief by reason. I came to this belief by revelation. It is as if my eyes were opened when they had previously been shut. It was as if I had been in the dark and came into the light. It is in this sense that I understand Jesus as the light of the world. And no person can ever cause this turning-on of the light in another. It is the sovereign Grace of God acting in us. Those granted the gift of saying the words which will help the light to be seen are blessed. Evangelists, we call them.
Unfortunately (for us) the ability to reason includes the ability to reason wrongly. The ability to love includes the ability to withhold love. The ability to care inludes the ability to not care. Freedom comes with a price. Gifts can be misused. So knowledge of good and evil came at a very high price. And the payment for misuse is eternal death.
Jesus taught that the light is turned on in many. See the parable of the sower. But stuff happens; the Gospel light gets squashed out in various ways. You could look it up. And the road to life is hard, and there are few found on it.

It is the same question I would address to Robinson, Spong, Smith, or Bennison. Why do you bother with all of this? If we aren’t created beings, and if there is no Creator calling us to Himself, what’s the point? I know about Chane. He thinks cathedrals are cool, and likes heading worship in a Cathedral. It makes him feel good. I heard him. But I haven’t heard the other people.

It is like trying to explain color to a person born blind.

When I teach math (my calling) I must first determine what my pupil already knows. Otherwise I will be spouting words which will be nonsense to my pupil. I must know where my pupil already is. If my pupil does not understand about numbers being in order on a number line, I must start there. And so on.

So let us try to determine where our posters are from. As the disciples of John said, “where are you staying?”

Well, did anyone notice Telodi spelled backwards is idoleT? Given this insight, and the vast evidence from prior postings, perhaps he is from the planet of "little idolators", or is this too literal a translation?

Mathman, En excellent counter-argument if I may say so, especially when the sheeple exclaim that they "come from accident."

God bless you and yours and the work you do.

Johannes

SheepFeed, one can also rearrange telodi so that one gets "toiled" as in:
He toiled in the fields, broke a serious sweat, but toiled he did, to no avail.

Kurtthomas wrote:
Look, you people, just answer the question.

Kurt,
You keep referring to folks as "you people." What exactly do you mean by that?

.
ELVIS HAS LEFT THE ARGUMENT!

DTWD, doin'the Porky Pig on to the next one..

Thats kurt's communist-leninist-marxist-socialist side shining through

Dear Esso & (Mathman, frcochran,Rootbranch, polyphemos, etc)

I am a newcomer to Virtue Online in terms of this being my first ever post, however, I have been reading almost everyone's post for several months now (6+) and I am of the opinion that you guys with the exception of FrSteve, Kurthomas, Telido and possibly a few others are correct in your assesments of the state of affairs aflicting the Anglican Church of which I am a member in Canada. Truth be told homosexuality can never be proven by liberals in the ECUSA (and Canada) as being God inspired, but some people in ECUSA will continue to believe this to the case to their detriment, and I commend your strong stance on the subject (Homosexuality is wrong). On the topic on Bishop Akinola I have concluded that Telido has not defended his argument properly and parts of it are confusing to say the least. May I suggest that you and like minded others don't pay too much attention to their (liberal posters) points as they are very weak and don't deserve any attention.

God Bless

BHtech

Hey thanks, BHtech - and welcome!

You're completely right about the liberal posters here. But their weak arguments are a good foil against which to keep propounding God's truth.

They tell the same lies over and over and over (like the communists did), and finally, a good many start to believe them.

The job for us is to tell God's truth over and over again - and many will also come to believe.

I think we're in the state of affairs we're in because we all got too lazy and complacent.

The cost of that is (and has been) staggering.

Look forward to more posts from you.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

Welcome aboard BHTech - It is a joy when yet another soul who yearns for the Triune God can feel at home here.

In Xrist,

Johannes

Warm welcomes to you BHTech, eh?

God Bless Canada. And has with the maple tree....a beauty to behold in the fall and sweet to the lips with its sap turned syrup.

And don't get me started on Canadian bacon.... yum!

Just joshin' ....Welcome aboard bro'!

Thank you Esso, Johannes and Rootbranch for your warm welcome(s). I hope I can make a difference in time to come.

God Bless and warmest regards

BHTech

Well, here's my "conservative, Bible thumper" opinion... it's SATAN! That's right, he needs more souls. So he's whispering to ECUSA and other's of the same ilk to "recognize the times" to "get with the program" to "stand with our gay brothers and sisters". Oh yes, he's cunning indeed... and many folks are fooled by this. And, may I remind you these are folks that "supposedly" KNOW scripture, but have no regard for it. Such is this FRSteve as he calls himself.

Amen, CT Sister!

Fiona

MATTHEW SHEPPERD WAS KILLED IN A DRUG DEAL GONE BAD. MEAN, WICKED HOMOPHOBE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS MURDER.

Oh but Joe, it is enough that everyone THOUGHT that he was killed for being a homosexual.

Jennifer Halfbright sitting in for Fiona

Fiona, Little Jeremy Hisinger at the age of 10 was brutally sodomized and then strangled to death by two homos at about the same time Mr. Sheperd was killed. You didn't hear it from the Loon-Left media - one can only wonder why.

Pax,

Johannes

What do I mean by 'you people'? I mean "You Akinolaites", or "You Akinola-symps," etc. That is, those who will (I hope and pray) soon leave the Anglican Communion for "Continuing Land."

Kurt, gotten off our meds have we? It's the Church of Jesus Christ, not the Church of Archbishop Akinola. Akinola is but one of the many leaders in the Living Church who knows that homo/lesbosex is unGodly and will only bring death and destruction to God's people. Come on Kurt, you can do better than that. Let Doctor Jesus invade your heart, soul and mind so that you may be healed of that which so obviously afflicts you.

Pax,

Johannes

Kurtthomas wrote:
What do I mean by 'you people'? I mean "You Akinolaites", or "You Akinola-symps," etc. That is, those who will (I hope and pray) soon leave the Anglican Communion for "Continuing Land."

Kurt,
Thanks for responding. History demonstrates very clearly that those who use "you people" language are those who tend to first segregate then persecute "those people," i.e., their opponents.

Using such language is usually the first step toward depersonalizing and ultimately dehumanizing one's opponents. Doing so makes it easier to persecute/destroy them. What shall we conclude about your consistent use of this language?

BTW, since the revisionists are the innovators, you collectively have chosen to walk apart from the Communion of Saints. We orthodox are not leaving because we have not chosen to impose ungodly and unholy innovations and remain firmly rooted in Christ's church.

Clearly schism is upon us. But let us be clear about this point--the revisionists have chosen to walk apart; hence, they are the ones who have chosen to leave. I think this is a good thing. You have the right to worship/believe as you wish as do we.

As I've stated many times here, I am firmly convinced that the revisionist ECUSA will utimately reap the fruits of its beliefs; God will not be mocked. I am confident in which camp God, through the course of history, will vindicate. You apparently are too. I wish you well in your chosen path, even as I grieve for you (and all who share your beliefs) because your path leads to death and you are apparently too blind to see. That is truly heartbreaking.

But the very best, RootBranch, is Canadian bacon WITH Canadian maple syrup!!!

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Esso, you just described my breakfast - 'tis manna from the Lord's own hand.


Blessings,

Johannes

Little Jeremy Hisinger at the age of 10 was brutally sodomized and then strangled to death by two homos at about the same time Mr. Sheperd was killed. You didn't hear it from the Loon-Left media - one can only wonder why.

Oh Johannes, I heard about that poor child, it's Jennifer Halfbright (distant relative of Kurt Thomas and Fr_Steve) who refuses to acknowledge such stories.

Fiona

Dear Fiona or Jennifer,

They refuse because it so thoroughly indicts them and their cause du jour. Girdle thyself with the Revealed Word and you will always be able to fight off the bad.

With Xristian Love,

Johannes

Father John,

Did you get the email i sent you?

MD

mdimaio,

If you are talking about this Fr. John (there are other priests named John that post here) then I don't know. I have received a few emails from a few posters the last couple of days and just now have I sent my responses. So, if you recieved a reply from me in your inbox then the answer is yes. If not then no.

God bless,
John+