Presbyterians reverse decision

[bane]

counting down to being moved to the scottish thread... but here goes

"Progressive Presbyterians at the General Assembly were deeply saddened that the Assembly today rejected partnered gay and lesbian people, and people living in de facto relationships, as ministers and elders. They regard the decision as an affront to the gospel."

Im not a church goer, and im currently in a 10yr+ defacto relationship, but I have to agree with their decision.

Surely an organisation that is based on a belief that gay and defacto relationships are wrong, can not in good faith, have people practicing those relationships in positions of power.

I mean it would be like a labour government making right wingers such as Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas cabinet ministers....

[McJim]

Well they could take the unprecendented action of disregarding the organised religion model and trying to live in the spirit of the bible - i.e. lets try being nice to one another for a change. However I've found with most religions tied into the Koran, Torah or Bible - the more organised and devout they are the more institutionally evil, cruel, mean and selfish they are.

But this is just my own experience of presbyterians/brethern and free church of Scotland.

[bane]

....and free church of Scotland.

Free! I thought nothing was free in Scotland :whistle:

[Lou Girardin]

I mean it would be like a labour government making right wingers such as Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas cabinet ministers....

They'd never do that. Would they?

[Oakie]

Surely an organisation that is based on a belief that gay and defacto relationships are wrong, can not in good faith, have people practicing those relationships in positions of power.


Perhaps they should change the belief?

[Skyryder]

Yep heard it on the news tonight. If you are going to espouse Christian beliefs then it is essential that the leadership practices what it preaches.

Skyryder

[Edbear]

it is essential that the leadership practices what it preaches.



Hey, what a novel idea...!:innocent:

[Ixion]

Desirable, but not essential



From THE ARTICLES OF RELIGION
Agreed upon by the Archbishops, Bishops,
and the whole clergy of the Provinces of Canterbury and York,
London, 1562

XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.




BTW, this does not in itself make any judgement on homeosexuality or unmarried cohabitation. Merely that it is not essential that ministers or priests be blameless, whatever that may mean. If homosexuality and non marital relationships are not "evil" then there is no problem. If they are (please note the :if), then that is not itself a disqualification for a priest. Let him who is without sin etc.

Or, alternatively, maybe people should just mind their own business.

[Drum]

Well they could take the unprecendented action of disregarding the organised religion model and trying to live in the spirit of the bible - i.e. lets try being nice to one another for a change. However I've found with most religions tied into the Koran, Torah or Bible - the more organised and devout they are the more institutionally evil, cruel, mean and selfish they are.

But this is just my own experience of presbyterians/brethern and free church of Scotland.

The bible tells the story of Sodom and Gomorrah where the homo's and infidels are killed by a rain of fire (or hail or the such). God isnt actually that tolerant of gays.

By the way, I have nothing against (christians or gays - theyre all just people with different beliefs in my book).

[Finn]

free church of Scotland.

There ain't nothing free about a church or religion for that matter. They've been milking people dry for centuries.

[Skyryder]

There ain't nothing free about a church or religion for that matter. They've been milking people dry for centuries.

Good one Finn. Another 'positive' post from you as usual.

Yes but those that go allow themselves to be milked willingly so that that may recieve eternal salvation.

Man has always believed in a god/goddes or gods to explain the unexplainable. The mystery and fear of death is to some extent relieved by the belief of an afterlife or as the Buddists and eastern religions; rebirth/reincarnation. The essential difference between the two is that with Christianity the Kingdom of God can only be entered through the Christ and the belief of the Trinity. Without this acknowledgmet by the indavidual the 'Pearly Gates' are shut for all eternity.

Eastern religious philosphy lays down a pathway of devotion that is Karmic. In other words it is the action of the man 'and their outcomes' that determine the spirtitual evolution of the indavidual.

There are many good people of both philosopy that give their time to those that are less fortunate than themselves. If they as indaviduals are prepared to offer their 'milk' then society is better for it.

Skyryder

[terbang]

Well I reckon religion (note: I dont target any one religion) is just fine and in its basic form, it is intended for the betterment of us all. What lets it down though is the power tripping control freaks that administer it. This being the negative effect of human nature.

[Finn]

Good one Finn. Another 'positive' post from you as usual.

Yes but those that go allow themselves to be milked willingly so that that may recieve eternal salvation.

Man has always believed in a god/goddes or gods to explain the unexplainable. The mystery and fear of death is to some extent relieved by the belief of an afterlife or as the Buddists and eastern religions; rebirth/reincarnation. The essential difference between the two is that with Christianity the Kingdom of God can only be entered through the Christ and the belief of the Trinity. Without this acknowledgmet by the indavidual the 'Pearly Gates' are shut for all eternity.

Eastern religious philosphy lays down a pathway of devotion that is Karmic. In other words it is the action of the man 'and their outcomes' that determine the spirtitual evolution of the indavidual.

There are many good people of both philosopy that give their time to those that are less fortunate than themselves. If they as indaviduals are prepared to offer their 'milk' then society is better for it.

Skyryder

Is there no end to your verbal diarrhoea? You talk so much utter bullshit they should name a disgusting smell after you. You are a classic example of someone who doesn't have a single thought of their own. Your knowledge is purely academic and is so far removed from reality.

SkyRyder you dumbass, religions are all power and money hungry corporations. Take Brasil for example, a third world economy (I'm sure your text books will concur) whos people can hardly afford to feed their fucking children, give a percentage of their sweat money to the fucking Church. As if the Vatican is short of money.

SkyRyder, the world isn't flat anymore, the maoris didn't really catch NZ on a fishing rod and the basis of all religion is a fairy tale.

[terbang]

the maoris didn't really catch NZ on a fishing rod .

As an aside note. How did the maoris know the shape of the north Island resembled a large fish to be able to make that legend? They didn't have satellites did they..?

[Finn]

As an aside note. How did the maoris know the shape of the north Island resembled a large fish to be able to make that legend? They didn't have satellites did they..?

Sky is an important part of maori culture. It dates back hundreds of years.

Besides, I've never seen a fish that resembles the north island.

[John Banks]

I hear that next they'll be making sure their ministers don't eat shellfish, trim their hair around their temples or wear clothes made out of two fabrics. Them all being equal abominations, and all.

I'm also looking forward to them announcing that women will no longer be able to speak in church.

[terbang]

Besides, I've never seen a fish that resembles the north island.
Dunno it sort of resembles some sort of a Ray. Maybe the Maori cartographers, bearing in mind that history is generally only written by the victor, knew a bit more than they have been given credit for.

[Harry33]

Sky is an important part of maori culture. It dates back hundreds of years.

Besides, I've never seen a fish that resembles the north island.

Didn't "Back of the Y" have a poo shaped like NZ.

[kro]

Perhaps they should change the belief?

Without consistency, the church has nothing more to offer the world, than well run private societies, so no, don't change the gospel, stick fast to it.

Changing the belief would be like Spankme having to become a car driver, because the rest of us think he's pig headed, not wanting to own or drive one. People harp on about Christians forcing their beliefs onto us, but comments like this Oakie, suggest the opposite.

[John Banks]

Without consistency, the church has nothing more to offer the world, than well run private societies, so no, don't change the gospel, stick fast to it.

That's ironic, considering the church is anything but consistent. They ignore plenty of other, much clearer verses, so why not this?

[kro]

That's ironic, considering the church is anything but consistent. They ignore plenty of other, much clearer verses, so why not this?

Granted, but without a clearer picture of exactly what you are referring to, I have to take that on advisement.

The translation of Biblical text is a minefield imo, and too many people have taken excerpts, or entire passages way out of context, and created mayhem with them. I would very much love to read the Bible in it's raw form, as I firmly believe that volumes of meaning in it, have been killed through mis-translation.

The main form of misunderstanding I find in people who have "read the Bible", is looking at the raw form of the "law" in the old testament, and not taking into account that the New Testament re-wrote the rules so to speak. God saw his people struggling, and revamped everything with the "Jesus years".

It's actually a fascinating text, as are alot of the religious writings.

[John Banks]

What I generally like to refer to in regards to this is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. This is in fairly clear language, is in the New Testament, and is an example of something the church has (rightly so) discarded.

14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

[kro]

The churches decision to allow this, is in direct contradiction to this edict, therefore the ones who allow it, are putting the practise of their faith "out of order". If one thing shines through when studying the Christian Faith, is that God is orderly, and going outside of this order, creates struggles, and problems.

If you put aside your personal beliefs for a second, and just allow yourself to imagine God and Lucifer are the real deal. Lucifer was pushed out of Heaven, and told he had but one place he would end up, which is Hell, then in Lucifers position, would you then have any scruples about taking as many with you as possible?. Lie cheat, steal, whisper, coerce, and downright push, would be Lucifers plan, but the whole time, denying his existence, so as to not alert the masses.

Certain aspects of the Humans rights movement we have seen in the last 50 or so years especially, has allowed Lucifer to use every lever he has to twist the order of God out of shape, and the warping of the Order, is why the Church lacks effectiveness to this very day. They have some success, but are thwarted at every turn by people who think they can rewrite Gods word.

What comes next, do we allow Satanists to lead our Churches?

Just my 2c worth really, I find the subject quite fascinating, so keep posting, I love a good yarn.

[Skyryder]

Is there no end to your verbal diarrhoea? You talk so much utter bullshit they should name a disgusting smell after you. You are a classic example of someone who doesn't have a single thought of their own. Your knowledge is purely academic and is so far removed from reality.


Hey there's an idea. What about an aftershave. Skyryder. Got no bike but want to smell like a biker. Skyryder. The aftershave that'll turn any wuss into the genuine bad arse biker. You'll stink so much that the chicks will think you are the real thing. Comes in two different versions. Crotch/rocket for that sporty pong and underarm for the cruiser aroma. Ladies version comes in a plastic dildo bottle.

Skyryder

PS I'm getting heaps PM's of encouragment so just keep post ing Finn and let's not disapoint the punters. :Playnice:

[terbang]

Yeah ya gotta love those loud attacks. Often wonder why they are like that. Maybe because the airs thicker down there at 5'6" AMSL.

[Finn]

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla, bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla, bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla, bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla, bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla, bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla, bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.

Yeah whatever. Hey, post up your PM's - you can take the names off, it'll be fun. Or is this just more of the bullshit we've come to expect from SkyRyder???

[Oakie]

Without consistency, the church has nothing more to offer the world, than well run private societies, so no, don't change the gospel, stick fast to it.

A). It's not about changing the gospel ... it's about recognising that society has moved on from where it was 2000 years ago. (Or has it?)

B) Consistency is a good thing but if that consistency does not reflect the environment in which any organisation operates, is it really maximising it's opportunities?

C) If the church exludes a portion of our population for whatever reason and is not therefore open to everyone, is it not itself becoming a "well run private society"?

Good debate. Can't understand as an athiest why I get so interested in religious debates.

[Edbear]

Good debate. Can't understand as an athiest why I get so interested in religious debates.



Probably because it's fun and you can provoke some interesting reactions...:Pokey:

[bane]

C) If the church exludes a portion of our population for whatever reason and is not therefore open to everyone, is it not itself becoming a "well run private society"?

I suggest the Presbyterians would say they are not excluding these people from the church, only from positions of leadership.


This isnt a religious battle as I see it, it could be an animal rights activist owning a chain of butchery's... Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

[Rogue Rider]

The thing that frustrates me the most about religion is the fact that there is so much hipocracy and double standard setting. It turns so people off that they can't seem to stand together and be unidied. ie there are 30+ mainstream christian churches yet for the most count they can't agree on the colour of Shite. I think any faith or beleif system that can't follow its own teachings and fundamental standards holds very little in the way of credibilty. For the most part, nearly all religions denote and consider homosexuality as immoral or at least wrong. But my understanding of God, and especially Jesus' teachings is grace, and forgiveness. He said that we must love all and help eachother. After all we all do bad stuff to varying levels. Who is to say who deserves what.... I thought that was Gods judgement and that we would all be measured as we measure.
I think the decision to deny leadership to those who did not fall into the acceptable criteria for Godly ministers is correct. But how could it have been accepted otherwise, thats the point that shocks me. How can someone clearly disobeying God with there lifestyle be accepted into leadership.. Just shows sugar in the fuel tank, everything there gonna sieze up eventually.:buggerd:

[Skyryder]

Yeah whatever. Hey, post up your PM's - you can take the names off, it'll be fun. Or is this just more of the bullshit we've come to expect from SkyRyder???

onya sky. That Finn needs putting down from time to time. No one does it better than you.


Sock it to him boyo.

Bet Finn is first in the line to buy your aftershave. Probaly needs it for his image.

Fuck you sky. I'm been trying to hammer that pric. You beat me to it every time.



Skyryder

[padre]

I took the liberty of researching this issue at Bible Org (see below). I agree would be maximally hypocritical to knowingly ordain ho's

Q. What is homosexuality?

Homosexuality is the manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of one's own sex or the erotic activity with a member of the same sex. (The Greek word homos means the same). A lesbian is a female homosexual or a person native to Lesbos.

Q. What should be the Christian's attitude toward the homosexual?

We must always keep before us the fact that homosexuals, like all of us sinners, are the objects of God's love. The Bible says, "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Jesus Christ "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (I John 2:2).

The Christian who shares God's love for lost sinners will seek to reach the homosexual with the gospel of Christ, which "is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16). As a Christian I should hate all sin but I can find no justification for hating the sinner. The homosexual is a precious soul for whom Christ died.

We Christians can show him the best way of life by pointing him to Christ. Our Lord said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). We are obligated to take the gospel to all.

Q. Do you care to make any comments on the Anita Bryant crusade in Dade County, Florida?

In my judgment Anita Bryant was justified in the action she pursued. She did not want her children exposed to the influence of a practicing homosexual in the public school classroom. Inasmuch as homosexuality is classified in the Bible as an evil, to insist that children be exposed to homosexual teachers in the public schools would be an infringement upon the rights of parents and their children.

Under no condition would I permit my children to be subjected to the influence of a sex pervert. As an American citizen I consider that choice to be my right. Anita Bryant laid her career on the line in the bold and courageous stand she took. She should not have to fight the battle alone. Christians should support her.

Q. How can we help Christians who get involved in the practice of homosexuality?

We can help them by seeking to draw their attention to what God says in His Word. In a kind and loving spirit we can show them that they are wrong. However, the homosexual must admit to the fact that he is living in sin and that he has the desire to be made free from it. Without a genuine conviction of God's displeasure and a strong desire to do God's will, there is no hope.

A truly born again person cannot continue to practice sin without reaping the results of miserable unhappiness brought on by loss of fellowship with God, the fear of retribution and the anxiety produced by guilt. The homosexual must ask himself, "Is the temporary gratification of the flesh worth all the penalty and losses I must suffer?"

Biography; of Anita Bryant - got a bigot award & has many hate (her) websits

Early career
A member of the Southern Baptist church, she is remembered for campaigning in the 1970s to repeal a local ordinance in Miami prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Singing from the age of two, Bryant became second runner-up in the 1959 Miss America beauty pageant. She had three big pop hits: including "Paper Roses" (1960) successfully covered 13 years later by Marie Osmond. In 1960, she married a disc jockey, with whom she raised four children. She became a spokeswoman for the Florida Citrus Commission in 1969, and nationally televised commercials featured her singing "Come to the Florida Sunshine tree".

She became widely recognizable, doing advertisements for Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Holiday Inn, and Tupperware. She sang "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" during the graveside services for Lyndon Johnson in 1973, and performed the National Anthem at Super Bowl III in 1969.

Anti-gay efforts
In 1977, Florida's Dade County (now Miami-Dade County) passed a human-rights ordinance that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In response to this, Bryant led a major campaign to repeal the ordinance.

Her concerns over homosexual recruitment of children inspired the name of Bryant's political organization, Save Our Children. Among Bryant's assertions during the campaign were “As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children” and “If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail biters.”

In June 1977, Bryant's campaign led to a repeal of the anti-discrimination ordinance by a margin of 69 to 31 percent.
The next day, Bryant stated, “In victory, we shall not be vindictive. We shall continue to seek help and change for homosexuals, whose sick sad values belie the word ‘gay’ which they pathetically use to cover their unhappy lives.”

Victory and defeat
In the aftermath, legislation was passed outlawing adoption by gays and lesbians in the state of Florida and Bryant led several more campaigns around the country to repeal local anti-discrimination ordinances.

Dade County, in 1998, repudiated Bryant's successful campaign of 20 years earlier, and re-authorized an anti-discrimination ordinance protecting individuals from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by a 7 to 6 margin. The statute forbidding adoptions by gay persons in Florida, however, remains law.

Anita Bryant's political success galvanized her opponents. She became one of the first persons to be "pied" (i.e., hit in the face with a pie) as a political act, in Des Moines in 1977. Gay activists organized an Orange juice boycott, Many celebrities including Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, Paul Williams and Jane Fonda publicly supported the boycott as well.

Career decline and bankruptcy
The fallout from her political activism had a devastating effect on her entertainment career. Her contract with the Florida Citrus Commission also was allowed to lapse because of the negative publicity she had generated

The Bibles main concern seems to be with males homosexuals. And the reason for this once you plough through all the name calling, mostly by Paul "perverts etc" would seem to be that God wants Christians to be breeding stock, and to do so in a "traditional" family context. Seems homosexuality was lumped in with adultery as something not conducive to Ms Bryants version of a "happy American family"

[Finn]

onya sky. That Finn needs putting down from time to time. No one does it better than you.


Sock it to him boyo.

Bet Finn is first in the line to buy your aftershave. Probaly needs it for his image.

Fuck you sky. I'm been trying to hammer that pric. You beat me to it every time.



Skyryder

No SkyRyder, the real PM's, not your made up ones. You are becoming more and more pathetic.

But while I remember, here's a few I got about you...

Fuck Finn, that was a bit low posting a pic of SkyRyder. He's not too camera friendly

Hey, did SkyRyder really deny being a pedophile

Fuck SkyRyder is boring. He thinks he's funny but he's an idiot.

I think you're right Finn, SkyRyder is a school teacher

Ha, ha, I bet he masterbates thinking of Clark.

Did his wife really leave him for his son?

There's more put it gets a bit personal.

[Skyryder]

No SkyRyder, the real PM's, not your made up ones.

You are becoming more and more pathetic.


They are the real ones.

Here's another.

Finn :buggerd: by you again. Love it.

Skyryder

[Zed]

"Progressive Presbyterians at the General Assembly were deeply saddened that the Assembly today rejected partnered gay and lesbian people, and people living in de facto relationships, as ministers and elders. They regard the decision as an affront to the gospel."

Im not a church goer, and im currently in a 10yr+ defacto relationship, but I have to agree with their decision.

Surely an organisation that is based on a belief that gay and defacto relationships are wrong, can not in good faith, have people practicing those relationships in positions of power...The Protestant churches (Presbys, Anglican/Church of England, Methodists, et al) who came out of the Roman Catholic Church through the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, have never completely freed themselves of the strong RCC influence in their doctrine and especially traditions that go contrary to the scriptures, and one of those traditions was to overule previous edict's and change doctrine consistently over their history. The authority for their decision making has never been the Bible!

But a strict adherance to the fundamental doctrines found in the Bible concerning marriage, adultery, and fornication is something ALL denominations struggle with in today's world, and yet that Bible prophesied this current apostacy of the church a long time ago. Anyone who has read and studied the Bible knows that the closer it gets to the 'end' the further away man gets from God, including God's people in the church.

[Skyryder]

No SkyRyder, the real PM's, not your made up ones. You are becoming more and more pathetic.

There's more put it gets a bit personal.

Now don't hold back Finn. Debase yourself. :spanking:

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

The Protestant churches (Presbys, Anglican/Church of England, Methodists, et al) who came out of the Roman Catholic Church through the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, have never completely freed themselves of the strong RCC influence in their doctrine and especially traditions that go contrary to the scriptures. But a strict adherance to the fundamental doctrines found in the Bible concerning marriage, adultery, and fornication is something ALL denominations struggle with in today's world, and yet that Bible prophesied this current apostacy of the church a long time ago. Anyone who has read and studied the Bible knows that the closer it gets to the 'end' the further man gets from God, including God's people in the church.

Just when I 'm having some fun with Finn you want to go and get this into the Scots thing.

I'm listening to some great blues at the moment that's got me cooking. Toss some prafinty into your post Zed just to keep this on track.

Love you bro you just keep on trucking with the man. :hug:

Skyryder

[Edbear]

The thing that frustrates me the most about religion is the fact that there is so much hipocracy and double standard setting. It turns so people off that they can't seem to stand together and be unidied. ie there are 30+ mainstream christian churches yet for the most count they can't agree on the colour of Shite. I think any faith or beleif system that can't follow its own teachings and fundamental standards holds very little in the way of credibilty. For the most part, nearly all religions denote and consider homosexuality as immoral or at least wrong. But my understanding of God, and especially Jesus' teachings is grace, and forgiveness. He said that we must love all and help eachother. After all we all do bad stuff to varying levels. Who is to say who deserves what.... I thought that was Gods judgement and that we would all be measured as we measure.
I think the decision to deny leadership to those who did not fall into the acceptable criteria for Godly ministers is correct. But how could it have been accepted otherwise, thats the point that shocks me. How can someone clearly disobeying God with there lifestyle be accepted into leadership.. Just shows sugar in the fuel tank, everything there gonna sieze up eventually.:buggerd:



A thoughtful post.

[kro]

The thing that frustrates me the most about religion is the fact that there is so much hipocracy and double standard setting.

This is where I agree, but disagree in the same breath. The only time the word hypocrisy seems to be highlighted in these forums, is on the subject of religion, and Police. Hypocrisy is occuring daily in places that DO affect you, like work, and home, and in friendships you cultivate, but for the most part, it's down-played, or ignored, and the frustrations it generates, are then unleashed on a group if individuals, who stand before God, and declare him real.

This in itself is the truest form of hypocrisy, as it shows up the spineless non-confrontational NZer's, who would rather moan about their shift manager taking long lunch breaks, whilst he/she gives you hell for being 2 mins late for work. This happens daily, and it's everywhere you look, and the way to deal to it, is to confront it head on, in the same way the church is forced to. If it's Hypocrisy you truly detest, then stand up for all the other daily "injustices", and leave the Church to try and iron out theirs too. The funny thing is, the Church goers won't judge you for not standing up to your hypocritical boss, but you'll judge them for inconsistencies in their doctrine.

I pulled my boss up 2 weeks ago, and told him cold faced, that his actions did not back up his words, and he was pissed to begin with, then came and apologised for being a quack.

Kitt, I am not directing this at you specifically matey, and I am not calling you anything, it's a general statement.

[kro]

A). It's not about changing the gospel ... it's about recognising that society has moved on from where it was 2000 years ago. (Or has it?)
This point is good, but has a very contemporary angle to it. The Christians refer to God as their "Rock", solid, and unchanging in his love of his people, and I guess God would expect the same in return, to the best of the individuals ability.



B) Consistency is a good thing but if that consistency does not reflect the environment in which any organisation operates, is it really maximising it's opportunities?
I think God's opportunities differ to those perceived by man, and for us to think we can see into the plans of God, then makes God unnecessary, and we are left with nothing.



C) If the church exludes a portion of our population for whatever reason and is not therefore open to everyone, is it not itself becoming a "well run private society"?
My understanding is the church does not exclude people per-se, but will veto people of certain persuasions from gaining positions of authority, in a house of God, that has to stay true to it's beliefs. As I said, if we rewrite the rules, then we are putting ourselves before God, and the whole church idea is completely unnecessary.

I think you'd find that a die-hard Harley riding bike gang, would veto/refuse the appointment of a Jap sports bike riding president to be the head of their chapter, as they hold fast to a form of "religion", and they have visions and values, that they see are important, and this is exactly where the church is coming from. Why should they comprimise?, who has the right to make them?.

[padre]

Anita Bryant and others saw it as a breach of their human rights if they were not to be permitted to discriminate against people they or their religion judged as at fault or "in error" or "sinful".

Their fear was for their children and clearly arose from protectiveness due to the bad or worse record for "committed" natural relationships of gay people, which they documented at the time.

1. Tendency of gays to not be monogamous and for parties in so called relationships to be very promiscuous (gay research supports this) which they might alledge shows there is no rest for he wicked or is evidence that such relationships are somehow off beam!
2. Tendency for such relationships to be power imbalanced - older plus younger
3. I guess they'd now add in the tendency of priests for same sex paedophilia which has been shown to be harmful to sufferers mental health,

I guess gays can retort that the unacceptability of society forced them to underground often dysfunctional relationships. But the fact remains that many out accepted gay people still cite phenomenal promiscuity - and lack of fulfilling relationships - more often than is the case for heteros.

[Skyryder]

I think you'd find that a die-hard Harley riding bike gang, would veto/refuse the appointment of a Jap sports bike riding president to be the head of their chapter, as they hold fast to a form of "religion", and they have visions and values, that they see are important, and this is exactly where the church is coming from. Why should they comprimise?, who has the right to make them?.

That's one of the best analogies I've seen for some time. Ultimately it is not about morality although this is the Presbyterians position. The fact is, as an orgnisation,albeit a religious one, they can make their own rules in regards to leadership, as can any orgaisation. Some churches refuse this role to woman on biblical scripture. But as an oraganisation they are free to do so. If one does not like the rules go and play another game. Or else buy a Harley.

Skyryder

[John Banks]

That's one of the best analogies I've seen for some time.
Except that the Presbyterian church aren't an "everyone but gays" church. It's more like saying that you have a bike club where only someone who rides a European bike is allowed to be the leader, because it's more traditional.


If one does not like the rules go and play another game.
Fair enough. If you're gay, I don't recommend joining the Presbyterian church. In fact I wouldn't recommend joining any church at all.


Or else buy a Harley.
I think scumdog will love this analogy. Harley = moral, upright, churchgoing citizens, Jappers = the gays.

[padre]

Fair enough. If you're gay, I don't recommend joining the Presbyterian church. In fact I wouldn't recommend joining any church at all.



I don'tthink so John. As with nuns it must come down to whether you are focussed on thoughts of "forbidden fruit" and whether you are exercising some restraint if so. The distinction must be made between "practising" gay or not.

There is a minister near Hamilton who used christianity to jump camps in a way that would have many born agains applauding - he switched from raving homosexual to now happy married effeminate daddy, that is where his christianity took him. His mum and dad was HAPPY!

[Oakie]

I think you'd find that a die-hard Harley riding bike gang, would veto/refuse the appointment of a Jap sports bike riding president to be the head of their chapter, as they hold fast to a form of "religion", and they have visions and values, that they see are important, and this is exactly where the church is coming from. Why should they comprimise?, who has the right to make them?.

Excellent analogy.

[Skyryder]

Except that the Presbyterian church aren't an "everyone but gays" church. It's more like saying that you have a bike club where only someone who rides a European bike is allowed to be the leader, because it's more traditional.


Fair enough. If you're gay, I don't recommend joining the Presbyterian church. In fact I wouldn't recommend joining any church at all.


I think scumdog will love this analogy. Harley = moral, upright, churchgoing citizens, Jappers = the gays.

For a minute I thought you and Finn were ganging up on me. Then I realised that you are serious. So if Harley=moral, upright, churchgoing citizens, and the Jappers=the gays, what do those that ride Italian bikes=academics?? :killingme

Skyryder

[Ixion]

Und zer Germans, vher do ve wit in?

Ja, I zee it now. Zer Harleys is der upstanding moral zitizens, der Japps is der gays, der Eyties is der academics. Und ve are ignored.

ZIS MEANS WAR!

Ve will roll our Panzers over you und zen VE will be zer leaders , und zer MotorRadenReich will last vor ein zounsand years!

von Klunken is already beside himself with excitement.

[bane]

what do those that ride Italian bikes=academics?? :killingme

Skyryder


broke?......

[Wolf]

The main form of misunderstanding I find in people who have "read the Bible", is looking at the raw form of the "law" in the old testament, and not taking into account that the New Testament re-wrote the rules so to speak. God saw his people struggling, and revamped everything with the "Jesus years".
According to Yeshua, he came, not to replace the law (Mosaic/Leviticine/Judaic Laws) but to fulfil it and that not one jot or tittle of it would pass away.

"Blessed is he who is zealous in the law", quoth he.

Yet the modern Christians use the "oh but that's the Old Testament" excuse for not adhering to those very laws and claim the Yeshua has made a "New Covenant" yet their tolerance for breaches of the law seems to extend only to the eating of unclean animals, allowing women to speak in church, wearing clothing of mixed fibres etc. In the areas of compassion and acceptance and love for one's fellow humans (areas in which, they are quick to point out, Yeshua was an exemplar) they fall back on the OT and say "homosexuality is a sin" and start trotting out Soddom and Gomorrah to justify not behaving in the least like the person they purport to want to be like.

Funny how the "New Covenant" allows them to sin in a variety of ways, defiling the temples of their bodies with unclean foods etc yet does not allow them to accept the "sins" of their homosexual "brethren" in a Christian fashion.

The modern idea of what sins the "New Covenant" allows and disallows seems very "convenient" to me.

If homosexuality is a hell-worthy sin, then so are aspects of the lives of every Christian alive today, for not one jot or tittle of those laws have been erased or replaced. And according to scripture, merely thinking of murder is the same as doing it, so 'twould seem YHVH does not play the "shades of grey"/"greater and lesser sin" game - a Christian who allows a woman to speak in church or eats pork is just as damned as a homosexual.

Alternatively, Yeshua has brought a New Covenant and all of the ancient Jewish laws are redundant, replaced by "honour God thy father" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - meaning the unjust treatment of homosexuals (or anyone else perceived to be "sinning") is failure to follow the footsteps of Yeshua.

I have often been told by Christians that a person cannot just decide what bits of the bible they are prepared to accept - fornicators and homosexuals cannot carry on as they have and expect "God's Forgiveness" yet those same Christians themselves decide that ham and pinapple on croissants, bacon and eggs and pork chops are perfectly acceptable and that God accepts the way they are.

Please tell me what part of the bible it says "ignore these ancient laws but still adhere to these ones". Which scripture says "forget all the kosher shit but continue to stick it to the fornicators (of which I have been one - still am, if you take the narrow viewpoint on marriage I have known some Christians to take) and the homosexuals."? Is there a passage in the NT listing which of the many OT laws are now redundant that I have somehow missed? Or was it more succinct? Is there a passage where Yeshua says "Do what you like, just don't fornicate - especially not with members of your own sex."?

[Magua]

I'm not going to bother reading this thread.

I see it in two ways.

Firstly they are a religous group who base their principles on the bible, homos, defacto = bad. Which is fair enough, why should they change? If you don't like the decision then it's too fucking bad, change church?

But, in this day in age equality is an issue. While this is important, we are still talking about a group who follow the ideals/beliefs WHATEVER from the bible and christianity.

So while I think equality is important, this just isn't this right place to fighting for equality.

[Wolf]

The Protestant churches (Presbys, Anglican/Church of England, Methodists, et al) who came out of the Roman Catholic Church through the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century...
In short, all those who follow the Geneva or KJV bibles, including the Baptists...


have never completely freed themselves of the strong RCC influence in their doctrine and especially traditions that go contrary to the scriptures, and one of those traditions was to overule previous edict's and change doctrine consistently over their history. The authority for their decision making has never been the Bible!

But a strict adherance to the fundamental doctrines found in the Bible concerning marriage, adultery, and fornication is something ALL denominations struggle with in today's world, and yet that Bible prophesied this current apostacy of the church a long time ago. Anyone who has read and studied the Bible knows that the closer it gets to the 'end' the further away man gets from God, including God's people in the church.
Following ALL the OT Laws - not just the ones regarding fornication, adultery and homosexuality - is something ALL Christians struggle with.

[The Pastor]

Somthing about food.

The food thing applies to jews not christians. And god said himself that the rule was only for old testerment times (when jew-day-ism) was the only way to heven (i.e only jews could get to heven....)

Check out acts chapter 10.

The reason for this is that, jesus came to save all people who will choose to follow him not just jews. The reason this jew food thing was made redundent was that jews would not talk to the unclean gentiels (sp? means people who arnt jews) and becuase they ate "unclean" food they would not eat with them. Acts 10 shows that jesus wanted to save everyone and that the unclean food had been made clean.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/acts/acts10.htm

So your point on that accepting only bits of what the bible says is wrong, is correct. But you were miss informed on the food thing.

Now on to the homosexuality thing. The bible is clear that this is not accepted by God.

But also hating people is not accepted by God.

So it is just as wrong for the chirstian to have signs "God hates fags" as it to be a homosexual.

God hates sin, not the sinner.


at least to the best of my understanding!

[Wolf]

RM:

Wolf also said:
Something about women talking in church, people wearing clothes of mixed fibres and other OT laws blithely ignored by Christians as "redundant".

The fact remains that a lot of the OT is written off as "that does not apply to Christians", "that's just the Old Testament", "that only applies to the Jews" - until you get to the stone the faggots, adulterers and fornicators bits, then it's all "righteous anger" and attack the "sinner".

I have met a couple of Christians (fortunately a minority) who have deemed that my marriage is not valid because I am not a Christian and "only Christians can get married" because "only God can make you married", ergo: in their eyes I am still a "fornicator" and "living in sin" because a secular marriage or a marriage under any other religious system other than Christianity "doesn't count" in the eyes of these people.

Nice of them to take it upon themselves to do God's job and judge what is, and is not, marriage and who is, and is not, a "sinner"...

I'm sure they sit down in their cotton-polyester garments while their wives address the church (wearing cotton/nylon blend dresses and wool/acrylic mix cardigans) about the evils of fornication and feel glad that they are "properly married" unlike all those secular "fornicators" out there...

The majority of Christians I have no problem with - if they secretly deem my marriage to be invalid, they haven't made my life living Hell about it or got on their high horse - perhaps they don't have the particular prejudice against "fornicators" that others seem to have, or perhaps they deem secular marriages do count or perhaps they know that they're not obeying all of "God's Laws" as well and are not hypocrites...

Those who do get on their high horse, I have no difficulty in judging to be total hypocrite - after all, in judging me they have invited me to judge them (they do live by the "Golden Rule" do they not?).

[carver]

fuck them man, its their organisation, if people dont like it, then find a church that does, i mean, the bible does say that christains shouldn't be gay...so no big surprises there. :spanking:
I went to a catholic school, now i was/am not catholic, but it seems pathetic when they pick up a bible and say "well, you cant take this part literally, and this dont actually mean what it blatantly says..."
if you cant take your own "book" seriously i cant take you seriously.

[John Banks]

RM:
Wolf also said:
Something about women talking in church, people wearing clothes of mixed fibres and other OT laws blithely ignored by Christians as "redundant".

Women not allowed to talk in church IS New Testament (Corinthians). A little tidbit to remember, no one can say it only applies to Jews - in fact, it DOESN'T apply to Jews, only applies to Christians.

[Wolf]

in fact, it DOESN'T apply to Jews, only applies to Christians.
So it's not echoed in the myriad of OT Laws? Interesting.

So only the Amish, the Mennonites and the Quakers are going to heaven, then. Cool, I like them - they keep themselves to themselves and don't bug me - they deserve to go to heaven...

[The Pastor]

RM:

Wolf also said:
Something about women talking in church, people wearing clothes of mixed fibres and other OT laws blithely ignored by Christians as "redundant".



Women talking in church was a culture thing. It was custom for women not to speak in the synagouge (sp - jews temple) It is not a christian rule.

Women preaching now that is a differnt story. The main reason the bible states that women should not preach is becuase eve tempted adam to sin, this is also why women should cover there heads in church and men should not cover their heads.

Not sure about this mixed fibers thing never heard anything about that.

Not sure on your marriage thing either. I've never heard of being a sin to get married if you wernt christian, although maybe they were thinking along the lines of you didnt get married by a pastor? I can't comment on this as I don't know anything about it.

Civil unions are a differnt story :buggerd:

As far as judging you a sinner goes. God said every one (including christians myself and you) has sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. Your marriage has nothing to do with that(due to the fact you sinned beofre you got married).

[McJim]

I have chosen to disbelieve most of the Old Testament - and have turned my back on all organised religion.

If we believe in the OT then we must believe that God is Shortsighted, petulant, self centred and a bit of a spoilt brat..he makes something..gives it free will...it doesn't do what he wants so Drowns it/Turns it to stone/salt etc.(treats it pretty shabbily)..so we are left with a choice - believe in a petulant spoilt deity and kiss arse so we don't get fried or we believe in a God that is truly sublime and perfect in all ways in which case we can consign the whole Old Testament to the bin as being apocryphal or at least wildly inaccurate for the most part.

Religion is basically a political tool to allow those in power to control those who are not in power but substantially outnumber those that are in power. It was written by men - there were many other writings of the same time period as each of the writings in the OT but they were discarded by the powers at the time coz they didn't fit their political agenda.

Organised religion is what takes man further from God not lack of religion - abandon the word and embrace the spirit.

The New Testament has prolly been f*cked about with too for political gain.

[Ixion]

...

... we must believe that God is Shortsighted, petulant, self centred and a bit of a spoilt brat..he makes something..gives it free will...it doesn't do what he wants so Drowns it/Turns it to stone/salt etc.(treats it pretty shabbily).....

Oh, He is, He is. A right BASTARD He can be . But,nicely innovative in his destruction, don't you think, so much more interesting than the pagan deities, who never get beyond a thunderbolt up the jaxsie.

[McJim]

Oh, He is, He is. A right BASTARD He can be . But,nicely innovative in his destruction, don't you think, so much more interesting than the pagan deities, who never get beyond a thunderbolt up the jaxsie.

Maybe he wants to be the next Bond baddie - they're the same - always gloating, always taking half an hour to kill the good guy.:rofl:

Never the good ol' double tap to the head.

[Wolf]

Oh, He is, He is. A right BASTARD He can be . But,nicely innovative in his destruction, don't you think, so much more interesting than the pagan deities, who never get beyond a thunderbolt up the jaxsie.
Hey, that's not true and you should well know it, O cloud-fucker!

And then there's ol' Tantalus, Prometheus and a raft of others who can testify to the imaginatiopn of pagan deities...

[Paul in NZ]

Und zer Germans, vher do ve wit in?

Ja, I zee it now. Zer Harleys is der upstanding moral zitizens, der Japps is der gays, der Eyties is der academics. Und ve are ignored.

ZIS MEANS WAR!

Ve will roll our Panzers over you und zen VE will be zer leaders , und zer MotorRadenReich will last vor ein zounsand years!

von Klunken is already beside himself with excitement.

Ach! Der Germans are der 'Steve Irwin' types riding around der planet (quietly) on massive off road bikes (panzers in disguise) complaining about the lack of order

[Zed]

I have chosen to disbelieve most of the Old Testament - and have turned my back on all organised religion.

If we believe in the OT then we must believe that God is Shortsighted, petulant, self centred and a bit of a spoilt brat..he makes something..gives it free will...it doesn't do what he wants so Drowns it/Turns it to stone/salt etc.(treats it pretty shabbily)..so we are left with a choice - believe in a petulant spoilt deity and kiss arse so we don't get fried or we believe in a God that is truly sublime and perfect in all ways in which case we can consign the whole Old Testament to the bin as being apocryphal or at least wildly inaccurate for the most part.I've chosen to hold back my thoughts in this here thread, except for my initial post, but McJim that's just too much of a gross misrepresentation of my God to allow going unanswered! Now before I refute your false assertions please answer me this one question - have you ever read through and studied the entire Old Testament? :sherlock:

[McJim]

I've chosen to hold back my thoughts in this here thread, except for my initial post, but McJim that's just too much of a gross misrepresentation of my God to allow going unanswered! Now before I refute your false assertions please answer me this one question - have you ever read through and studied the entire Old Testament? :sherlock:

Hey dude, did you actually read my post? Not having a go at God - just having a go at the Word of MAN that tries to pass itself off as the word of God.....and a Scottish Presbyterian upbringing is what has put me off organised religion in the first place to answer your question.

Anyway - I'm here for the laffs and the bikes and I can't find either in the thread so shan't be back to this one. Where's Dover? - he always cheers me up....

Awra besht.

Wee McJim Poo plop McPlop

[Zed]

Hey dude, did you actually read my post? Not having a go at God - just having a go at the Word of MAN that tries to pass itself off as the word of God.....and a Scottish Presbyterian upbringing is what has put me off organised religion in the first place to answer your question.Yeah mate I did read your post, about 3 times!

Fair enough about being put off 'organised religion' as a result of your upbringing, and no doubt you witnessed much hypocrisy, but you still didn't answer my question.

[The_Dover]

Here's MY god.

<img src="http://www.myguitarsolo.com/Players/Slash.jpg">

Bow down and worship, heathens.

[Wolf]

oh shit, Zed's called McJim "mate" - retreat to the bunkers, people...

[Wolf]

What, don't Christ rejecting pagans like yerself use such terminology?
We do use the terminology - it means "good friend", it's not a preamble to a fight.

[The_Dover]

Do you wanna take this outside mate?

[McJim]

Cheers Zed - you just lost me a bet - I bet someone (that shall remain nameless) a beer that you weren't much of a religious zealot.

They said "Mention God and see how long before he bites" didn't take too long at all!

Happy riding...and seriously - I'm now off to look for a thread with bikes, laughs and perhaps titties in it.

[kro]

Hey come on guys, we were getting a damn good little discussion going here, lets not take it down "the bad road". I have lots of reading to do on this thread, as Wolf, Banksy, and Zed have thrown some interesting points into the fray, and I may stand to learn a thing or two here, so lets keep it civil.

[padre]

Albigensian Cathars claimed the God of the old testament was in fact Satan in disguise, so irascible did they find his manners

But aren't we getting OT now. The original thing to ponder was...
"Gay and christian", a contradiction in terms or not? Yet the voice of gay christians has not been heard - so perhaps at least within Kiwi Biker ranks the question is moot. Anyone got a proudly gay bike?

[Ixion]

There are KBers who are both gay and Christian (no, not me ) . But I know of at least one.

[Zed]

Cheers Zed - you just lost me a bet - I bet someone (that shall remain nameless) a beer that you weren't much of a religious zealot.LOL no worries, but that was hardly zeal!


They said "Mention God and see how long before he bites" didn't take too long at all!Now to be fair, if you had only "mentioned God" I would have held my peace, this thread is all about God remember. But Mr McJim, you made some defamatory statements about God and the Bible that I believed needed rebutting, and that's why i took your bait - hook, line and sinker!

So i guess i'll never know if you've read through the entire Bible or not...:(

[Zed]

There are KBers who are both gay and Christian (no, not me ) . But I know of at least one. ...diTTo...

[Edbear]

Yep! There're some interesting posts here for sure!

I'll sum up as briefly as I can and can happily provide all the scriptural references if need be. But it is obvious that many here are not familiar with teh Bible and could benefit by actually reading it in order to understand the various positions taken.

Briefly, - The OT contains a huge amount of info on many and varied subjects, but here we are mainly concerned with the Mosaic Law given to the nation of Israel consisting of eventually some 600 or so laws. It was exclusively for the Israelites and helped protect them from influence from the surrounding nations as well as caring for the physical health of the people.

The Law had another purpose, too, which was explained by Paul who called it, "our Tutor leading to Christ", and that it's purpose was in order, "to make sin manfest", (without laws to break, there is no sin, obviously), and finally to show that one cannot earn salvation by works of law - it was humanly impossible to perfectly keep the Law, so the nation was condemned by it.

Upon the death of Christ, the Bible says that he "blotted out the handwritten document against us, by nailing it to the Torture Stake". Combined with the fact that as the nation of Israel had rejected and killed the Son of God, thereby were in turn rejected by God, Chrstians are "no longer under Law, but under the grace of Christ" because Christ fulfilled the Law. So the Mosaic Law no longer applies, such as observing the Sabbath and the various animal sacrifices, the prohibition on certain foods, and so on.

Jesus Christ did, though, reiterate certain laws and principles which are binding on Christians and even went further than the literal Law in some instances, for example he said, "The Law says you must not murder, yet I say to you you must not hate your brother." He said, "The Law says you must not commit adultery, yet I say that any man looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery in his heart". (Scriptures paraphrased for brevity).

Another point I'd like to make is the criticism Wolf has recieved by some regarding his marriage. Notwithstanding he is not a Christian, (though demonstrating better Christian qualities than many who do claim to be such!), he is a married man and nothing in Scripture specifies that for a marriage to be "real" in God's eyes one must be married by a clergyman. The Bible standards are simply that one should restrict sexual relations to the person one is married to.


According to the scriptures, homosexuality is included, and indeed specifically mentioned separately, as fornication and the NT clearly says that "those who practise such things will not inherit the Kingdom." Now your personal beliefs can agree or disagree with God's standards, just don't try to say that God has a different standard. The "Christian thing to do" is to abide by Christian standards.

My opinion here, is that each person is free to choose for himself his course of life, though I encourage each one to understand that this freedom brings with it the fact that one is therefore responsible for the consequences, ie: you are free to jump off a tall building, but don't think you can do so without suffering the consequences.

If one chooses to follow the Bible, then do so, or conversely you can choose not to. What irks me, is when people choose not to, but then try to justify their course by misquoting it or claiming they can disobey God and still be "saved", or that God doesn't really mean what He says. Kinda like trying to have your cake and eat it? Like saying "I can jump off this building and God won't let me die".

[bane]

okay guys, time to let this thread die a death. For those for who it has raised an interesting worthwhile discussion about the OT/NT, please feel free to join the infamous scottish thread

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=3026&page=417

given its daylight savings, time to :ride:

[Wolf]

okay guys, time to let this thread die a death. For those for who it has raised an interesting worthwhile discussion about the OT/NT, please feel free to join the infamous scottish thread
And maybe find out if Zed's KJV has the 14 Apocrypha

:devil2: