Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
The ruthless pursuit of Christian orthodoxy is inferior to the loving pursuit of social relevance. God is not trapped in the Bible.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do you think about the blessing of same sex unions in the Episcopal Church?
- Thread starter ZooGirl02
- Start date
The ruthless pursuit of Christian orthodoxy is inferior to the loving pursuit of social relevance. God is not trapped in the Bible.
kjw47
Well-Known Member
Maybe one should read 1 corinthians 6:9-11, 1 John 2:17,Matt 7:21--- God says that those who practice homosexuality, will not enter his kingdom, it is not the will of God to practice homosexuality--- thus if your teacher is telling you that you are saved--he is lying through his teeth because he does not know God,Jesus, or the bible. Only a religion owned and operated by satan would teach such ear tickleing lies.
Fish and Bread
Member
Here is the thing. 2,000 years ago Jesus presented a lot of unique moral ideas that moved the world forward, or at least popularized a lot of Jewish teachings originating with people like Rabbi Hillel and others. He was progressing forward and leading people towards a more complete ethical understanding. However, if we stop progressing forward ethically and hold in place at where we were right after the life of Jesus, then we are not truly moving in the direction Jesus pointed us in, are we? Instead, we're sitting still in the best he could do in three years of teaching the people ground in the mores of the time he was in.
Jesus simplified the Torah to love of God and love one's neighbor. One might express that as simply love of good and love of others. Early Christianity practiced inclusion, expanding to uncircumcised gentiles without requiring them to seek circumcision or follow the Torah. 2,000 years later, we should able to recognize, sanctify, and bless monogamous, loving, and uplifting, gay relationships. Jesus was able to recognize in the story of Martha and Mary the value of allowing women to study religion, and had many female disciples with honored roles that were in some ways traditionally male. Today, we should see the value in allowing women to act as priests, as "in Christ there is no male or female".
That's how I feel, anyway.
And it's not an outright reject of tradition by any means. Elsewhere on this website, I just finished a very staunch defense of veneration of Saints. I love what Anglicans would refer to as high-churchmanship with incense and bells and garments and altar dressing in a very precise regimented ancient liturgical way. The seasons of the Church calendar and the color and emphasis changes are excellent. I like traditions. But I think the one area where we absolutely can and perhaps need to challenge traditions is when they are immoral- and exclude people or threaten people. I would love to ultimately see a world where Christianity is an uplifting religious of full communion and caring for the least among us, inclusively, and where there is no hell below us, above us only a heaven where all are accepted in.
If people say that is not the truth or not traditional, so be it. I'm not interested in following a God who hates gays or tortures sinners for all eternity. If I die and that's what I find, and he sends me to hell for thinking what I think, I'm not sure foreknowledge of that here on earth would have changed my mind. I'd still think I'm morally right and the big guy in the sky isn't. But it is my *hope*, one of the three great virtues of 1 Corinthians 13, that God is at least as morally advanced as I am.
Hopefully, much, much more so!
Jesus simplified the Torah to love of God and love one's neighbor. One might express that as simply love of good and love of others. Early Christianity practiced inclusion, expanding to uncircumcised gentiles without requiring them to seek circumcision or follow the Torah. 2,000 years later, we should able to recognize, sanctify, and bless monogamous, loving, and uplifting, gay relationships. Jesus was able to recognize in the story of Martha and Mary the value of allowing women to study religion, and had many female disciples with honored roles that were in some ways traditionally male. Today, we should see the value in allowing women to act as priests, as "in Christ there is no male or female".
That's how I feel, anyway.
And it's not an outright reject of tradition by any means. Elsewhere on this website, I just finished a very staunch defense of veneration of Saints. I love what Anglicans would refer to as high-churchmanship with incense and bells and garments and altar dressing in a very precise regimented ancient liturgical way. The seasons of the Church calendar and the color and emphasis changes are excellent. I like traditions. But I think the one area where we absolutely can and perhaps need to challenge traditions is when they are immoral- and exclude people or threaten people. I would love to ultimately see a world where Christianity is an uplifting religious of full communion and caring for the least among us, inclusively, and where there is no hell below us, above us only a heaven where all are accepted in.
If people say that is not the truth or not traditional, so be it. I'm not interested in following a God who hates gays or tortures sinners for all eternity. If I die and that's what I find, and he sends me to hell for thinking what I think, I'm not sure foreknowledge of that here on earth would have changed my mind. I'd still think I'm morally right and the big guy in the sky isn't. But it is my *hope*, one of the three great virtues of 1 Corinthians 13, that God is at least as morally advanced as I am.
Hopefully, much, much more so!
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
Well, I've been unsure of same-sex marriages in a Christian context. I've wondered if perhaps other rites more suitable to same-sex love could be better. (The blessings as they stand are basically marriage.) But then again the big difference that comes to mind in this case is that heterosexual couples can have children. Yet they can't all have them. Some people are sterile or too old, but we marry them. So if there is no objection to homosexuality in itself, why not? Some people have deformities. I knew of a case in which a woman had no vagina or uterus. (I'm not sure how she went to the bathroom but she had no lower half of her body.) Before the acceptance of same sex blessings, could she have married a man? In the Catholic Church she wouldn't be allowed to marry, but I'm not sure about Protestantism.
I am a little uncomfortable with marriage within churches mainly because of how much control the church now exerts over marriage. At one this it was the affair of the laity -- no priest required. I also don't think sex outside of marriage is always sinful. King David had plenty of concubines. There was a social arrangement there, but it wasn't marriage. I could imagine scenarios of people who were committed even publicly but unmarried. So that would be one option for gay couples even without marriage. Alternatively, since the state or a priest is not required for a valid marriage, same-sex couples could simply marry themselves as they have done for a very long time, at least if they believe marriage can be between two members of the same sex.
A lot of the arguments for man-woman marriage (and neither one must be impotent) comes down to the obligation to have children. Homosexuality, contraception, masturbation and so forth have been rejected based on interpretations of the Bible and natural law, all of which I find unsatisfying. I'm not really sure couples have an obligation to procreate. Celibacy is valued in Christianity, and if I reject natural law theories, I suppose I could see the value in a voluntarily celibate married couple. Perhaps they want to devote their time to other children or to some charitable work in the context of a marriage.
I know, this is a bit convoluted. As for myself, if/when I am with a man I will probably not go through any religion. I imagine I'd sign a marriage license before a justice of the peace and then craft my own religious ceremony and invite a few people close to me. By that point I could probably get married in the Episcopal Church if I returned to it, but I don't really care for their rite and like I said, I'm more comfortable with this being the affair of the laity instead of the clergy.
I am a little uncomfortable with marriage within churches mainly because of how much control the church now exerts over marriage. At one this it was the affair of the laity -- no priest required. I also don't think sex outside of marriage is always sinful. King David had plenty of concubines. There was a social arrangement there, but it wasn't marriage. I could imagine scenarios of people who were committed even publicly but unmarried. So that would be one option for gay couples even without marriage. Alternatively, since the state or a priest is not required for a valid marriage, same-sex couples could simply marry themselves as they have done for a very long time, at least if they believe marriage can be between two members of the same sex.
A lot of the arguments for man-woman marriage (and neither one must be impotent) comes down to the obligation to have children. Homosexuality, contraception, masturbation and so forth have been rejected based on interpretations of the Bible and natural law, all of which I find unsatisfying. I'm not really sure couples have an obligation to procreate. Celibacy is valued in Christianity, and if I reject natural law theories, I suppose I could see the value in a voluntarily celibate married couple. Perhaps they want to devote their time to other children or to some charitable work in the context of a marriage.
I know, this is a bit convoluted. As for myself, if/when I am with a man I will probably not go through any religion. I imagine I'd sign a marriage license before a justice of the peace and then craft my own religious ceremony and invite a few people close to me. By that point I could probably get married in the Episcopal Church if I returned to it, but I don't really care for their rite and like I said, I'm more comfortable with this being the affair of the laity instead of the clergy.
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
I am sympathetic to what you and other liberals say on this issue, except that I am baffled why such relationships -- involving same sex couples or otherwise -- must be monogamous. That might be a good idea for most people, particularly with our cultural conditioning, but I have no issues in principle theologically or otherwise with non-monogamous relationships so long as they promote the flourishing of all involved.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Gosh that was beautifully put.
Fish and Bread
Member
That's a whole other kettle of fish. Right now, I think the focus should be on recognizing and affirming the same rights for gay couples as heterosexual couples, which the Supreme Court took a huge step towards addressing on the secular front the other day. We'll cross other bridges when we come to them.
I would say that I find a certain value, nobility, and sense of stability in the concept of monogamy and life long family units. That's not to say that there aren't circumstances where that scenario doesn't work out or doesn't make sense, or that it's the best course for everyone, but I think it is the best course for most of the people most of the time. In saying that, I certainly don't mean to condemn anyone who's chosen a different line course, or for whom life has chosen a different course.