Episcopalians from a diocese that divided partly over homosexuality overwhelmingly approved a proposal to create a new commission that would support gays and lesbians.
The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin gave the thumbs up to an "equality commission" during its annual convention, which concluded Sunday.
Delegates voted to create a commission that would include lay and clergy members to support, engage and affirm marginalized communities within the diocese, according to The Episcopal News Service. In this case, the marginalized are identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender persons, as well as women and various ethnic communities, among a few others.
The vote came after conservative Anglicans within the diocese in 2007 became the first diocese to break ties with The Episcopal Church, contending that the national church was departing from Christian orthodoxy and Anglican tradition.
The Episcopal Church – the U.S. arm of Anglicanism – widened rifts in 2003 when it consecrated openly gay bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
While the breakaway group, which calls itself the Diocese of San Joaquin, realigned with the more conservative Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America, some voted against disaffiliation and remained with the national church. That group calls itself the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.
Last week, Bonnie Anderson, president of The Episcopal Church's House of Deputies, said the executive council is "ready to help" members of San Joaquin Diocese's remaining members. The council agreed to make up to $700,000 available in 2009 for expenses in San Joaquin and other dioceses facing similar challenges.
The conservative Diocese of San Joaquin, meanwhile, held a convention the same weekend to celebrate and develop a new approach to “being together as God’s people.”
RSS
_2.jpg)
this is not going to be accepted and that's ok. but the truth of the matter is this: The church (as a whole) is one big vomit pit. I am born again and tell it like it is.
prophet, no sweat man, but I sense he won't answer the question you were referring to anyways. Especially since he won't be able to find one! But I've been wrong before.
Oh. sorry. My bad.
prophet, he was responding to an earlier post.
sj, but I also believe they don't believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures either?
Believer,
I don't think John actually read your post. You clearly said "...in the Bible...."
That's easy, how about Claus Westermann, or Hermann Gunkel or R. Smith, all preeminent, and they ALL disagree with your interpretation of Jesus' reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=Dg1TowBzApEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=Westermann+polygamy+bible&source=web&ots=mbCjKwKzRt&sig=Jqu_gCwOlxZ7B2w8f8CMZrT4B7M&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
sj, here's a challenge for you, please cite one polygamist relationship in the Bible that did not lead to serious problems within the family or in the life of the husband? Because if polygamy was designed by God then surely somewhere we would read about it bearing positive results.
Deuteronomy 17:17...the word "multiply" is "rabah" which means "to increase...have many....". It says nothing about "having too many" because two is too many.
sj, it's too bad you can't admit your wrong since God in both the Old and New Testament alike and Christ Himself declares that God's design for marriage is one man and one woman for life. Using your logic I guess that means that God approves lying as in the case of Abraham and Jacob since God's plans were realized as a result. Plus, you have not cited any reputable Bible scholars who support your view.
believer, there is most certainly the implication of a 'second' wife in Exodus 21.10, as there is in Deuteronomy 17.15. And the Exodus passage is an "ordinance" from God to Moses for the people of Israel. Deuteronomy 17:17 is a caution about taking 'too many' wives, NOT about taking a 'second' wife, just as it is about having 'too much' gold and silver. The Hebrew adjective in both cases is the same, so clearly God isn't telling his people that they only have one piece of gold or silver. Polygamy is present through the Biblical period, in both Testament, without a word of condemnation. Jesus accepts the Levirate marriage required by the Law even if already married. The plain sense of Scripture is clear, and you guys are contorted the verses to make them read what you want them to say, just as you accuse the liberal scholars who explain away the homosexual passages.
I hope we are praying for our brothers and sisters in Christ who are so easily misled to follow a blatant lie. I fear for the souls of those who condone and promote sin.
sj, plus you never did explain Deuteronomy 17:17, so could you hoot me an answer please?
sj, and finally I go back to "The Hard Sayings Of The Bible", to contend as some do, that legislation on rights within polygamy tacitly condones polygamy makes about as much sense as saying the Deuteronomy 23:18 approves harlotry since it prohibits bringing the wages earned by harlotry into the house of the Lord for any vow!
sj, please keep verse 10 in it's context, it is a part of a passage, this is in reference to a person giving his son a slave to be the son's wife, but if the son chooses not to accept her as his wife, the owner is still responsible for providing for her as if she were none the less.
sj, there is no suggestion of a second marriage with "marital rights" in Exodus 21:10, for the word translated "marital rights" should be rendered "oil" or "ointments". The text says that a man who has purchased a female servant (perhaps to fulfill a debt) must continue to provide for her if he proposes marriage and then decides to not consummate it. Taken from the "The Hard Sayings Of The Bible".
God in the beginning create them male and female and God saw that man needed a helpmeet. Therefore He bought to the man the woman and told the man this would be his helpmeet until death do them part. All this other stuff, homosexual marriage. polygamy and divorce is from man and his sinful ways. God has proclaimed it,I believe it and that settles it. No man, seminarian or intellectual can convince me otherwise. All these things will pass but the word of God stands forever.
Exodus 21:1 "These are the ordinances that you shall set before them. . .10 If a man takes another wife to himself . . ." That would be God telling Moses to set these ordinances before the people of Israel, and you, believer, think that doesn't provide divine permission? You're a hoot!
SJ,
God was regulating the behavior of someone who already has multiple wives in the text you presented, not endorsing it. Otherwise He would not have said to not have multiple wives in Dt 17:!7, as believer pointed out.
sj, now a question for you, what do you do with Deuteronomy 17:17, "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away;...."?
sj, nice try, but each one of these falls short of proving that anything like divine permission was being granted in these passages. Scripture does not always pause to state the obvious. In many cases there is no need for the reader to imagine what God thinks of such states of affair, for the misfortune and strife that come into the domestic lives of these polygamists cannot be read as a sign of divine approval. I wish I could take credit for this explanation but I have to credit an excerpt from "The Hard Sayings Of The Bible" for it, plus some other passages you could have cited in your attempt to discredit God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy are Leviticus 18:18 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8. But you will never find a passage of scripture where God Himself endorses or approves any type of marriage outside of His original design of one man and one woman for life.
Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, one of them loved and the other disliked, and if both the loved and the disliked have borne him sons, the firstborn being the son of the one who is disliked, 16 then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn." OR Exodus 21:1 1 "These are the ordinances that you shall set before them. . .10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife." CLEARLY the Law of Moses given by God allows for more than one wife. I can't wait to see the biblical contortions you perform to deny the plain sense of these verses.
sj, please cite one specific passage of the Bible where God defines marriage as anything other than one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life. Plus, based on God's definition of marriage He goes on to say that sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage bed. That means that only a married couple are allowed by God to have sexual intimacy which rules out same-sex couples regardless if the states pass same-sex marriage or union laws because in the sight of God same-sex couples are not married based on God's design as well as His definition of marriage. But if you can find that passage of scripture that redefines God's definition of marriage then that may change things.
that is totally contrary to YOUR interpretation of Scripture, which we have seen, differs GREATLY from our forebears on any number of issues!
jc, that's been the whole point of the disagreement between sj and wb and myself, why would a local church or denomination want to support a sexual lifestyle that is totally contrary to God's Word.
The actual topic of the article is what should be discussed here. How can we as Christians 'support' the gay, lesbian, transgeder etc community?
Leading them to the truth of God's word and the salvation afforded by the death of Jesus on a cross would, I think, be the best way. Endorsing sin is not going to help them.
Maybe God should have made Adam and a whole bunch of Eve's to prove what his plan was.
sj,
I am not smarter than others. I simply believe God.
SJ,
Its never self-righteous when you agree with God.
But then, that's your default argument when people do not agree with you.
believer, so say you, whereas others have said differently. You just don't get it though. You just don't see the self-righteousness of your statement.
sj, I'm not arguing at all the "some" Christians and denominations have changed their views on some of these issues, but the most important fact is that God hasn't changed His mind on the issue of marriage which is reserved for one man and one woman for life according to God's Word and that has and it appears will never change since it has been God's design since the creation of mankind.
wbmoore, I guess that you and believer are just so much smarter than all those before us who read the same Scriptures, but choose different verses, and espoused different positions.
Both Jesus and Paul were quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.
To try to pretend that Jesus was not saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, AND condemning divorce, in Mt 19:4-6 is TO simply ignore scripture.
And Paul could not have been more clear that sexual immorality is avoided by being married, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. 1 Corinthians 7:2-3
2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
believer, it is the audacity of your position, or might I say your self-righteousness, that astounds me, that on issue after issue like polygamy, slavery, usury, or the divine right of kings, you boldly declare what God has clearly established, though for century after century after century the majority of good Christians took another position in regards to the interpretation of the Scriptures, and then when we get to the issue of homosexuality, you refuse to acknowledge the historical argument that Christians have dramatically changed their positions on issues before. And you end up becoming a biblical contortionist to make your case. I will grant you that one can take certain verses of Scripture to make the case for monogamy, but that was NOT the position of the Jews, the early Christians and the Reformers, and that's a fact that you cannot deny.
sj, polygamy doesn't need to be officially condemned since God already established His design for marriage. What part of one man and one woman for life don't you understand. Plus both people do not have to be married for adultery to occur only one has to be married since adultery is defined as having sex with someone who is not your spouse. Case in point is the woman who was caught in adultery, we read no where that she had a husband. Plus I find it odd that a person like yourself who complains about those of us who interpret things as black and white which are obviously black and white and then you continually pull out obscure verses as you did in this discussion and try to make them appear to be black and white on an issue there not even talking about.
believer, it would only be adultery IF the woman raped was married. Adultery in the Bible is generally understood to be between a man (married or unmarried) and a married woman. It all had to do with property rights, both the woman as the property of her husband and the children of the woman being unquestionably the rightful heirs of the husband.
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. HE MUST MARRY THE GIRL, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)" There is no suggestion here that if the rapist is already married, he is excused. You are reading into the text what you want to find.
believer, the plain sense of the Scriptures is clear. Nowhere is polygyny condemned, but everywhere accepted. It is part of the Mosaic law and tradition, try Exodus 21:10 or Deuteronomy 21:15. You will be straining at gnats to deny what the Bible says to declare otherwise.
sj, your Deuteronomy 22:28-29 once again does not say that the rapist was married and if he was not only would he be guilty of rape he would be guilty of adultery which very well could have led to him being stoned. Plus back to your Mark passage this was a totally hypothetical situation and was not even dealing with the issue of marriage let alone polygamy. These examples you give aren't even close enough to win a cigar.
believer, please show me one passage of Scripture where polygyny is explicitly condemned. Never mind, because there aren't any, because polygyny was accepted through the Biblical period. Also, note that Levirate marriages were required even if the brother was already married. Surely Jesus knew that.
sj, as for your reference to Mark 12:18-27, no where does it say any of those 7 brothers had a wife.
sj, please cite any passage of Scripture that specifically shows that God endorses polygamy, but don't even waste your time because there isn't any, if anything the Bible clearly shows why polygamy doesn't work, David, Jacob, and Solomon are just a few examples. God the Father and Christ both set the standard for marriage as one man and one woman for life, there are no other options that are either endorsed or approved by God. Just because something happens in the Bible and God does not speak directly against it doesn't mean He endorses or approves it and especially when He clearly defines His view on the issue already as in the case of marriage.
believer, monogamy is undoubtedly NOT the Biblical norm for marriage. Polygamy was, or to be more exact, polygyny, where one man takes as many women as he wants and can afford. Indeed the Hebrew Scriptures provide all sorts of guidelines about how one manâ
sj, a church can change its norms to allow for same-sex marriage, but it doesn't have any impact on God's design for marriage which is clearly spelled out in the Old and New Testament alike, one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life. That being said any sexual intimacy outside the marriage bed of one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life is sin as well.
The Watch, has carefully chosen his Scriptures from Matthew, clearly taking them out of context. Liberals will note that the Gospel story is really about divorce. In fact in the verses that follow the Watch's quote, verses that have conveniently been dropped, the disciples ask Jesus to clarify his remarks. â
I really think that the good people often fail to understand evil. Like John McCain, he is honorable, tells the truth, and his opponet is arrogant, a liar, and seeks to kill the unborn.
Although, Paul explains homosexuality is a sin in Romans 1, Jesus defines marriage in Matthew 19: 4-6:
"4 And He answered and said to them, â
" Genuine " Christanity cannot support, Nor condone homosexuality.
The Scripture is clear on the subject, homosexuality is sin, even an Abomination.
To disagree with the Holy Scriptures is to put oneself on the wrong side of God.
Please don't tell me that we are missing the " true " interpitation, that is not so.
God loves the homosexual, but he hates the sin of homosexuality.
the only answer for this sin is repentance, turn to God with all of your heart, and God will forgive.
all of us have had to come to God the same way, I had to repent of my sin, and God forgave me. He will forgive all those who come to him.
Feet,
I find it interesting that you keep trying to use your definition of testing whether something is from the spirit to decide if it is valid. In the past you have continually tried to use a perversion of the second greatest commandment (love your neighbor as yourself) to justify homosexual sin. But it is not just loving your neighbor that matters, but loving God and this is reflected in obedience to Him.
Luke 10:25-28
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" 27 He answered: " "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind"; and, "Love your neighbor as yourself."" 28 "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
Matthew 22:36-38
36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: ""Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
But what Christ said was not something that He made up - it is a quote of two different parts of the Old Testament.
Deuteronomy 6:5
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.
Other verses are similar, but all reflect the need to seek, fear, love, obey, and serve God: Dt 4:29; Dt 10:12; Dt 11:13; Dt 13:3; Dt 26:16; Dt 30:6; Dt 30:10; Joshua 22:5; 1 Samuel 12:20; 1 Samuel 12:24.
The second greatest commandment is like the first, and also comes from the Old Testament. In fact, it comes from the very next chapter after the chapter where God said to not do certain sexual acts and where He said men laying with men is detestable (or an abomination, depending on translation).
Lev 19:18
Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
Note that in neither the quote nor in the original are we commanded to love ourselves. This is a given, not a command. But we ARE told in both the Old Testament and the New Testament to Love God and love our neighbor. We are further told that to love God is to obey God. God said to not do certain things. We should not do them f we claim to love Him.
Paul said unrepentent homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 1Cor 6:9 This is not restricted to male prostitues or promiscious gays - it is unqualified. It is not a mistranslation because I am taking it from the original Greek MS. (NA27) Testing with scripture is what Paul says to test against so that's all the testing I need.