ELCA votes to allow gay pastors

[kydoty]

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/53859967.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aU1yDEmP:QMDCinchO7DU

[ryr8828]

Glad I'm not a lutheran.

[The_swami_sez]

Glad I'm LCMS Lutheran...


ELCA started down this slippery slope several years ago. It's a surprise it took this long honestly..

[Iron Jaw]

I'm Episcopalian (Anglican).

That mistake was made a few years back.

Which is why my parrish is a separatist branch.

The Lutherans will experience the same divisions.

[hannitykillspuppies]

so you guys would be against gays being a part of your church?

that is beyond ironic.

[Iron Jaw]

so you guys would be against gays being a part of your church?

that is beyond ironic.

We're talking albout clergy. The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin (as do the books of almost every bonafide religion). A person who desires to become a priest, pastor, reverend, minister, preaches against sin. Would an openly gay priest/minister come out against what he/she does, unless it was a form of repentence? Based upon what the man is going to preach, he would have no choice but to do that if he was going to interpret the book of his profession accurately.

The man is actively gay. He is not someone who believes his lifestyle is a mistake or a sin. Like every sinner, he is given the opportunity for forgiveness of sin. There are many priests who commit acts of sin (well, we all do) but do not believe what they did should be accepted as correct.

If the gay man comes out, advocates that homosexuality is a sin based upon what he is preaching, and asks for forgiveness of the sin - just as a priest who is an adulterer should do, he would be okay for clergy.

But if he and the adulterer come out and try to claim their lifestyle is correct, then they would both be going against the very form of religion they are advocating.

Jesus advocated hating the sin and forgiving the sinner. He told the adulteress to go and sin no more. He did not tell her what she was doing was correct and to keep on doing it. He forgave her for her sins but did not say the sins were correct.

Gene Robinson, who was promoted to Bishop in the Episcopal Church will not say his gay lifestyle is that of a sinner. Which is why the Episcopal Church is in the process of severe division.

If he does not believe it is a sin, then perhaps he is in the wrong profession.

[hannitykillspuppies]

We're talking albout clergy. The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin (as do the books of almost every bonafide religion). A person who desires to become a priest, pastor, reverend, minister, preaches against sin. Would an openly gay priest/minister come out against what he/she does, unless it was a form of repentence? Based upon what the man is going to preach, he would have no choice but to do that if he was going to interpret the book of his profession accurately.

The man is actively gay. He is not someone who believes his lifestyle is a mistake or a sin. Like every sinner, he is given the opportunity for forgiveness of sin. There are many priests who commit acts of sin (well, we all do) but do not believe what they did should be accepted as correct.

If the gay man comes out, advocates that homosexuality is a sin based upon what he is preaching, and asks for forgiveness of the sin - just as a priest who is an adulterer should do, he would be okay for clergy.

But if he and the adulterer come out and try to claim their lifestyle is correct, then they would both be going against the very form of religion they are advocating.

Jesus advocated hating the sin and forgiving the sinner. He told the adulteress to go and sin no more. He did not tell her what she was doing was correct and to keep on doing it. He forgave her for her sins but did not say the sins were correct.

Gene Robinson, who was promoted to Bishop in the Episcopal Church will not say his gay lifestyle is that of a sinner. Which is why the Episcopal Church is in the process of severe division.

If he does not believe it is a sin, then perhaps he is in the wrong profession.

so all the clergy at your church are without sin?

[domenick2x]

We're talking albout clergy. The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin (as do the books of almost every bonafide religion). A person who desires to become a priest, pastor, reverend, minister, preaches against sin. Would an openly gay priest/minister come out against what he/she does, unless it was a form of repentence? Based upon what the man is going to preach, he would have no choice but to do that if he was going to interpret the book of his profession accurately.

The man is actively gay. He is not someone who believes his lifestyle is a mistake or a sin. Like every sinner, he is given the opportunity for forgiveness of sin. There are many priests who commit acts of sin (well, we all do) but do not believe what they did should be accepted as correct.

If the gay man comes out, advocates that homosexuality is a sin based upon what he is preaching, and asks for forgiveness of the sin - just as a priest who is an adulterer should do, he would be okay for clergy.

But if he and the adulterer come out and try to claim their lifestyle is correct, then they would both be going against the very form of religion they are advocating.

Jesus advocated hating the sin and forgiving the sinner. He told the adulteress to go and sin no more. He did not tell her what she was doing was correct and to keep on doing it. He forgave her for her sins but did not say the sins were correct.

Gene Robinson, who was promoted to Bishop in the Episcopal Church will not say his gay lifestyle is that of a sinner. Which is why the Episcopal Church is in the process of severe division.

If he does not believe it is a sin, then perhaps he is in the wrong profession.
There's a lot of disagreement over that particular part of ideology. I also grew up in the Episcopal church, and (strangely enough) have no issue with gay priests.

I'd rather have a gay priest in a consensual long-term relationship than a single guy looking for love.

[Iron Jaw]

so all the clergy at your church are without sin?

Of course not - read what I wrote.

They acknowledge sin. They do not proclaim it to be correct.

Proclaiming a gay lifestyle to be a correct lifestyle would go against what the man is preaching.

[Iron Jaw]

There's a lot of disagreement over that particular part of ideology. I also grew up in the Episcopal church, and (strangely enough) have no issue with gay priests.

I'd rather have a gay priest in a consensual long-term relationship than a single guy looking for love.

Every Episcopal Priest in the churches I belonged to were married with a bunch of kids. One had 12 kids.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

so you guys would be against gays being a part of your church?

that is beyond ironic. I'm also against satanists being a part of my church, too.

How ironic is that???

[pnkpanther]

Of course not - read what I wrote.

They acknowledge sin. They do not proclaim it to be correct.

Proclaiming a gay lifestyle to be a correct lifestyle would go against what the man is preaching.


No. That's claiming homosexuality is the devil's work then being busted snorting meth off a male prostitute.

being gay and preaching that it's it ok actually jives. Doesn't mean you or his church have to agree.

[pnkpanther]

I'm also against satanists being a part of my church, too.

How ironic is that???


it isn't ironic at all.

So, you don't want gay's in your church at all? The lesson of compassion and love from the bible doesn't set with you?

[KinjaKahn]

it isn't ironic at all.

So, you don't want gay's in your church at all? The lesson of compassion and love from the bible doesn't set with you?A church can choose who it grants membership to. A church can have rules and govern its congregation by its own rules. Uppity Faggots demand special exemption from the church rules that other members don't and this disrupts the harmony of the congregation. Faggots have the option to end their salami smuggling appetite, they Choose to remain jism junkies which disqualifies them from membership. They are free to start their own church.

[pnkpanther]

A church can choose who it grants membership to. A church can have rules and govern its congregation by its own rules. Uppity Faggots demand special exemption from the church rules that other members don't and this disrupts the harmony of the congregation. Faggots have the option to end their salami smuggling appetite, they Choose to remain jism junkies which disqualifies them from membership. They are free to start their own church.

Interesting that you chose to be with women.

[pnkpanther]

A church can choose who it grants membership to. A church can have rules and govern its congregation by its own rules. Uppity Faggots demand special exemption from the church rules that other members don't and this disrupts the harmony of the congregation. Faggots have the option to end their salami smuggling appetite, they Choose to remain jism junkies which disqualifies them from membership. They are free to start their own church.

I'd like to think Hell has a special spot for ignorant hypocrites like yourself.

[KinjaKahn]

I'd like to think Hell has a special spot for ignorant hypocrites like yourself.
Spine up sissy! Come out of the closet. Start your own church and lisp your sermon to your hearts content.

[Jiddy78]

Annnnndddd....

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/this-thread-sucks/8/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

[hannitykillspuppies]

A church can choose who it grants membership to. A church can have rules and govern its congregation by its own rules. Uppity Faggots demand special exemption from the church rules that other members don't and this disrupts the harmony of the congregation. Faggots have the option to end their salami smuggling appetite, they Choose to remain jism junkies which disqualifies them from membership. They are free to start their own church.jesus.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I'm also against satanists being a part of my church, too.

How ironic is that???i guess i shouldn't be surprised that you can't comprehend the message you hear at church each week.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

i guess i shouldn't be surprised that you can't comprehend the message you hear at church each week. Unless the church you're going to is advocating 'gay marriage' and encourages its followers to celebrate the gay lifestyle, it would be you who's not comprehending things properly.

Me?? I don't know of any properly affiliated Catholic churches that are recognized by the Archdiocese that are spreading those messages during the Homily.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

No. That's claiming homosexuality is the devil's work then being busted snorting meth off a male prostitute.

being gay and preaching that it's it ok actually jives. Doesn't mean you or his church have to agree. It would 'jive' if the church Haggard belonged to advocated that gay marriage and the gay lifestyle was AOK.

Problem for you, however, is that in your haste to bash Christians via Haggard you forgot that Haggard was a gay man who went about being a hypocrite to the gay community as well when he went about preaching to his church.

If we're to believe that being gay isn't a 'choice' that one can make at anytime in his life, one would thus have to conclude that Haggard was gay first and went about perpetuating the lie of 'family man' afterward.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

it isn't ironic at all.

So, you don't want gay's in your church at all? The lesson of compassion and love from the bible doesn't set with you? Compassion & tolerance are far from celebration & advocacy, professor.

The former isn't excluding gays from attending church. However, the church does not have to advocate or celebrate that lifestyle if that does not conform to its beliefs.

[domenick2x]

Compassion & tolerance are far from celebration & advocacy, professor.

The former isn't excluding gays from attending church. However, the church does not have to advocate or celebrate that lifestyle if that does not conform to its beliefs.
So you agree that the ELCA is in the right here?

I'm blown away.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

So you agree that the ELCA is in the right here?

I'm blown away. I'm agreeing that if somebody wants to separate from the main church and form their own- or belong to a church that's a separatist one- they should be able to do so.

John Kerry belongs to a 'Catholic' church that's not part of or recognized by the Archdiocese. Let him. I just don't like it when the media outlets describe him as a 'lifelong Catholic' because he's not. He doesn't believe in many of the same issues that the actual Catholic church teaches and they should mention his separation from the Catholic church that's attached to the Vatican.

[domenick2x]

I'm agreeing that if somebody wants to separate from the main church and form their own- or belong to a church that's a separatist one- they should be able to do so.

John Kerry belongs to a 'Catholic' church that's not part of or recognized by the Archdiocese. Let him. I just don't like it when the media outlets describe him as a 'lifelong Catholic' because he's not. He doesn't believe in many of the same issues that the actual Catholic church teaches and they should mention his separation from the Catholic church that's attached to the Vatican.
So you'd likewise be against Iron Jaw calling himself a lifelong Episcopalian, as he now belongs to a seperatist (Anglican) church that does not accept homosexual priests? (ref. post #4)

[I'm not trying to call out IJ or yourself, just want to see how you view the 'other side' of the line, where you are in agreement with the seperatists and not the main body of the church in question.]

I have other comments about the Kerry thing, but I don't think this is exactly where I want to address them.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

So you'd likewise be against Iron Jaw calling himself a lifelong Episcopalian, as he now belongs to a seperatist (Anglican) church that does not accept homosexual priests? (ref. post #4)

[I'm not trying to call out IJ or yourself, just want to see how you view the 'other side' of the line, where you are in agreement with the seperatists and not the main body of the church in question.]

I have other comments about the Kerry thing, but I don't think this is exactly where I want to address them. You really have a problem with the term 'separation of church and State' don'tcha??

As far Iron Jaw goes, he's following the Bible (and has stated as such), not some new age interpretation of it.

[residenceevil]

A church can choose who it grants membership to. A church can have rules and govern its congregation by its own rules. Uppity Faggots demand special exemption from the church rules that other members don't and this disrupts the harmony of the congregation. Faggots have the option to end their salami smuggling appetite, they Choose to remain jism junkies which disqualifies them from membership. They are free to start their own church.

That's not what your Pope says.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814075/

Watch that movie. Your Pope fully endorsed the actions of this priest by letting him continue to be a part of the Congregation, and instead of admitting the Church had a problem, they just moved the guy to a different Parish so he could continue to rape young boys over and over and over and over again. And then they don't even move him far. They just move him around something like a 25 mile radius so he can continue to rape and molest little innocent boys over and over and Pope Benedict (not the Pope at the time but still...) knowing this was going on continued to look the other way.

Shame.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

That's not what your Pope says.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814075/

Watch that movie. Your Pope fully endorsed the actions of this priest by letting him continue to be a part of the Congregation, and instead of admitting the Church had a problem, they just moved the guy to a different Parish so he could continue to rape young boys over and over and over and over again. And then they don't even move him far. They just move him around something like a 25 mile radius so he can continue to rape and molest little innocent boys over and over and Pope Benedict (not the Pope at the time but still...) knowing this was going on continued to look the other way.

Shame. I read the synopsis and it said nothing about the Pope endorsing this guy's actions or that he even knew about the priest being moved.

And the fact this priest was moved only within a 25 mile radius points to the fact the Vatican- and even the Cardinals or Bishops outside the area- knowing that this was going on.

When you wrote that the Pope "fully endorsed the actions of this priest", did it ever occur to you that somebody Catholic might actually call you on it????

I think you like to stretch the limits of your imagination a bit.

A priest moving within a 25 mile radius can occur without the Pope- and most church officials- knowing the real reasons why.

[domenick2x]

You really have a problem with the term 'separation of church and State' don'tcha??

As far Iron Jaw goes, he's following the Bible (and has stated as such), not some new age interpretation of it.
I think you like to stretch the limits of your imagination a bit.

I have no idea how you got from my question to your analysis of my opinion on seperation of Church and State, because I don't see how that has anything to do with what we're talking about.

But back to the question, your dodge sounds a little hypocritical.

[pnkpanther]

It would 'jive' if the church Haggard belonged to advocated that gay marriage and the gay lifestyle was AOK.

So, you agree, he's a hypocirte. Which was my point. Haggard and his church spoke out against homosexuality. Haggard louder then many.



Problem for you, however, is that in your haste to bash Christians via Haggard you forgot that Haggard was a gay man who went about being a hypocrite to the gay community as well when he went about preaching to his church.

No, that's not a problem for me. I was pointing out that a Gay clergy member that doesnt denounce homosexuality isn't a hypocrite as IJ stated. I gave an example of Gay Clergy member that is a hypocrite. Although, I thought Haggard claims he's straight and is staying with his wife.



If we're to believe that being gay isn't a 'choice' that one can make at anytime in his life, one would thus have to conclude that Haggard was gay first and went about perpetuating the lie of 'family man' afterward.

Being gay isn't a choice. It's sheer ignorance to believe that. I didn't choose to be attracted to females, I just am.

[kydoty]

A church can choose who it grants membership to. A church can have rules and govern its congregation by its own rules. Uppity Faggots demand special exemption from the church rules that other members don't and this disrupts the harmony of the congregation. Faggots have the option to end their salami smuggling appetite, they Choose to remain jism junkies which disqualifies them from membership. They are free to start their own church.

So you woke up one day and said "You know what, I'm gonna choose to be straight." Unlikely.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

So you woke up one day and said "You know what, I'm gonna choose to be straight." Unlikely. Thus, Haggard was a scheming gay con-man before he ever pretended to be a Christian family man.

[domenick2x]

Thus, Haggard was a scheming gay con-man before he ever pretended to be a Christian family man.
I don't think anyone has argued against that point of view.

Now, due to societal pressures, I can understand a certain amount of orientation confusion... but by the time he's an adult, he's probably got a pretty good clue about his preferences.

[tichabou]

I am curious, everyone, when did you guys make the concious choice to like titties? I think for me, it was the moment when I realized that it would best serve my homophobic arguement.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I am curious, everyone, when did you guys make the concious choice to like titties? I think for me, it was the moment when I realized that it would best serve my homophobic arguement. 3rd grade. Mrs. Thompson. She was blonde and had nice white ones.

I guess i came outta the womb liking blondes, too???

[tichabou]

3rd grade. Mrs. Thompson. She was blonde and had nice white ones.

I guess i came outta the womb liking blondes, too???

I absolutely came outta the womb liking tits.

[becherr]

I absolutely came outta the womb liking tits.

Yes, I can say that I enjoy a good pair myself.

[residenceevil]

I read the synopsis and it said nothing about the Pope endorsing this guy's actions or that he even knew about the priest being moved.

And the fact this priest was moved only within a 25 mile radius points to the fact the Vatican- and even the Cardinals or Bishops outside the area- knowing that this was going on.

When you wrote that the Pope "fully endorsed the actions of this priest", did it ever occur to you that somebody Catholic might actually call you on it????

I think you like to stretch the limits of your imagination a bit.

A priest moving within a 25 mile radius can occur without the Pope- and most church officials- knowing the real reasons why.

Please WATCH the documentary and you will hear all about it. Also, like I said he wasn't Pope at the time, but he was the leader of some group that was supposed to be "taking care" of these types of problem in the Catholic ministry but instead of "taking care" of it, he just endorsed moving the priest to a new location. It's been a while since I've seen the film myself so I don't remember what they called the group he was the leader of. Maybe I'll try and research it. Or you can watch the film and let me know?

Did it ever occur to you that I'm Catholic also? I just don't follow it blindly like most others do.

[residenceevil]

Oh also, you do realize Pope Benedict is like the 3rd person listed on the "cast of characters" right?

[residenceevil]

One last response - found this on Wiki which I understand isn't the best source for things, but it was the quickest I could find right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliver_Us_from_Evil_(2006_film)

Pope Benedict XVI was accused of conspiracy to cover up sexual abuse in the United States. At the Vatican's request, President George W. Bush granted the pope immunity from prosecution.

So you can stop "calling me out" now and WATCH THE FILM!

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Oh also, you do realize Pope Benedict is like the 3rd person listed on the "cast of characters" right? 'W' is listed 3rd in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 movie and Moore never met with him and got the scoop directly from him.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/

[residenceevil]

'W' is listed 3rd in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 movie and Moore never met with him and got the scoop directly from him.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/

I highly doubt the Pope would meet with a film director to talk about his covering up the fact that priests rape boys. :rolleyes:

I was only pointing out the fact that the Pope was in the list of people in the movie as further proof that just because the synopsis didn't read "The Pope helped cover up this man's wrong doing", that it IS mentioned in the movie.

I've never seen Fahrenheit 911. Any good?

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I highly doubt the Pope would meet with a film director to talk about his covering up the fact that priests rape boys. :rolleyes: It's also not unheard of that the current Pope might not have known the full reasoning behind the transfers.

But of course, that doesn't help mockumentarians in sales of their flick.

I was only pointing out the fact that the Pope was in the list of people in the movie as further proof that just because the synopsis didn't read "The Pope helped cover up this man's wrong doing", that it IS mentioned in the movie. However, you cited that 'The Pope was the third person listed in the cast of characters' for the movie.

Big whoop. I showed you how Bush was listed in a mockumentary he never directly took part in.

I've never seen Fahrenheit 911. Any good? The movie that uncovers Moore's BS tactics was better.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/

[Ed Who?]

Ok, here is my take on this:

- Sexual acts outside of a marriage vow (husband and wife, man and woman) are considered sin.
- Homosexuality (being a sexual act outside of a marriage vow) is sinful.
- All humans besides Jesus Christ have (and will continue to have) fallen short of perfection. No one person, clergy or layperson, has approached a sinless life.
- Jesus' death and resurrection paid for every sin committed.
- All a person must do is a) acknowledge Jesus as Redeemer of their soul, and b) acknowledge and confess the sin in their life, and ask for God to sanctify them.
- A religious leader (clergy, elder, deacon, etc) is held to a different standard than a person who is being ministered to in the pews. Sin carried forth by those members will come under much scrutiny within the church, especially when the person has acknowledged that they have experienced problems with said sin.

Does that mean that it always happens that way? Of course not. The church organization is made up of humans, and as with any humanly undertaking mistakes will be made.

There is no sin that God's all-sufficient grace and mercy cannot reconcile. In my opinion, a homosexual who acknowledges his sin, repents, turns away, and fervently strives to avoid his past sinful ways has every right to become clergy. A person who tries to justify homosexuality (i.e. say it's not sinful) deceives themselves and others, much the same as a person who would justify stealing from another person.

[Roy Munson]

A person who tries to justify homosexuality (i.e. say it's not sinful) deceives themselves and others, much the same as a person who would justify stealing from another person.

one is a crime, the other is not.

sin is just a shorter way of saying "frowned upon". Its not like you can't do it, but you'll have to confess your "sin" to be let back into the group. Sounds like a nice system. Its a nice way for people to be comforted when on their death bed. "hey, I screwed around on my wife, beat my kids, drank alot... but now I repent and will be going to heaven. Life was good."

[Ed Who?]

one is a crime, the other is not.

sin is just a shorter way of saying "frowned upon". Its not like you can't do it, but you'll have to confess your "sin" to be let back into the group. Sounds like a nice system. Its a nice way for people to be comforted when on their death bed. "hey, I screwed around on my wife, beat my kids, drank alot... but now I repent and will be going to heaven. Life was good."

And that's what you believe. It's also a nice way for people of all ages to be released from the horrible decisions they've made in the past, to be able to live knowing that there's a God who loved them even when they did the wrong things. And it also helps release people from the binding power of spite and retribution. Doesn't mean everyone fully appreciates these aspects, but there are a lot of ways we allow our life's purpose to be thwarted by negatives that have littered our past.

[Ed Who?]

one is a crime, the other is not.


Didn't address this. We aren't talking criminal, are we? I mean, have we committed sin by texting while driving? Probably not. But we've broken the law (in some states). So when we take from someone else, we've both committed a crime and a sin. On earth, there are societal punishments for committing the crime. In the realm of eternity, there is also a punishment for committing the sin. The two are independent. While a person who steals, confesses, and turns towards God will not pay the personal price for the sin, they will likely pay it for the crime. Same can be said for murder.

To take a more direct correlation, adultery laws have been abolished as far as I know (unless there are some archaic statutes still on the books in certain states or municipalities). In the case of adultery, no crime is committed and thus the only punishment is more in the form of anguish, misery, and guilt within the person's life on earth until the deception is brought to light. Of course, the person who feels no remorse for adulterous relationships suffers from none of those feelings on earth. But a person with that attitude most certainly does not believe in the Bible or Jesus or eternal consequences, so in the end the judgment will probably prove to be much more devastating than any guilt or anguish that results from being forthright in recognizing that sin.

[hannitykillspuppies]

- All humans besides Jesus Christ have (and will continue to have) fallen short of perfection. No one person, clergy or layperson, has approached a sinless life.
.jesus was not without sin.

[Ed Who?]

jesus was not without sin.

And you are entitled to your belief.

[hannitykillspuppies]

And you are entitled to your belief.
well it's more of a fact. mary was the only person free of sin.

[MTVike]

well it's more of a fact. mary was the only person free of sin.

Mary was the only human being thought to be without sin.

Jesus, as God, was certainly free from sin.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Mary was the only human being thought to be without sin.

Jesus, as God, was certainly free from sin.jesus is not god. he is the son of god. he was human.

[MTVike]

jesus is not god. he is the son of god. he was human.


I wish you would explain what you mean here, because I don't understand it.

As the son of God, Jesus is considered divine, which means he is by definition free of human "sin".

[hannitykillspuppies]

I wish you would explain what you mean here, because I don't understand it.

As the son of God, Jesus is considered divine, which means he is by definition free of human "sin".
jesus was human. just like you and me. the only human who was free of sin was mary. the only person born free of original sin was mary. jesus was born with original sin. he was not free of sin.

[MTVike]

jesus was human. just like you and me. the only human who was free of sin was mary. the only person born free of original sin was mary. jesus was born with original sin. he was not free of sin.

Yes, He was baptized...but because of original sin?

[hannitykillspuppies]

Yes, He was baptized...but because of original sin?

his purpose was divine. he himself was not. god chose him to be an example for all of us. how could he be an honest example for us if he wasn't like us?

[MTVike]

his purpose was divine. he himself was not. god chose him to be an example for all of us. how could he be an honest example for us if he wasn't like us?

He was both divine and human, based on what I believe. He felt human pain and misery, according to the Bible, but did not sin.

When you say "chosen", I think of a prophet. Jesus was a prophet, but also God.

[Roy Munson]

Didn't address this. We aren't talking criminal, are we? I mean, have we committed sin by texting while driving? Probably not. But we've broken the law (in some states). So when we take from someone else, we've both committed a crime and a sin. On earth, there are societal punishments for committing the crime. In the realm of eternity, there is also a punishment for committing the sin. The two are independent. While a person who steals, confesses, and turns towards God will not pay the personal price for the sin, they will likely pay it for the crime. Same can be said for murder.

To take a more direct correlation, adultery laws have been abolished as far as I know (unless there are some archaic statutes still on the books in certain states or municipalities). In the case of adultery, no crime is committed and thus the only punishment is more in the form of anguish, misery, and guilt within the person's life on earth until the deception is brought to light. Of course, the person who feels no remorse for adulterous relationships suffers from none of those feelings on earth. But a person with that attitude most certainly does not believe in the Bible or Jesus or eternal consequences, so in the end the judgment will probably prove to be much more devastating than any guilt or anguish that results from being forthright in recognizing that sin.
They're independent in that one has an actual punnishment and another allows you to absolve yourself after the fact by confessing what you've done... no matter how bad.

Or in other words, one matters and the other is bullshit.

[hannitykillspuppies]

He was both divine and human, based on what I believe. He felt human pain and misery, according to the Bible, but did not sin.

When you say "chosen", I think of a prophet. Jesus was a prophet, but also God.so there's god and jesus god?

[MTVike]

so there's god and jesus god?

Don't forget the Holy Spirit. Three in one, the trinity.

That is what I was taught and believe.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

He was both divine and human, based on what I believe. He felt human pain and misery, according to the Bible, but did not sin.

When you say "chosen", I think of a prophet. Jesus was a prophet, but also God. And in the Islamic world, he would have been called 'infidel'.

[domenick2x]

And in the Islamic world, he would have been called 'infidel'.
Lucky for him he had died 600 years previous then...

[Iron Jaw]

And in the Islamic world, he would have been called 'infidel'.

Actually, the Islamics consider Jesus a great prophet and a leader of the Children of Israel.

The Islamics believe in the Immaculate Conception, but they do not believe that Jesus was crucified. They do believe he ascended into heaven.

[tichabou]

Actually, the Islamics consider Jesus a great prophet and a leader of the Children of Israel.

The Islamics believe in the Immaculate Conception, but they do not believe that Jesus was crucified. They do believe he ascended into heaven.

God bless you for trying, but it isn't worth the effort.

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10145

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

God bless you for trying, but it isn't worth the effort.

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10145 I thought this was your final post on this subject??

BTW, seems KYdoty found somebody you might wanna take a further look at for me related to this thread's recent discussion.

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?p=101935&posted=1#post101935

[tichabou]

I thought this was your final post on this subject??

BTW, seems KYdoty found somebody you might wanna take a further look at for me related to this thread's recent discussion.

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?p=101935&posted=1#post101935

My last post was on the subject of saving Iron Jaw time, not what we were talking about.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

My last post was on the subject of saving Iron Jaw time, not what we were talking about.
http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?p=102048#post102048

I'll bet that guy on death row's asking himself, 'WWJD'.

[hannitykillspuppies]

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?p=102048#post102048

I'll bet that guy on death row's asking himself, 'WWJD'.yet another strawman argument.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

yet another strawman argument. I don't think you even know the meaning of 'straw man argument'.

But keep using the phrase anyway. Makes for good unintended entertainment.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I don't think you even know the meaning of 'straw man argument'.

But keep using the phrase anyway. Makes for good unintended entertainment.


i do. your comment implies that tich argued that muslims believe that jesus is their lord and savior and thus would ponder "what would jesus do" in the same way christians do. which he never said, implied, or argued. that is a straw man argument. you're arguing against something tich never said. you are a straw man.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

i do. your comment implies that tich argued that muslims believe that jesus is their lord and savior and thus would ponder "what would jesus do" in the same way christians do. which he never said, implied, or argued. that is a straw man argument. you're arguing against something tich never said. you are a straw man. This is hilarious.

Three religions pray to "The Same God" but i got it wrong when i said that Jesus wasn't part of what Muslims believe in. :rolleyes:

Ashy, Jesus isn't *their* "Lord and savior"....where'd i say that???

BTW, There are many who confuse Mohammed Ali's message- he a peaceloving, non-military type of guy- for *all* Muslims.

No Virginia, he's not the US representative for Muslims all around the world. He was born here and embodies teachings that were not from Islam anymore than Teddy K. embodies the teachings of the Vatican. (Just a reminder, TK was a pro-abort).

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

This is hilarious.

Three religions pray to "The Same God" but i got it wrong when i said that Jesus wasn't part of what Muslims believe in. :rolleyes:

Ashy, Jesus isn't *their* "Lord and savior"....where'd i say that???

BTW, There are many who confuse Mohammed Ali's message- he a peaceloving, non-military type of guy- for *all* Muslims.

No Virginia, he's not the US representative for Muslims all around the world. He was born here and embodies teachings that were not from Islam anymore than Teddy K. embodies the teachings of the Vatican. (Just a reminder, TK was a pro-abort). BTW, how is it that Muslims think that beheading somebody helps their God when the other two religions don't believe in any sort of 'beheading'????

[domenick2x]

BTW, how is it that Muslims think that beheading somebody helps their God when the other two religions don't believe in any sort of 'beheading'????
Read your bible. There's not a whole lot of beheading (it must be a cultural influence there), but the killing/hanging/etc is throughout. The big stuff is done by God on behalf of the Jews, but there's plenty of violence done by the Jews.

[ryr8828]

I need to re-read my Bible, I don't remember any scripture about hanging.

[domenick2x]

I need to re-read my Bible, I don't remember any scripture about hanging.
Esther - Ch 9, I believe. I think there are a couple of other references as well, but I'd have to dig for them.

[hannitykillspuppies]

This is hilarious.

Three religions pray to "The Same God" but i got it wrong when i said that Jesus wasn't part of what Muslims believe in. :rolleyes:

Ashy, Jesus isn't *their* "Lord and savior"....where'd i say that???

BTW, There are many who confuse Mohammed Ali's message- he a peaceloving, non-military type of guy- for *all* Muslims.

No Virginia, he's not the US representative for Muslims all around the world. He was born here and embodies teachings that were not from Islam anymore than Teddy K. embodies the teachings of the Vatican. (Just a reminder, TK was a pro-abort).
straw man, straw man, hey there straw man.

all three religions believe in the god of abraham. you cannot argue that. well you can, but you're never right about anything anyway.

[hannitykillspuppies]

BTW, how is it that Muslims think that beheading somebody helps their God when the other two religions don't believe in any sort of 'beheading'????
here's yet another straw man argument.

[Vegas]

Esther - Ch 9, I believe. I think there are a couple of other references as well, but I'd have to dig for them.

The hanging in the book of Esther was done by a government not run by the Jews.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I need to re-read my Bible, I don't remember any scripture about hanging. ...or beheadings.

[tichabou]

The best part of the bible is when Saul tells David to bring him 100 Philistine foreskins to marry his daughter, so David goes out and brings back 200 Phillistine foreskins.

The second best is the whole story of samson.

I'm 75 percent sure David beheads Goliath, although Goliath was already dead.

[tichabou]

I think Judas hangs himself.

[domenick2x]

The best part of the bible is when Saul tells David to bring him 100 Philistine foreskins to marry his daughter, so David goes out and brings back 200 Phillistine foreskins.

The second best is the whole story of samson.

I'm 75 percent sure David beheads Goliath, although Goliath was already dead.
49 Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.

50 So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.


.....


57 As soon as David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul, with David still holding the Philistine's head.

[domenick2x]

2nd Samuel:

11 How much more—when wicked men have killed an innocent man in his own house and on his own bed—should I not now demand his blood from your hand and rid the earth of you!"

12 So David gave an order to his men, and they killed them. They cut off their hands and feet and hung the bodies by the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ish-Bosheth and buried it in Abner's tomb at Hebron.

[kydoty]

I learned that my grandpa has been calling ELCA churches across the country and seeing if they would like to break from the ELCA and form a new synod where gay pastors are not allowed.

I can already tell I've got a long Thanksgiving ahead of me.

[Vegas]

I learned that my grandpa has been calling ELCA churches across the country and seeing if they would like to break from the ELCA and form a new synod where gay pastors are not allowed.

I can already tell I've got a long Thanksgiving ahead of me.

I hope you and grandpa both like the same football teams and can concentrate on that.

[Roy Munson]

I hope you and grandpa both like the same football teams and can concentrate on that.
everybody should be able to concentate on their mutual hatred of the Cowboys.

[Vegas]

everybody should be able to concentate on their mutual hatred of the Cowboys.

Works for me.

[Iron Jaw]

everybody should be able to concentate on their mutual hatred of the Cowboys.

For me, it would be the Raiders.

Though they have been pretty harmless the past few years.

[residenceevil]

It's also not unheard of that the current Pope might not have known the full reasoning behind the transfers.

But of course, that doesn't help mockumentarians in sales of their flick.

However, you cited that 'The Pope was the third person listed in the cast of characters' for the movie.

Big whoop. I showed you how Bush was listed in a mockumentary he never directly took part in.

The movie that uncovers Moore's BS tactics was better.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/



So in light of recent charges against the Catholic church and the obvious cover-up that the current Pope wasn't involved....do you believe me yet? Did you watch the Documentary yet? Or are you still in denial?

[residenceevil]

You've got to be kidding me. I hope you got watch that Documentary I was telling you about now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_re_eu/church_abuse_wisconsin

Vatican axed trial for priest accused by deaf boys

VATICAN CITY – The Vatican on Thursday strongly defended its decision not to defrock an American priest accused of molesting some 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin and denounced what it called a campaign to smear Pope Benedict XVI and his aides.

Church and Vatican documents showed that in the mid-1990s, two Wisconsin bishops urged the Vatican office led by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now the pope — to let them hold a church trial against the Rev. Lawrence Murphy. The bishops admitted the trial was coming years after the alleged abuse, but argued that the deaf community in Milwaukee was demanding justice from the church.

Despite the extensive and grave allegations against Murphy, Ratzinger's deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ruled that the alleged molestation had occurred too long ago and that Murphy — then ailing and elderly — should instead repent and be restricted from celebrating Mass outside of his diocese.

The official, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone — now the Vatican's secretary of state — ordered the church trial halted after Murphy wrote Ratzinger a letter saying he was ill, infirm, and "simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood."

The New York Times broke the story Thursday, adding fuel to a swirling scandal about the way the Vatican in general, and Benedict in particular, have handled reports of priests raping children over the years.

On Thursday, a group of clerical abuse victims staged a press conference outside St. Peter's Square in Rome to denounce Benedict's handling of the case and gave reporters church and Vatican documents on the case.

Afterward, Italian police detained four American abuse victims for 2 1/2 hours because they didn't have a permit for the news conference and suggested they get a lawyer in case a judge decided to press charges, the victims said.

"We've spent more time in the police station than Father Murphy did in his life," Peter Isely, the Milwaukee-based director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, said after his release.

Speaking at the earlier press conference, Isely called the Murphy case the most "incontrovertible case of pedophilia you could get."

"The goal of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, was to keep this secret," he said, flanked by photos of other clerical abuse victims and a poster of Ratzinger. "We need to know why he (the pope) did not let us know about him (Murphy) and why he didn't let the police know about him and why he did not condemn him and why he did not take his collar away from him."
The Vatican issued a strong defense in its handling of the Murphy case. The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said there was no cover-up and denounced what it said was a "clear and despicable intention" to strike at Benedict "at any cost."

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, issued a statement noting that the Murphy case had only reached the Vatican in 1996 — some 20 years after the diocese first learned of the allegations. He also said Murphy died two years later — in 1998 — and that there was nothing in the church's handling of the matter that precluded any civil action from being taken against him.

In fact, police did investigate the allegations at the time and never proceeded with a case, Lombardi noted.

Murphy worked at the former St. John's School for the Deaf in St. Francis from 1950 to 1975. His alleged victims were not limited to the deaf boys' school. Donald Marshall, 45, of West Allis, Wisconsin, said he was abused by Murphy when he was a teenager at the Lincoln Hills School, a juvenile detention center in Irma in northern Wisconsin.

"I haven't stepped in a church for some 20 years. I lost all faith in the church," he told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday. "These predators are preying on God's children. How can they even stand up at the pulpit and preach the word of God?"

Church and Vatican documents obtained by two lawyers who have filed lawsuits alleging the Archdiocese of Milwaukee didn't take sufficient action against Murphy show that as many as 200 deaf students had accused him of molesting them, including in the confessional, while he ran the school.

While the documents — letters between diocese and Rome, notes taken during meetings, and summaries of meetings — are remarkable in the church officials' repeated desire to keep the case secret, they do suggest an increasingly determined effort by bishops, albeit 20 years later, to heed the despair of the deaf community in bringing a canonical trial against Murphy.

Ratzinger's deputy, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, though, shut the process down after Murphy wrote Ratzinger a letter saying he had repented, was old and ailing, and that the case's statute of limitations had run out.

"I have just recently suffered another stroke which has left me in a weakened state," he wrote Ratzinger. "I have repented of any of my past transgressions, and have been living peaceably in northern Wisconsin for 24 years. I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood."

"I ask your kind assistance in this matter," he wrote the man who would be pope within a decade.

According to the documentation, in July 1996, then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland sent a letter seeking advice on how to proceed with Murphy to Ratzinger, who led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 until 2005, when he was elected pope.

Weakland explained that he was writing because he had only recently learned that the reason Murphy stopped working in 1975 was because he had been accused of soliciting sex in the confessional, one of the gravest sins in canon law.

Weakland received no response from Ratzinger, and in October 1996 convened a church tribunal to hear the case.

In March 1997, Weakland wrote to the Vatican's Apostolic Signatura, essentially the Vatican high court, asking its advice because he feared the statute of limitations on Murphy's alleged crimes might have expired.

Just a few weeks later, Bertone told the Wisconsin bishops to begin secret disciplinary proceedings against Murphy according to 1962 norms concerning soliciting sex in the confessional, according to the documents.

But a year later, Bertone reversed himself, advising the diocese to stop the process after Murphy wrote to Ratzinger. Bertone suggested that Murphy should instead be subject to "pastoral measures destined to obtain the reparation of scandal and the restoration of justice."

The archbishop then handling the case, Bishop Raphael Fliss, objected, saying in a letter to Bertone that "I have come to the conclusion that scandal cannot be sufficiently repaired, nor justice sufficiently restored, without a judicial trial against Fr. Murphy."

Fliss and Weakland then met with Bertone in Rome in May 1988. Weakland informed Bertone that Murphy had no sense of remorse and didn't seem to realize the gravity of what he had done, according to a Vatican summary of the meeting.

But Bertone insisted that there weren't "sufficient elements to institute a canonical process" against Murphy because so much time had already passed, according to the summary. Instead, he said Murphy must be forbidden from celebrating Mass publicly outside his home diocese.

Weakland, likening Murphy to a "difficult" child, then reminded Bertone that three psychologists had determined he was a "typical" pedophile, in that he felt himself a victim.

But Bertone suggested Murphy take a spiritual retreat to determine if he is truly sorry, or otherwise face possible defrocking.

"Before the meeting ended, Monsignor Weakland reaffirmed the difficulty he will have to make the deaf community understand the lightness of these provisions," the summary noted.

The documents contain no response from Ratzinger.

The documents emerged even as the Vatican deals with an ever-widening church abuse scandal sweeping several European countries. Benedict last week issued an unprecedented letter to Ireland addressing the 16 years of church cover-up scandals there. But he has yet to say anything about his handling of a case in Germany known to have developed when, as cardinal, he oversaw the Munich Archdiocese from 1977 to 1982.

Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in the statement that a lack of more recent allegations was a factor in the decision not to defrock Murphy and noted that "the Code of Canon Law does not envision automatic penalties."

After Murphy was removed from the school in 1974, he went to northern Wisconsin, where he spent the rest of his life working in parishes, schools and, according to one lawsuit, a juvenile detention center.

Previously released court documents show Weakland oversaw a 1993 evaluation of Murphy that concluded the priest likely assaulted up to 200 students at the school.

Weakland resigned as archbishop in 2002 after admitting the archdiocese secretly paid $450,000 to a man who accused him of sexual abuse.

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

Just let them have sex/get married!!! It would solve alot of these problems. Why ignore such an easy solution? I just don't get it.

[MTVike]

Just let them have sex/get married!!! It would solve alot of these problems. Why ignore such an easy solution? I just don't get it.

The Catholic church is extremely traditional and considers itself exempt from the influences of modern culture.

It's popular culture that needs reform due to "institutionalized sin", not the church.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Just let them have sex/get married!!! It would solve alot of these problems. Why ignore such an easy solution? I just don't get it.
because if you allow this then you will have to allow all the people who want to marry their animals to marry as well. it's pretty simple, can't believe you couldn't see that. sheeeeeeeeesh.

[hannitykillspuppies]

The Catholic church is extremely traditional and considers itself exempt from the influences of modern culture.

It's popular culture that needs reform due to "institutionalized sin", not the church.
city hall isn't a church and no one's advocating that a priest be forced to preside over ceremonies.

[MTVike]

city hall isn't a church and no one's advocating that a priest be forced to preside over ceremonies.

Got the right thread, Ashey?

I was reponding to Rush's question about why priests aren't allowed to marry, not about why gays aren't allowed to marry.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Got the right thread, Ashey?


i don't know.

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

i don't know.


Your point was a good one nonetheless.

[KinjaKahn]

i don't know.Will echo for eternity.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Will echo for eternity.

how can you hear with your body encased in tin foil?