Article

2006-06-21 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-06-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This will be the one that splinters teh Eposcopial church in the US and globally as well.

And these people claim the Catholic Chruch has a confusing bureacracy?

Not only can I not figure out who is responsible, I cant seem to even find a spine in there in the leaderhship, much less any sort of orthodox theology.

May as well join the Unitarians if this is all their faith and theology stands for. Invite in the tribal hoodoos and new age crystal gazers while you're at it - they have as much conviction and tehological basis as does the Episcopal Church anymore.

Sigh. I guess I better get ready for a ton more converts this fall. We Catholics get a lot of refugees that come to the Roman "catholic" Church as converts every time a major denomination goes off the rails like this.

Its rather sad to see the Anglicans and Episcopalians self destruct.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-21 00:18|| 2006-06-21 00:18|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm not episcopalian but I guess it comes down to what you believe. I left organized religion a short time ago but if I were to belong to a church - I'd want to know if the preacher/priest or whoever was put in their present position was because of their knowledge, professionalism, and sincere ability to fulfill their duties w/accords to the mission statement of that particular religious organization. Not, because of their race, color, creed or sexual preferences. I personally care not what a person's sexual orientation is so long as they are proficient at their job and have the class to keep it to themselves. If, the church as I described was trying to push the gay ajenda as I've seen on MTV and other left-leaning social jokes I would prolly leave quick. I've no tolerance for that type of sh*t. Bottomline, if I knew my pastor was gay but he/she didn't make some victocrat or rally around issue of it I could prolly deal w/that.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-21 00:30|| 2006-06-21 00:30|| Front Page Top

Text deleted per author's request. AoS.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-21 00:45|| 2006-06-21 00:45|| Front Page Top

#4 Mods please delete the above post - I am tired so I didn't catch the transpositions and typos (dyslexia and slightly arthritic hands are a bad combo)

Now with Google-Bar Spell Checked Goodness! (thanks for that heads up about Google-bar for FireFox and it's ability to spell check text boxes)

BH6 - that's the Catholic position. Being a homosexual is no bar to salvation - but being a fornicator (sex outside of marriage) or performing homosexual acts *is* a bar to proper Christian behavior.

I know of at least one priest who is "homosexually oriented", but isn't pushy about it. He says the Catholic Church's rules on clerical celibacy were a Godsend to him - in his words they "literally saved his soul", in his viewpoint, by putting him in the service of God and putting a severe (cardinal) sin on the far end of the forbidden list, and giving him plenty of motivation toward proper Christian behavior.

We all sin - its those that do not recognize, repent and ask forgiveness for their sins that condemn themselves. That's everything from Adultery to Homosexuality to blasphemy. And unfortunately for the Episcopalians, they have erred in one of the most egregious ways - in that they are leading a whole group of people astray with errant theology and a warping of the Gospel into a lie. All to avoid having people become uncomfortable. Christianity places a moral obligation for Christians to inform sinners of what things are sins, help them repent and teach them of the forgiveness that's is available. The "prostitute" that Jesus forgives is a prime example of such a thing - but also remember that his parting words are "Go, and SIN NO MORE". People tend to forget that part.

Forgiveness is there, in an almost unimaginable amount - god's capacity to forgive exceeds our capacity to sin! But it also carries with the the obligation to put forth the effort to not sin again - and to prudently avoid things that can bring us to sin (like "lusting in our heart", etc).

And that's where the "soft" churches like the Episcopalians are headed - into deep theological error,, and they are doing the worst thing a shepherd can do - they are leading their flock astray, straight to the wolves. All as a matter to salve their liberal conscience. They forget that we enter by the narrow gate (as Christ said), not the broad road.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-21 01:11|| 2006-06-21 01:11|| Front Page Top

#5 I have an uncle who is gay. Knew it when he was about 12-13 yrs old (early 1960s). Being of the big Irish Catholic family he married my aunt, had two kids and tried to stay faithfully married for nearly 30 yrs. They ended up separating when he felt he no longer could fulfill that obligation as he still was a homosexual at heart and had those yearnings or whatever. They never got divorced because he didn't want her to lose his health insurance benefits and I know he had the guilt about drawing her into that lie. My uncle was a good father to his children and always did right by me (and I'm possibly the most un p.c. archie bunker type you'd ever wanna meet). I'm not condoning him lying to her & basically wasting a lot of good years for her.

He's not what I'd call a flamer & my point of this story is if he wants to live the rest of his life as an unrepentant homosexual because he believes that how two consenting adults love each other is no one else's business I don't really have a problem w/it. I don't think the Almighty I believe in is going to doom him to eternity in hell, purgatory or any other dismal place. I think 95% of homosexuals are born that way. People can quote the Bible about sin (which means to act without love) or recite verse verbatim about what is sin or what Jesus supposedly said. If you believe whole heartedly in Catholic doctrine (which I don't anymore) and that works for you then power to you and I agree that your clergy should strictly follow those regulations they voluntarily agreed to as per their organization sets forth - just as I do in my profession. Off topic but worty of note - either way there is no way to tell what was ever actually said or what man devised wrt scriptures, gospels, or revealed religion from any culture. IMHO - most of it was written by man for man. (So here comes the can of worms).

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-21 01:19|| 2006-06-21 01:19|| Front Page Top

#6 Not only can I not figure out who is responsible, I cant seem to even find a spine in there in the leaderhship, much less any sort of orthodox theology.

Read Chris Johnston's web site; they have lots of backbone when dealing with people going against their party line.

Posted by Phil 2006-06-21 01:40|| 2006-06-21 01:40|| Front Page Top

#7 My personal take.

"... The Word of God shall stand forever." Isaiah 40:8

Liberals may kill off "Christian" churches, but then the liberals just die like anyone else. People have been trying to derail Christianity for 2,000 years.

The world will continue to degenerate until Armagheden, but that is simply the ultimate result of mankind chosing to distance himself from God. But afterwards, God will still be standing, along with many that chose to stand with Him.

In the mean time, God is a team player. It takes Him and true Christians to reverse the current trend. Otherwise, if Christians just sit back, so does God...

Posted by Gromosh Elminegum5705 2006-06-21 03:03|| 2006-06-21 03:03|| Front Page Top

#8 Homosexual acts, according to natural law, the scriptures and the Church, are disordered acts. Additionally there is an obligation as Christians to "remain chaste within our station" in life - that means no sex unless you are married. To violate that is to commit the sin of fornication (or adultery if you are married and have sex outside of marriage). Homosexuals can never fit that particular part of Christian obligation (marriage), and as such they have an increased burden, like someone who has a handicap. In the case of your uncle, I assume from your description that he attempted to do the right things as he knew them, and as long as his heart was right with God and he didn't commit anything he knew was wrong (or at least he genuine repented), then he will get the forgiveness if he sought it, and will get the ultimate reward, the same as any of us sinners. God accommodates all those who seek him, but one shouldn't go expecting Him to change the rules. The Old and New Testaments are fairly clear about homosexual acts being disordered, and generally an egregious sin: an act against God's laws - there is little to debate there (I quoted chapter and verse there, where homosexual acts were included with other sins like extortion, etc, as dis-qualifiers from heaven). There is also the Christian duty to admonish the sinner so they will know what they are doing is wrong, in order to help them repent and seek the forgiveness that awaits them (several biblical cites for that as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church going back many centuries). To allow a sinner to continue in ignorance is a terrible abrogation of that responsibility. One thing I want to be clear about is that this doesn't give any excuse for tactlessness nor hate (c.f. Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" church). God doesn't "hate fags" any more than he hates drunkards, abuser or even murderers. He hates the sins, not the sinner. If He hated sinners, then He would not have come down as His Son and gone through the agony of the cross to provide us a way out by fulfilling the old covenant and establishing the new one.

Bottom line: people are left with a choice when it comes to this issue an Christianity: either believe in the fundamental tenets of orthodox Christianity regarding truth and interpretation of Biblical scripture or don't. If one does, then my argument holds sway. If one doesn't then there is really very little to discuss - we have probably even less in common, theologically speaking, than I would have with a Southern Baptist (who consider us Catholics to be idol worshippers and "Papists"). But be warned, along the path of Heterodoxy are many snares and ways to create your own stumbling blocks. Orthodoxy has a couple of thousand years of hard study behind it from the Pentateuch through the ancient scholars of the Church, etc. These questions have been argued long and by minds far greater than ours - and that's why I believe what I do. If you choose to believe otherwise, then that's your choice. Just be aware of the cost of a wrong choice if you knew the other way was right.

I guess all we can agree is that we disagree BH6.

I'll not post further except to clarify things if others have questions, or else to provide citations. The last thing I want to turn this into is an Othrodox vs Heterodox battle royale. We do have a few things in common after all - the Trinity, forgivness of sins, baptism, and so on.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-21 03:24|| 2006-06-21 03:24|| Front Page Top

#9 I know BH6 is into the Trinity he's a Marine after all... not sure about the forgiveness thing tho. :>

Posted by 6 2006-06-21 06:45|| 2006-06-21 06:45|| Front Page Top

#10 We do have a few things in common after all

And fighting the war on terrorism/Islamofascism/Jihadist Islam. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-06-21 07:05|| 2006-06-21 07:05|| Front Page Top

#11 Yep 6, I do believe in the trinity:

Chesty, Smedley, & Daily.

:)

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-21 07:40|| 2006-06-21 07:40|| Front Page Top

#12 Ya gotta wonder what Chesty Puller would say about Murtha...

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-21 09:20|| 2006-06-21 09:20|| Front Page Top

#13 Ya gotta wonder if the mods would let Chesty post what he thinks of Murtha.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-21 10:02|| 2006-06-21 10:02|| Front Page Top

#14 OS, you're right, these questions have been argued long and hard by minds far greater than ours but also after study and much contemplation - this is also exactly why I believe as I do. If you choose to believe otherwise, then that's your choice and I support you as I would any other fellow patriot who is trying to make a positive contribution to our society or at the very least not trying to be a burden to it. As for the trinity, virgin birth, baptism as forgiveness of sins, original sin, then yeah we can agree to disagree and definitely no hard feelings from this end. I'm a spiritually secure Deist anyhow FWIW.

As for the egregious act of homosexuality being against the laws of nature, I'd submit from the gays I've known they have all claimed to have been born that way (now, they could be lying but I doubt it). Based off that I'd submit that they are merely acting in accordance w/their nature or in the manner nature has unfortunately prescribed them. I would like to know how two consenting adults acting within their nature (as far back as they remember it) and do it in the privacy of their own home - then what is the logical reason it is an egregious sin? My personal thought is that obviously since their can be no procreation or "fruitfulness" from homosexual activities those who wrote the old testament saw this as an egregious crime against God &/or nature and a possible threat to society as they knew it at the time. I'd call this (in my limited analytical fashion - remember you're dealing w/a knuckle dragging Marine here & I'm not real articulate, as least not of your league to be sure) a prescribed pragmatic safeguard to ensure the survivability of a society. To a lesser extent I believe hygenic and dietery restrictions were dealt with in the same way - to keep the tribe healthy and fruitful. Hence common wisdom or good wisdom at the time was to avoid eating certain kinds of food due to the uncertainty in cooking it and the haphazard results there of - i.e. trichenosis (sp?). If one believes God wrote the whole Bible through man w/out error then he didn't have much regard for homosexuals IIRC (Leveticus?). If (as some believe) he wrote only parts of it then I'm not sure which ones. If one (I think the most popular interpretation) believes man wrote it based off divine inspiration as aforementioned but after or before many of the events ascribed to it took place (according to historical studies) then I'm not sure if God's stance softened or not wrt homosexuality other then "sin no more" and then I would go back to my original premise - it's if you believe God said it was a sin in the first place and not man ascribing it to God for his own end & protection of his society. I.E. - similarly like sexing it up w/Satyrs, Dragons, fiery lizards, and cockatrices. (If one believes in those aforementioned animals then we prolly have very little in common.) I don't remember JC having to much to say on the homo matter other then what you posted about "sin no more." I do know Saul of Tarsus (Paul) had a hard on for them - no pun intended. Either way worth thinking about.

For GP, & my general disclaimer before anyone thinks I'm a huge fan of those who got the gay:

I don't want to see two dudes swapping spit anymore then I'd want to see two fat baboons f*cking (or Rosey O'Donnell humping on Melissa Etheridge - kind of the same thing when you really contemplate it). I also don't think being gay is *cool* in that stupid MTV kind of way - though the few gays I've met have seemed nice enough. I never-ever want to see gay PDA but I do believe in live and let live and I'd like to see all honest hard-working Americans lead happy lives. The only definition of marriage I believe in is one man/one woman (if homos want the civil union then okay by me but it's not a "marriage"), I don't want gays openly serving in the military (for wholly pragmatic purposes - they'd be getting beat down left & right & the military is not a damn social experiment) & I f*cking hate the liberal flaming gay ajenda wrt to the hate crimes/hate speech nonsense laws - because I feel it actually takes away from the rest of us receiving equal protections under the U.S. Const.

Wow, thank God for ogranized religion as it keeps are conversations from getting boring.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-21 10:17|| 2006-06-21 10:17|| Front Page Top

#15 When Murtha dies Chesty will be waiting for his ass.........wherever it goes.

Hey, even if we disagree on religion or whatever I think we all agree the Almighty is ultimately just and doesn't mind seeing a good ass whipping when it's earned......he also has a grand but odd sense of humor - why do you think he invented tabloids and Michael Jackson?

John Murtha - I will always hate you...always.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-21 10:25|| 2006-06-21 10:25|| Front Page Top

#16 To close out my point, after rereading things it looks like I'm gay bashing - I dont want that to be the image in people's minds because thats not what I intended. Its that the Episcopalians are having the same problems liberals everywhere have - they simply dont follow the rules or try to change them to suit whatever the "feel good" whim of the day is. And they aren't the only denomination - the Presbyterians are having issues too about enforcement of sexual morality rules on their clergy in a recent vote that threatens to schism their church, and thare are also the well publicised problems in the Catholic Church regarding heterodoxy versus orthodoxy (google for all the people in Orange County up in arms about Cardinal Mahoney, versus the paise Archibishop Chaput in Denver gets - and look at the differences in effectiveness, the latter being far more effective).

(I agree with Mark Roberts, from whom I cribbed the gist of this part of my post)

The issue for me is that any institution that says "Here are the rules but you can decide whether the rules have to be followed or not" is doomed. Consider what would happen if the United States acted like the that. Under the Constitution, people are guaranteed the freedom of speech. But what would be left of our national union if states or localities had the unchecked authority to decide whether or not to allow their residents to speak freely, and in what circumstances. We'd soon find ourselves in unending conflicts and general anarchy. And that's where the Epicopalians, Anglicans, Presbyterians and others are headed due to the heterodoxy thay have allowed to become doctrine. The Catholic Church has escaped this only due to a fairly orthodox, strong theologian in John Paul the Great and his strongly orthodox fellow theologian successor, Benedict. That and a heck of a lot of pressure from the laity, and "Divine Providence" as Ben Franklin would have put it.

And there it is, laid out for you - all the ugly politics behind organized relgion, and its reflection of the red-blue split. One thing is for sure, they sure dont seem too organized these days.

Maybe thats another Oxymoron we should add to the list... Organized Religion.

Heh.

Thanks for you posts BH6 - you just brought a goofy grin to my face with the image of Murtha arriving at either destination, and Chesty is there, with this chest out, sleeves rolled up, chewin on a stogie, saying "I saw where you were talking bad about my beloved Corps..." THUMP!

FYI, Ive too too many ops with (former, not Ex) Marines, that jar-headedness just rubs off after a while even on an old Army Dog. And remember - there is no bag limit on bad guys. Good hunting!

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-21 11:38|| 2006-06-21 11:38|| Front Page Top

#17 OS, I see your point. Hopefully their respective organizations can figure out what it is they adhere to and then actually maintain their standards. I heard about Presby USA vs. the Anglican conglomerate on talk radio last night but I'm not familiar w/the RC split in Diego and Denver - I'll have to google that one.

Oddly enough, in between posts our friendly neighborhood Jehova's Witnesses showed up to my door doing their monthly rounds of my subdivision. I don't know many JW's but this couple always seems friendly so I figure it wouldn't be right if I didn't test their faith a little bit - ya know, just to keep'em on their toes while they're out working hard fishing for the lord. Needless to say my wife doesn't let me answer the door anymore when they show up (there was also somethin' about me having no hope of being a part of the 144,000 or some such the last time they came by). Oh well, *sigh and shrug shoulders* always a bridesmaid....... ;)

*wait a second, now that I think about it, didn't I mention Mikey Jackson in my last post? He was born a JW IIRC! And now that JW couple shows up to my door!! Coincidence?! I think not! Damn, I am going to hell and I'll prolly have to watch rosey o'donnell and one of the indigo girls get it on too! The horror....the horror :(

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-21 12:32|| 2006-06-21 12:32|| Front Page Top

#18 My Dad served under Chesty in Korea and always closed his nightly prayers with "Bless you Chesty, wherever you are".

I had no idea what the hell he was talking about until I got to Pendleton. :)

Posted by GORT 2006-06-21 12:36|| 2006-06-21 12:36|| Front Page Top

#19 Yeah GORT, we still make'em end the nightly prayer at Parris Island and OCS w/that one. Brings a tear to the old glass eye it does.....

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-21 12:42|| 2006-06-21 12:42|| Front Page Top

#20 RE: #8. OS, this here Southern Baptist does NOT consider you an idol worshipper or a papist. But, I do completely agree with you on the Fred Phelps issue. I'm sure J.C., if he were to return today would smack fred (phelps, not our lovely mod) hard. My whole attitude as a Southern Baptist is exactly what you said..."Love the sinner, hate the sin." Unfortunately, in this day of P.C. spun "language" that often comes out as gay-bashing. In fact, I can't STAND the term "homophobic..." I'm not AFRAID of them, just don't agree with their lifestyle. And, I'm like OS on this one...just expressing my opinion (we can agree to disagree), but BH6 has got it right....these groups are being infiltrated by libs with the "touchy-feely issue of the day" only to collapse from within (much like our nation as a whole), and yet, like OS, as a Christian, I believe it is my duty to point out sin to sinners (myself, the Chief of them, like Paul wrote), even unbelievers. This is one of those times for these denominations (Presby's and Episcopals).

Posted by BA 2006-06-21 13:21|| 2006-06-21 13:21|| Front Page Top

#21 Big surprise.

And that's where the "soft" churches like the Episcopalians are headed - into deep theological error,, and they are doing the worst thing a shepherd can do - they are leading their flock astray, straight to the wolves.

Man, get a clue. This denomination went apostate a very long time ago. You can't lead a sheep astray if it's already astray, and you as the Shepherd, are totally lost too. Further, you can't lead a sheep astray if it's not a sheep. There's nothing remotely Christian about these folks, so in the final analysis, I could care less. The only thing that offends me about them is that they dare to call themselves a Christian denomination.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-06-21 16:44|| 2006-06-21 16:44|| Front Page Top

#22 I think we all agree the Almighty is ultimately just and doesn't mind seeing a good ass whipping when it's earned......he also has a grand but odd sense of humor

I've wagered my imortal soul on that.

Posted by 6 2006-06-21 16:53|| 2006-06-21 16:53|| Front Page Top

#23 interesting discussion. But the whole "born that way" issue is such a pet peeve for me that ...I ..can't...help..myself....

I was raised in SOCAL and the whole "do your own thing" is ingrained in my life's outlook - so I really don't care what others do in their spare time as long as it doesn't hurt me or society, Fortunately God didn't appoint me as the ultimate decider on the fate of the souls of others....

but... .
what difference does it make if he was "born that way"? That just seems such a bogus explanation. Does it matter if a gambler is "born that way"? How about an addict? A nymphomaniac? Or would it make a difference if a child molester was "born that way"?

Nooooo I'm not equating your Uncle with a child molester - I'll trust you can grasp that my point is does it matter?

I'm not going to discuss the theology of it cause the positions of all have already been made and well stated. But it just really makes no difference in terms of the question is homosexuality a sin any more than the question, is adultery a sin to ponder the issue of whether or not he was "born that way". It's meaningless.

whew....glad that's off my chest!

Posted by 2b 2006-06-21 17:04|| 2006-06-21 17:04|| Front Page Top

#24 MY LORD GOD, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think that I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road though I may know nothing about it. Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.

- Thomas Merton

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-21 18:48|| 2006-06-21 18:48|| Front Page Top

#25 I'm with 6 on this

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-21 20:44|| 2006-06-21 20:44|| Front Page Top

#26 I have to agree with 2b's outlook on this. It's not my role to ultimately judge gays on their life style but to whole heartedly endorse it wouldn't be right either.

Some one earlier used the old phrase 'hate the sin not the sinner'. I agree with this outlook strongly but, it doesn't mean I as a Christian should condone certain behavior.

Sex was ultimately devised by God for procreation just as marriage was devised to create a stable environment for the raising of children. Obviously both are far more complicated than that but at their core those are the reasons they exist.

Living the way God would have us all live isn't easy, in fact it can be damned inconvenient at times. Never the less the law remains.

Someone else earlier shared a story of a relative or friend, I don't remember now, who was helped by the rule of celebacy within the priesthood. I'm glad it was an aid to him, even though I don't think it is a good idea, I think it causes more harm than good. Anyway I'm not Catholic so I don't worry about it much.

I do live in a largely Catholic community though, and I've seen first hand the damage done by priests who have gone astray in regards to homosexuality and celebacy. Given their lofty place within the local parishes it seems foolhardy to ignore the problems that exist when a priest gives in to certain temptations be they born in or no.

If you can't trust your children with some priests, and you probably won't know who he is until it's too late then what does the church have left to offer?

Posted by RJB in JC MO 2006-06-21 22:51|| 2006-06-21 22:51|| Front Page Top

#27 Life is much easier all around when people keep their private lives, whatever activities that may entail, private. There are lots of things I don't want to know about others. This isn't a good/evil, right/wrong, or even acceptable/unacceptable judgement -- I hust do not want to know. Especially if you're in the habit of drinking with a straw at the table or eating straight out of the container without even putting it on a plate!

Posted by trailing wife 2006-06-21 23:10|| 2006-06-21 23:10|| Front Page Top

15:37 Old Patriot
23:53 Janos Hunyadi
23:48 crazyhorse
23:42 RD
23:28 RD
23:17 Frank G
23:16 Monsieur Moonbat
23:10 trailing wife
23:06 RD
23:06 Janos Hunyadi
22:55 RJB in JC MO
22:51 RJB in JC MO
22:46 Mark Z
22:44 trailing wife
22:38 badanov
22:20 trailing wife
22:16 Slineger Flaique8971
22:09 Chuck Simmins
22:00 Captain America
21:54 Chuck Simmins
21:49 Captain America
21:48 anymouse
21:47 Al Gore
21:38 Frank G