OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 09:52:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is the draw of Anglicanism?  (Read 3489 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #90 on: February 22, 2013, 11:27:13 AM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.
I recall with the new regime in NH, the new "bishop" couldn't co-exist with the Traditionalists (i.e., those who take the Bible at its word), and purged parish councils etc. of them.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #91 on: February 22, 2013, 11:29:18 AM »

By Anglicanism are you referring to the Anglican Communion which is the world-wide organization of Churches of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is the First among Equals? or to worship as based on the Book of Common Prayer?  Or is there something else that you are thinking of please?

Well I mean everything all together....Like the history of it.
everything all together....that's about as good a definition as any of "Anglican"
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #92 on: February 23, 2013, 12:16:29 AM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.
I recall with the new regime in NH, the new "bishop" couldn't co-exist with the Traditionalists (i.e., those who take the Bible at its word), and purged parish councils etc. of them.

As a rule the canons do not allow this. About all bishops can do to vestries is keep them from selling the property or hiring a particular priest.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,416



WWW
« Reply #93 on: February 23, 2013, 12:21:18 AM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.
I recall with the new regime in NH, the new "bishop" couldn't co-exist with the Traditionalists (i.e., those who take the Bible at its word), and purged parish councils etc. of them.

As a rule the canons do not allow this. About all bishops can do to vestries is keep them from selling the property or hiring a particular priest.


*sigh* Would that the current leadership of tEc actually followed their canons or constitution.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 12:23:21 AM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #94 on: February 23, 2013, 12:54:45 AM »

Yes, because all doctrine was delivered by the Spirit to the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost and has remained unchanged from that day forth.

Without compelling evidence that it hasn't to think otherwise is baseless. You're left with "Well, it must've" and "I just don't believe it could have" (well, and  "I don't want it to have remained unchanged.") Neither which seems compatible with belief in a higher power, since both rely on the naturalistic idea of impermanence as the one immutable facts of reality, rather then the supernatural graces of God.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 01:02:13 AM by Jason.Wike » Logged
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #95 on: February 27, 2013, 06:08:00 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #96 on: February 27, 2013, 06:09:59 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?
Logged
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #97 on: February 27, 2013, 06:10:07 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


That might be partly my fault. As a former liberal Anglican, nothing sets me off more than hearing about how "loving and open" liberal Anglicans are compared to those close-minded bigots of denomination x.

I have a lot of love for the Anglican history- almost all the BCPs, the KJV, Hooker, C.S Lewis, some of the parishes I first attended after leaving my Southern Baptist childhood, and a large part of me still somewhat wishes that the idea of the via media could be true. But love and openness? I saw very little, and none from the quarters that preach it loudest.

I'm sorry this was your experience. For the record, I wasn't contrasting anyone's love and openness. I've been Orthodox, and they are some of the most loving people I have come across.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #98 on: February 27, 2013, 06:16:14 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?

Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.

To expand on my answer since it looks like I have more time than I thought...

I didn't put up a real theological defense because I don't believe I need to defend myself "against" my brothers and sisters in Christ on doctrine since we both believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc. My answer was honest. I'm a gay (bisexual) woman that's not made to feel disordered in the Episcopal Church, and that someday, my daughter could be a priest. I don't know what you're looking for, but I know for a fact that offline, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Just because most online discussions are highly theological, doesn't mean that everyone has highly theological reasons for joining one Church or another.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #99 on: February 27, 2013, 06:43:50 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?

Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.

To expand on my answer since it looks like I have more time than I thought...

I didn't put up a real theological defense because I don't believe I need to defend myself "against" my brothers and sisters in Christ on doctrine since we both believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc. My answer was honest. I'm a gay (bisexual) woman that's not made to feel disordered in the Episcopal Church, and that someday, my daughter could be a priest. I don't know what you're looking for, but I know for a fact that offline, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Just because most online discussions are highly theological, doesn't mean that everyone has highly theological reasons for joining one Church or another.

Of course I was being facetious.  The way you phrased your response practically begged for it.  My apologies for that.

Now I'll stop being facetious.  I appreciate the candor of your latest response.  It is understandable that you would adhere to a religious institution that has come to affirm your lifestyle.  Your confession of belief in the Trinity and the Virgin Birth is commendable.  Many Episcopalians (including bishops) have come to doubt such core Christian doctrines.  But these doctrines are contained in the very same Scriptures and Church teaching that also declare homosexual actions to be sinful.  How do you reconcile that?
Logged
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #100 on: February 27, 2013, 07:01:06 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?

Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.

To expand on my answer since it looks like I have more time than I thought...

I didn't put up a real theological defense because I don't believe I need to defend myself "against" my brothers and sisters in Christ on doctrine since we both believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc. My answer was honest. I'm a gay (bisexual) woman that's not made to feel disordered in the Episcopal Church, and that someday, my daughter could be a priest. I don't know what you're looking for, but I know for a fact that offline, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Just because most online discussions are highly theological, doesn't mean that everyone has highly theological reasons for joining one Church or another.

Of course I was being facetious.  The way you phrased your response practically begged for it.  My apologies for that.

Now I'll stop being facetious.  I appreciate the candor of your latest response.  It is understandable that you would adhere to a religious institution that has come to affirm your lifestyle.  Your confession of belief in the Trinity and the Virgin Birth is commendable.  Many Episcopalians (including bishops) have come to doubt such core Christian doctrines.  But these doctrines are contained in the very same Scriptures and Church teaching that also declare homosexual actions to be sinful.  How do you reconcile that?

Yeah, sometimes it's hard for me to pick up social cues in real life, let alone online.

I'm just not entirely convinced that a) we have the right translation when it comes to the word "homosexuals" in the Bible and b) whether or not this was more about the abuse of young boys by pedophiles and/or other cultural practices. Not saying homosexuals are pedophiles, of course. I've been meaning to ask my priest about these things though.

And about my lifestyle: I sleep, go to school, go to work, go home, repeat. I wasn't aware I had a lifestyle LOL.

And about the errant bishops, I really don't have to worry about them as long as I know my parish confesses the Nicene Creed. I was Orthodox around the time the Antiochians had that big controversy in Troy, MI. It didn't really effect me on the ground, even being Antiochian.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,394



« Reply #101 on: February 28, 2013, 09:13:10 AM »

Okay, let me re-phrase the question. How can you be Anglican even when you know that it is false and its liberalism is entirely at odds with the Bible, Patristsics and pretty much every Christian source their is? In other words, how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong? That seems very depressing.

First, you have not answered my questions about what personal experience or knowledge you have about Anglicans/Episcopalians.  Could you please tell us this?

Second, as to the above, on what do you base your opinion about what other people know?  How would you know what other people believe?  Has a real Episcopalian told you something along the lines of he/she stays with the Anglican Communion but "knows that it's false"?

Would you possibly think that someone making such a declaration about your beliefs and Church was being presumptuous?

I do not "know that it is false".  I could just reply with: It is not false.  But I will ask what specific things do you presume to think are "false" and/or "wrong" please?  Not being in the same group that you have chosen does not mean that other people are willfully staying with something that you personally think is "wrong". 

With respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,394



« Reply #102 on: February 28, 2013, 09:15:48 AM »

 I am Anglican, but in the U.S. which means that I am an Episcopalian.

There's also ACNA.

I beg your pardon. You are correct that there is ACNA and several other groups.  I was writing in a general sense. 
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #103 on: March 01, 2013, 11:40:29 PM »

Okay, let me re-phrase the question. How can you be Anglican even when you know that it is false and its liberalism is entirely at odds with the Bible, Patristsics and pretty much every Christian source their is? In other words, how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong? That seems very depressing.

First, you have not answered my questions about what personal experience or knowledge you have about Anglicans/Episcopalians.  Could you please tell us this?

Second, as to the above, on what do you base your opinion about what other people know?  How would you know what other people believe?  Has a real Episcopalian told you something along the lines of he/she stays with the Anglican Communion but "knows that it's false"?

Would you possibly think that someone making such a declaration about your beliefs and Church was being presumptuous?

I do not "know that it is false".  I could just reply with: It is not false.  But I will ask what specific things do you presume to think are "false" and/or "wrong" please?  Not being in the same group that you have chosen does not mean that other people are willfully staying with something that you personally think is "wrong".  

With respect,

Ebor

Personally, when I hear (read) questions like "how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong?", I generally think it's best to just smile and not saying anything. (Granted, in this case our Orthodox brother was asking that about you (Anglicans) and not about us (Catholics), so it isn't really any of my business. Smiley)
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 11:41:19 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #104 on: March 01, 2013, 11:50:09 PM »

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

Nice to finally meet you. Cheesy

(Sorry, I realize I'm coming in late on that.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,416



WWW
« Reply #105 on: March 02, 2013, 12:10:45 AM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?

Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.

To expand on my answer since it looks like I have more time than I thought...

I didn't put up a real theological defense because I don't believe I need to defend myself "against" my brothers and sisters in Christ on doctrine since we both believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc. My answer was honest. I'm a gay (bisexual) woman that's not made to feel disordered in the Episcopal Church, and that someday, my daughter could be a priest. I don't know what you're looking for, but I know for a fact that offline, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Just because most online discussions are highly theological, doesn't mean that everyone has highly theological reasons for joining one Church or another.

Of course I was being facetious.  The way you phrased your response practically begged for it.  My apologies for that.

Now I'll stop being facetious.  I appreciate the candor of your latest response.  It is understandable that you would adhere to a religious institution that has come to affirm your lifestyle.  Your confession of belief in the Trinity and the Virgin Birth is commendable.  Many Episcopalians (including bishops) have come to doubt such core Christian doctrines.  But these doctrines are contained in the very same Scriptures and Church teaching that also declare homosexual actions to be sinful.  How do you reconcile that?

Yeah, sometimes it's hard for me to pick up social cues in real life, let alone online.

I'm just not entirely convinced that a) we have the right translation when it comes to the word "homosexuals" in the Bible and b) whether or not this was more about the abuse of young boys by pedophiles and/or other cultural practices. Not saying homosexuals are pedophiles, of course. I've been meaning to ask my priest about these things though.

And about my lifestyle: I sleep, go to school, go to work, go home, repeat. I wasn't aware I had a lifestyle LOL.

And about the errant bishops, I really don't have to worry about them as long as I know my parish confesses the Nicene Creed. I was Orthodox around the time the Antiochians had that big controversy in Troy, MI. It didn't really effect me on the ground, even being Antiochian.

At the risk of being "that guy" Romans 1:26 makes it pretty clear that the type of behavior St Paul found objectionable wasn't limited to NAMBLA. About the only defense any Christian who wants to defend sexual licentiousness and homosexuality has is to claim that the Jewish (and later Christian) restrictions against food and sex had to do with germs and not actual morality, and that our supposedly more sanitary practices and latex means we can do whatever we want.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,394



« Reply #106 on: March 02, 2013, 09:05:46 PM »

Okay, let me re-phrase the question. How can you be Anglican even when you know that it is false and its liberalism is entirely at odds with the Bible, Patristsics and pretty much every Christian source their is? In other words, how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong? That seems very depressing.

First, you have not answered my questions about what personal experience or knowledge you have about Anglicans/Episcopalians.  Could you please tell us this?

Second, as to the above, on what do you base your opinion about what other people know?  How would you know what other people believe?  Has a real Episcopalian told you something along the lines of he/she stays with the Anglican Communion but "knows that it's false"?

Would you possibly think that someone making such a declaration about your beliefs and Church was being presumptuous?

I do not "know that it is false".  I could just reply with: It is not false.  But I will ask what specific things do you presume to think are "false" and/or "wrong" please?  Not being in the same group that you have chosen does not mean that other people are willfully staying with something that you personally think is "wrong".  

With respect,

Ebor

Personally, when I hear (read) questions like "how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong?", I generally think it's best to just smile and not saying anything. (Granted, in this case our Orthodox brother was asking that about you (Anglicans) and not about us (Catholics), so it isn't really any of my business. Smiley)

Well, just smiling and saying nothing is different vis a vis in person or on a forum, maybe.  Smiley 

In this case one might respond to find out what the other person really means and perhaps can correct a misconception or offer some correcting information.
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #107 on: March 04, 2013, 11:48:51 AM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?

Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.

To expand on my answer since it looks like I have more time than I thought...

I didn't put up a real theological defense because I don't believe I need to defend myself "against" my brothers and sisters in Christ on doctrine since we both believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc. My answer was honest. I'm a gay (bisexual) woman that's not made to feel disordered in the Episcopal Church, and that someday, my daughter could be a priest. I don't know what you're looking for, but I know for a fact that offline, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Just because most online discussions are highly theological, doesn't mean that everyone has highly theological reasons for joining one Church or another.

Of course I was being facetious.  The way you phrased your response practically begged for it.  My apologies for that.

Now I'll stop being facetious.  I appreciate the candor of your latest response.  It is understandable that you would adhere to a religious institution that has come to affirm your lifestyle.  Your confession of belief in the Trinity and the Virgin Birth is commendable.  Many Episcopalians (including bishops) have come to doubt such core Christian doctrines.  But these doctrines are contained in the very same Scriptures and Church teaching that also declare homosexual actions to be sinful.  How do you reconcile that?

Yeah, sometimes it's hard for me to pick up social cues in real life, let alone online.

I'm just not entirely convinced that a) we have the right translation when it comes to the word "homosexuals" in the Bible and b) whether or not this was more about the abuse of young boys by pedophiles and/or other cultural practices. Not saying homosexuals are pedophiles, of course. I've been meaning to ask my priest about these things though.

And about my lifestyle: I sleep, go to school, go to work, go home, repeat. I wasn't aware I had a lifestyle LOL.

And about the errant bishops, I really don't have to worry about them as long as I know my parish confesses the Nicene Creed. I was Orthodox around the time the Antiochians had that big controversy in Troy, MI. It didn't really effect me on the ground, even being Antiochian.

At the risk of being "that guy" Romans 1:26 makes it pretty clear that the type of behavior St Paul found objectionable wasn't limited to NAMBLA. About the only defense any Christian who wants to defend sexual licentiousness and homosexuality has is to claim that the Jewish (and later Christian) restrictions against food and sex had to do with germs and not actual morality, and that our supposedly more sanitary practices and latex means we can do whatever we want.

And here I find that argument silly, considering sex isn't "dirty". Messy doesn't always mean "dirty".

And the cultural and Biblical context of Romans 1:26-27 is important to keep in mind. There is more than one interpretation of this. In context, I'd say that St. Paul is talking about temple prostitution not faithful homosexual relationships.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #108 on: March 04, 2013, 11:46:46 PM »

   I'm interested in Anglicanism and seriously considering it, and I live in a relatively conservative Episcopal diocese (Central Florida).  I was an Orthodox catechumen at one time.  However, I agree with what many have said here.  Even though I am much more friendly to gays that the average evangelical-converting-to-Orthodoxy (basicly, I don't agree that all gay relationships are sinful or that gays necessarily need to repent and be "healed" of their gayness, however, I also don't agree with "queer politics" or uncritical acceptance of gay culture), I find the tone of some in the Episcopal Church regarding this issue, and sexuality in general, to be sub-Christian and more influenced by marxism and academic political correctness, there is a resentful victimhood to some of the political factions in the Episcopal church that demand control, not tolerance.  

  
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 11:48:55 PM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,416



WWW
« Reply #109 on: March 05, 2013, 12:23:03 AM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?

Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.

To expand on my answer since it looks like I have more time than I thought...

I didn't put up a real theological defense because I don't believe I need to defend myself "against" my brothers and sisters in Christ on doctrine since we both believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc. My answer was honest. I'm a gay (bisexual) woman that's not made to feel disordered in the Episcopal Church, and that someday, my daughter could be a priest. I don't know what you're looking for, but I know for a fact that offline, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Just because most online discussions are highly theological, doesn't mean that everyone has highly theological reasons for joining one Church or another.

Of course I was being facetious.  The way you phrased your response practically begged for it.  My apologies for that.

Now I'll stop being facetious.  I appreciate the candor of your latest response.  It is understandable that you would adhere to a religious institution that has come to affirm your lifestyle.  Your confession of belief in the Trinity and the Virgin Birth is commendable.  Many Episcopalians (including bishops) have come to doubt such core Christian doctrines.  But these doctrines are contained in the very same Scriptures and Church teaching that also declare homosexual actions to be sinful.  How do you reconcile that?

Yeah, sometimes it's hard for me to pick up social cues in real life, let alone online.

I'm just not entirely convinced that a) we have the right translation when it comes to the word "homosexuals" in the Bible and b) whether or not this was more about the abuse of young boys by pedophiles and/or other cultural practices. Not saying homosexuals are pedophiles, of course. I've been meaning to ask my priest about these things though.

And about my lifestyle: I sleep, go to school, go to work, go home, repeat. I wasn't aware I had a lifestyle LOL.

And about the errant bishops, I really don't have to worry about them as long as I know my parish confesses the Nicene Creed. I was Orthodox around the time the Antiochians had that big controversy in Troy, MI. It didn't really effect me on the ground, even being Antiochian.

At the risk of being "that guy" Romans 1:26 makes it pretty clear that the type of behavior St Paul found objectionable wasn't limited to NAMBLA. About the only defense any Christian who wants to defend sexual licentiousness and homosexuality has is to claim that the Jewish (and later Christian) restrictions against food and sex had to do with germs and not actual morality, and that our supposedly more sanitary practices and latex means we can do whatever we want.

And here I find that argument silly, considering sex isn't "dirty". Messy doesn't always mean "dirty".

And the cultural and Biblical context of Romans 1:26-27 is important to keep in mind. There is more than one interpretation of this. In context, I'd say that St. Paul is talking about temple prostitution not faithful homosexual relationships.
Keep the medical/historical context in mind- the act of sex isn't "dirty" but the cultures surrounding the Hebrews were rife with venereal diseases, just as most of the "unclean" foods were likely to spread parasites. It is only since the 20th Century, with it's antibiotics and latex, that we can argue that "what happens between two consenting adults in a mutually loving relationship is harmless." The list of people killed by syphilis alone is staggering.

We can argue over whether or not St Paul is talking about temple prostitution in a passage where he fails to say that is what he's talking about (unlike the passages where he makes it quite clear that he is speaking specifically of temple prostitution)- though given the fact that St Paul was a "pharisee of the pharisees", and keeping that "context" in mind- specifically the levitical texts that a Pharisee was steeped in, and the common Jewish understanding based on those texts as to what constitutes "sexual immorality", the burden of proof lies heavily on those arguing against the homosexual interpretation. Further, the commentary of Church Fathers much closer to St Paul in both cultural mindset and the use of the Greek of the era reveals that the interpretation clearly means homosexuality- not pederasty, not prostitution, but homosexuality.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #110 on: March 05, 2013, 04:07:14 AM »

We can argue over whether or not St Paul is talking about temple prostitution in a passage where he fails to say that is what he's talking about (unlike the passages where he makes it quite clear that he is speaking specifically of temple prostitution)- though given the fact that St Paul was a "pharisee of the pharisees", and keeping that "context" in mind- specifically the levitical texts that a Pharisee was steeped in, and the common Jewish understanding based on those texts as to what constitutes "sexual immorality", the burden of proof lies heavily on those arguing against the homosexual interpretation. Further, the commentary of Church Fathers much closer to St Paul in both cultural mindset and the use of the Greek of the era reveals that the interpretation clearly means homosexuality- not pederasty, not prostitution, but homosexuality.

  Now, there may be other arguments against homosexuality in the Bible...  but I don't find Romans 1 to be persuasive. We could also argue that Genesis Chapter 1 is talking about the beginning of the world having mornings and evenings and days, too, but that doesn't conform to our modern experiences of the world, ie, science, and most people in this age rightly reject that kind of fundamentalism.  In the same way, I don't think St. Paul's description of behaviors fits how most informed people now days encounter actual gays- people don't suddenly give up their orientation for women and turn to men against their "natural desires".  So we have a problem, throw out our scientific understanding and just accept "What the Bible says" without thought and scandalize the intellectual integrity of the Christian faith, or we read the passage in a different context.  In the wider context, Romans 1 isn't a systematic statement of Christian sexual morality, it's part of a condemnation of gentile idolatry.

 
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 04:11:57 AM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,416



WWW
« Reply #111 on: March 05, 2013, 05:13:02 AM »

We can argue over whether or not St Paul is talking about temple prostitution in a passage where he fails to say that is what he's talking about (unlike the passages where he makes it quite clear that he is speaking specifically of temple prostitution)- though given the fact that St Paul was a "pharisee of the pharisees", and keeping that "context" in mind- specifically the levitical texts that a Pharisee was steeped in, and the common Jewish understanding based on those texts as to what constitutes "sexual immorality", the burden of proof lies heavily on those arguing against the homosexual interpretation. Further, the commentary of Church Fathers much closer to St Paul in both cultural mindset and the use of the Greek of the era reveals that the interpretation clearly means homosexuality- not pederasty, not prostitution, but homosexuality.

  Now, there may be other arguments against homosexuality in the Bible...  but I don't find Romans 1 to be persuasive. We could also argue that Genesis Chapter 1 is talking about the beginning of the world having mornings and evenings and days, too, but that doesn't conform to our modern experiences of the world, ie, science, and most people in this age rightly reject that kind of fundamentalism.  In the same way, I don't think St. Paul's description of behaviors fits how most informed people now days encounter actual gays- people don't suddenly give up their orientation for women and turn to men against their "natural desires".  So we have a problem, throw out our scientific understanding and just accept "What the Bible says" without thought and scandalize the intellectual integrity of the Christian faith, or we read the passage in a different context.  In the wider context, Romans 1 isn't a systematic statement of Christian sexual morality, it's part of a condemnation of gentile idolatry.

I'm sorry, that doesn't quite cut it. The passage uses homosexuality itself as one of the laundry list of the results of Gentile idolatry- and as the first indication of something seriously wrong, before launching into the sins of the depraved mind. To say that Romans 1 states nothing of Christian sexual morality because it locates the source of immorality in idolatry is like stating that human beings don't see anything wrong with sniffling, sneezing, headaching, and high fevers because we know that the source of all this is the flu virus.

Genesis is an interesting example- even though we now think that the world came about as it is due to evolution, the only Christian outlook available is that God used evolutionary process as the instrument of Creation. Anything that denies "I believe in One God, the Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth" is no longer Christian. Even though we might believe these days that homosexuality is not "unnatural" in the sense that it is genetic, we are still required to believe that it is "unnatural" in the sense that all of the other sins St Paul lists in Romans 1, while very "natural" human behaviors, are not consistent with the lifestyle that Christians are called to live. We are called to a new nature, one found through Christ's Resurrection, one that seems and has always seemed scandalous to the intellectual integrity of the Christian faith- our message is foolishness to those who are perishing (I Cor 1:18) and the Gentiles (the prevailing knowledge of the day, 1 Cor 1:23).

That said, we are not to judge, as St Paul goes on to explain in Romans 2. The Church is a hospital for sinners, and all are welcome. The problem is, many come to the Church to get their flu shot, only to be offended when the doctor suggests that mole they've had since they were born should be sent for a biopsy. Rather than stick around for diagnosis and cure, they run to a New Age healer that tells them that even if the mole is cancer, cancer is but natural life, and that this life should be encouraged and nourished.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 05:13:28 AM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #112 on: March 05, 2013, 01:44:53 PM »

I'm sorry, that doesn't quite cut it. The passage uses homosexuality itself as one of the laundry list of the results of Gentile idolatry- and as the first indication of something seriously wrong, before launching into the sins of the depraved mind.  

  Wow, I should tell my Roman Catholic friend that his lifelong, unwavering sexual orientation is because of idolatry.  Who would have thought?

Quote
Even though we might believe these days that homosexuality is not "unnatural" in the sense that it is genetic, we are still required to believe that it is "unnatural" in the sense that all of the other sins St Paul lists in Romans 1, while very "natural" human behaviors, are not consistent with the lifestyle that Christians are called to live....

That said, we are not to judge, as St Paul goes on to explain in Romans 2. The Church is a hospital for sinners, and all are welcome. The problem is, many come to the Church to get their flu shot, only to be offended when the doctor suggests that mole they've had since they were born should be sent for a biopsy. Rather than stick around for diagnosis and cure, they run to a New Age healer that tells them that even if the mole is cancer, cancer is but natural life, and that this life should be encouraged and nourished.
 

  I believe this view runs the risk of denying God as Creator, in fact.   Less Christian and more gnostic, if we assume that this created order is hidden.  There has to be something redeeming about a homosexual orientation, or it simply would not exist.   No, I don't expect the Church to baptize everything about gay culture, but to equate being gay with a disease is to deny the goodness of the created order and to erode the dignity of gays as human beings. Many heterosexuals are in no place to be talking about the mole they see on the gay man or woman's body when they don't know the cancer in their own soul.   The true Christ-like spirit is to protect the stranger and the alien, as God commands, and this includes people that are different from us in our ideologies, lifestyles, and sexual orientations.  Only then, in the context of an authentic relationship based on love and vulnerability (which is a two way street), to discuss the spec in the brother's eye.   A Christian should not approach a gay person as a mere "sinner", but as a holy mystery of infinite dignity.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 01:58:53 PM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,178


WWW
« Reply #113 on: March 05, 2013, 02:12:11 PM »

A Christian should not approach a gay person as a mere "sinner", but as a holy mystery of infinite dignity.

Homosexuality is a "holy mystery of infinite dignity"?  What cites homosexuality as a "holy mystery of infinite dignity?"
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,246



« Reply #114 on: March 05, 2013, 02:39:17 PM »

There has to be something redeeming about a homosexual orientation, or it simply would not exist.  

Why? A pedophile would probably tell you that he or she was born that way, as well. Would you also say that there is something redeeming about a pedophilic orientation simply because it exists?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,253



« Reply #115 on: March 05, 2013, 03:08:59 PM »

Why? A pedophile would probably tell you that he or she was born that way, as well. Would you also say that there is something redeeming about a pedophilic orientation simply because it exists?

This. Pedophilia seems to be increasingly recognized as a sexual orientation instead of just a psychological disorder.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,416



WWW
« Reply #116 on: March 05, 2013, 08:10:31 PM »

I'm sorry, that doesn't quite cut it. The passage uses homosexuality itself as one of the laundry list of the results of Gentile idolatry- and as the first indication of something seriously wrong, before launching into the sins of the depraved mind.  

  Wow, I should tell my Roman Catholic friend that his lifelong, unwavering sexual orientation is because of idolatry.  Who would have thought?

This is a danger of reading our reading our own cultural context into the document. St Paul is not speaking of the specific orientation of any single individual, but rather a cultural licentiousness born from idolatry. Your friend's attraction might indeed be inborn, but our own cultural worship of Ashtoreth and Moloch has brought about a permissiveness that makes him feel that he is right to act on this behavior (assuming the standard for those arguing in favor of homosexual behavior- for all I know, your Roman Catholic friend is dealing with this through prayer, fasting, and confession).

Even though we might believe these days that homosexuality is not "unnatural" in the sense that it is genetic, we are still required to believe that it is "unnatural" in the sense that all of the other sins St Paul lists in Romans 1, while very "natural" human behaviors, are not consistent with the lifestyle that Christians are called to live....

That said, we are not to judge, as St Paul goes on to explain in Romans 2. The Church is a hospital for sinners, and all are welcome. The problem is, many come to the Church to get their flu shot, only to be offended when the doctor suggests that mole they've had since they were born should be sent for a biopsy. Rather than stick around for diagnosis and cure, they run to a New Age healer that tells them that even if the mole is cancer, cancer is but natural life, and that this life should be encouraged and nourished.
 

  I believe this view runs the risk of denying God as Creator, in fact.   Less Christian and more gnostic, if we assume that this created order is hidden.  There has to be something redeeming about a homosexual orientation, or it simply would not exist.   No, I don't expect the Church to baptize everything about gay culture, but to equate being gay with a disease is to deny the goodness of the created order and to erode the dignity of gays as human beings. Many heterosexuals are in no place to be talking about the mole they see on the gay man or woman's body when they don't know the cancer in their own soul.   The true Christ-like spirit is to protect the stranger and the alien, as God commands, and this includes people that are different from us in our ideologies, lifestyles, and sexual orientations.  Only then, in the context of an authentic relationship based on love and vulnerability (which is a two way street), to discuss the spec in the brother's eye.   A Christian should not approach a gay person as a mere "sinner", but as a holy mystery of infinite dignity.

You are close to right here- a Christian should not approach anyone as a "mere sinner", but as someone made in the likeness and image of God. The only person we should be approaching as a "sinner" is ourselves- and not as a "mere" sinner, but as the very worst of sinners. However, the individual Christian is not the Church in and of himself. There is nothing "gnostic" in the view that humanity is fallen. Indeed, the fallen-ness of humanity reiterates the goodness of Creation- we are sinners not because of Creation, not because our matter is evil, but because our flesh has been tainted by death and our minds by the fear of death. The Church is the Ark of Salvation, it is the Body of Christ witnessing to the World, and Christ is the Great Physician come to bring new life to all. Homosexuality is a disease of the human condition, as is all other lust, along with envy, pride, wrath, greed, sloth, and gluttony. All humans we know of (with the possible exception of two other than our Lord) have a certain innate tendency toward one or the other. Should we encourage the psychopath in his lifestyle simply because he was born with the tendency to wear human suits or fire hundreds of thousands of people from his Fortune 500 to get a paltry raise, or should we offer to help him?

To be entirely frank, I don't like discussing the sinfulness of homosexuality (because I think in the case of most homosexuals it doesn't do much good and more harm- better to let each individual come to his or her own conclusion, in conjunction with their confessor and the Church)- save with Episcopalians who trumpet "tolerance" and really mean "permissiveness".  Were this discussion with a Southern Baptist, I might sound an awful lot like an Episcopalian. But there is nothing to praise in celebrating homosexuality, any more than the Corinthians were praised for celebrating their own sexually immoral brother (a quite heterosexual crime, that one- and I am sure he was simply following his biological imperative, not to mention fulfilling his Freudian impulses, though one certainly hopes the woman in question was his step-mother).
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #117 on: March 06, 2013, 01:35:45 AM »

We already have enough threads discussing whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality. If you wish to bring up that debate again, please do so on one of the threads already devoted to the subject. Let's not derail this thread into yet another one. Thank you.
Logged
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #118 on: March 06, 2013, 03:40:58 PM »

Homosexuality is a "holy mystery of infinite dignity"?  What cites homosexuality as a "holy mystery of infinite dignity?"

   I think you didn't read that correctly.   Regardless of what you think of the morality of "homosexuality", a homosexual is a person of "infinite dignity".  To think otherwise is sub-Christian.  People are more than what they do in their bedroom.

  By the way, officially the Episcopal Church still defines marriage as between one man and one woman.   That bit tends to get lost in alot of the heat around this issue.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 03:42:14 PM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,090


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #119 on: March 06, 2013, 04:06:36 PM »

Why? A pedophile would probably tell you that he or she was born that way, as well. Would you also say that there is something redeeming about a pedophilic orientation simply because it exists?

This. Pedophilia seems to be increasingly recognized as a sexual orientation instead of just a psychological disorder.

Where do you get this stuff?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,178


WWW
« Reply #120 on: March 06, 2013, 05:01:13 PM »

Homosexuality is a "holy mystery of infinite dignity"?  What cites homosexuality as a "holy mystery of infinite dignity?"

I think you didn't read that correctly.   Regardless of what you think of the morality of "homosexuality", a homosexual is a person of "infinite dignity".

Says you.  How was I supposed to read that statement, "holy mystery of infinite dignity?"  What happened to homosexuality as a "holy mystery" part?

To think otherwise is sub-Christian.  People are more than what they do in their bedroom.

Is that the draw of Anglicanism - the welcoming and acceptance of individual dogmas?

By the way, officially the Episcopal Church still defines marriage as between one man and one woman.   That bit tends to get lost in alot of the heat around this issue.

Not in states where same sex marriage is legal.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,253



« Reply #121 on: March 06, 2013, 06:02:24 PM »

Where do you get this stuff?

Just the general impression, which is why I said "seems." This and this came up in a Google search, and I don't know how legitimate they are.

But frankly, any attempt to differentiate between the various sexual orientations (objects, children, teenagers, same-sex, opposite-sex, animals, etc.) seems rather arbitrary to me without an independent moral standard.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 06:02:52 PM by Nephi » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #122 on: March 07, 2013, 01:23:36 AM »

I'm too tired right now to look for one of the existing homosexuality threads, so I'll let you guys look for one yourselves. As for this thread, I already told you all to take your discussion of homosexuality to one of the many threads already started to foster that topic. Yet you guys don't want to stop discussing the tangent here. Therefore, I'm putting a stop to it by locking this thread. I may reopen this thread tomorrow, possibly after splitting it. Until then, this thread is locked, so now you have no choice but to take your tangent somewhere else.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.164 seconds with 62 queries.