All Comments (40)

aelgu pgvewco vwfojmyn cqyj jwheqitdr xvud nesd

aelgu pgvewco vwfojmyn cqyj jwheqitdr xvud nesd

aelgu pgvewco vwfojmyn cqyj jwheqitdr xvud nesd

free downloads t mobile ringtones
http://idisk.mac.com/ringtonesforyou/Public/index.html

qgdbs sftxra rnvthudl suxkeawhj pcnemv aeltywb mxfldp http://www.pkjtazgsx.ynemzpr.com

erkitx vgdo vlfh hsxplmo qsarvpg cpqjhtkfs fbyad

Hi Susan, also in the smallest Republic of the world we discussing about this topic!
Visit the blog at www.inblog.it

I'm an italian guy (not "gay")
Yesterday many drag queens rallied in Rome to support legislation that would grant domestic partner rights to gays . A buffoneery, with hundreds of ugly screaming "freaks" waling off slinkily. Nobody love them .The rally included leftists from Romano Prodi's coalition, which is divided on the issue. Like EVERYTHING ! 70% of Prodi's coalition call homosexuals "deviant" (just because they need of Church's votes) . The other 30% needs Gay's votes (because nobody else votes for them) - Prodi doesn't say it but he's AGAINST gay rights, because practising Catholic . But he promised rights in his 2006 election campaign. The antics of our politicians ! "How can I deny to my neighbor what I claim for myself ?" You're right ! But there are ways and means of doing things.
Their ways are offensive towards family and Church and for this reason they will never get anything . Sorry for my english !

I'm sure I won't change any minds...

But it did strike me that once you dismiss the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12 it only stands to reason that the rest of 1 Timothy (and Titus) and 1 Corinthians... are all up for grabs. No more plain meaning to apply - let's just do what we think love demands.

I think love demands I must say that what the Bible says is wrong, is wrong and that to encourage you to do it is the most hateful thing I can do to you. Beyond that, the clergy is a calling yes - but not without standards. Any church that fails to use the standards set out in the Bible will suffer the consequences.

Papal: "Marriage is not in place to honor your love, it is in place to honor your one flesh union of man and woman in love. It is in place to bring new life into the world through its generative property."

Not necessarily. When my husband and I met, he was sterile, and I was menopausal. We could not make a baby if our lives depended on it; besides that, he has never wanted to be a parent. We did not get married in order to raise children together or to provide a lving diorama of someone else's idea of divine dichotomy. We got married for one reason only - we are in love. Does that invalidate our marriage in your eyes? As far as I'm concerned, love is the only valid reason to marry.

Funny thing - the Clerk of Court's office does not ask for proof of either ability or intent to procreate. All they ask for is picture ID and exact cash.

IAM NOT GOING TO JUDGE NO ONE THAT IS GODS PLACE I THINK ALL PEOPLE ARE THE SAME AND THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO BE GAY SHOULD BE ABLE TO LIVE THIER LIVES LIKE THE REST OF US IT IS NOT OUR PLACE TO SAY IF ITS RIGHT OR WRONG WE ALL HAVE THINGS WE DO OR DONT DO AND I THINK IF EVERYONE WOULD JUST LIVE THIER LIVES I THINK THE WHOLE WORLD BE BETTER OFF THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME REV. SUSAN

Dear Rev,

You are selling sin wrapped in tolerance. Don't falsely frame the issue as one of dignity. Thats the easy way out of this question, its not the Christian way.

Friends this conversation has eroded into the same old Babel! Can't we be more discerning?

What would Jesus do? How did Jesus make these decisions? When Jesus went against the purity codes, what did he say when challenge? ...and he was challenged! Whe the apostle decided to go against the purity code and receive the gentiles into full fellowship, why did they say that this is right thing for the Christian community to do? This is how God is leading us forward as a people of faith!

Wasn't the determining factor an encounter with God's spirit, the call to offer grace, and a sincere discernment about how the gifts of the spirit were present in life of the people? It wasn't that relating to people the purity code claimed unclean made them comfortable. But haveing met with them, broke bread with them, talked and shared fellowship , they sense God's spirit rested with them and on that basis they baptized, commissioned and ordained.

I'm sure that as the apostles met with the people outside the box of the Jewish faith, the lion's share of the stereotype understanding of who these people were and what they were about came tumbling down. When we open ourselves to such authentic encounters that's what always happens. It is the testimony of countless members and hundreds of congregations in the United Church of Christ and beyond, as God continues to turn the page to extravagant welcome and radical inclusion offered with evangelical courage.

Peace!
Rev. Mike Schuenemeyer

RT
sin is sin,without the sacrifice of Christ we are all guilty

DAN SAID: "Premarital sex is the same sin as homosexuality."

Huh? No, there are different kinds of sexual immorality. Having sex outside your Covenant (adultery) is different than having sex prior to covenant (fornication) is different than having inappropriate kinds sex with appropriate people (Sodomy=anal+oral+who knows) is different than having appropriate sex with inappropriate people (pedophilia + incest + who knows) is different than having sex with non persons (bestiality + necrophilia + who knows).

Calling it the "same sin" whitewashes the differences.

And then of course we all, universally have the "same sin" of selfishness and rebellion against God.

This "same sin" has nothing to do with sex and has never disqualified anyone from marriage or ministry.

So you have to balance "choosing leaders who are above reproach" with "all fall short of the glory of God." The line to draw for "how sinful" you allow your church leaders to be is a matter of discernment. Most to all of the UCC "Church and Ministry" committees (the ordaining and ministry accountability committees run exclusively by local Associations) will hold pastors accountable for adultery, child abuse, and other moral infractions.

The UCC Manual on Ministry (http://www.ucc.org/ministers/manual/) does not specify what constitutes grounds for dismissal or non-ordination, but I think we can all agree that pastors and ordaining committees need to provide SOME boundary training and guidelines for what is sexually moral and immoral.

-RT

We are all sinners. Premarital sex is the same sin as homosexuality. God who created us knows the harm that these do to us spiritually and psychologically. How do you know if you truly love someone if the relationship is based mostly on sex? When the thrill is gone you just move on,no big deal, the divorce rate in America hasn't hurt anyone? except the children and those left spending their lives feeling used, and thinking that's what love is.
Loving the sinner doesn't mean Glorifing them by positions in the Church. Would AA make Brittany Spears their spokesperson?
You may not beleive in God now,but you will.

Yikes! Billco, I never said homosexuality was a sin. I don't think it is. What I meant to say was that the =other= criteria for marriage and ordination are still valid. It was only meant as a mild correction to those who might assume that S.T. was advocating that the criteria for accepting one as a neighbor was all that was needed for ordination and/or marriage. Sometimes the acceptance of homosexuality is assumed to be an acceptance of all sexuality, and that is not Dr. Thistlewhaite's position at all.

Billco,

You are correct in that we are all sinners. However, that doesn't absolve us from removing sin from our life. God does not forgive you if you blatently commit the same sin for your entire life. Besides that, how effective is any leader if he speaks one way and acts another?

It seems to me that a lot of posters have noted that homosexuality is a sin, (V. cardwell, Don Niederfrank) but have failed to state how this precludes one from becomming a member of the clergy. It seems to me, in fact, that every single member of the clergy is a sinner.

"The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who are wise, who want to please God. But no, all have strayed away; all are rotten with sin. Not one is good, not one!" Psalm 14:2-3.

This is a purely academic point, as I don't actually belive that being homosexual is a sin any more than eating shellfish is.

David is an imaginary person?

God is an imaginary friend for adults!

How can you justify denying your neighbor the truth about his soul? If you love someone you tell them the truth--that their lifestyle is sinful.

YOUR "LOVE" IS PERVERSE AND UNCHRISTIAN--YOU "LOVE" YOUR NEIGHBOR TO HELL!

What a sad day when a woman who has lost her faith is in charge of teaching others about faith.

Real Clear Religion

Rev.Dr.S.T. assures us that "Jesus didn't make any exceptions to who is my neighbor, and neither do I." How confortable, even smug.
She and I are of the same Christian denomination but not of the same point of view. I refuse to coopt Jesus onto my team by defining "neighbor" to suit my professed personal life-style--in her case, a professed indisciminate acceptance of next-door neighbors regardless of their behavior. I say "professed": she would no more live that way than did Jesus.
Jesus says love everybody, even your enemies. But he is talking about something far more profound and radical than a "radical welcome" of everybody because everybody is "equal." (She says the Bible is for equality, but it is for equity.)
Further, Jesus's specific use of "neighbor" is the person in need whoever that may be. (Thus, the story of the Good Samaritan.) Is it not clear that your neighbor, near or far, may sometimes need more than latitudinarian, libertarian acceptance? Indeed, it is clear, is it not, that sometimes your neighbor may need the tough love of confrontation, even disengagement?
The Bible say God made us in his image. You can imagine how unhappy he is when we make him in our image.

WARHAMMERTWO SAYS" Can somebody please tell me when Christ actually comes out and condemns homosexuality?"

I think the real question you have to ask yourself is where Jesus actually came out and affirmed either ordination or marriage... FOR ANYONE!

JESUS SAID: "In the kingdom of God, people aren't married or given unto marriage" ...

JESUS SAID: "Don't call anyone Teacher or Rabbi???!?" ... Woe unto **Reverend** Thistlethwaite!!!!

We either cede some authority to the cloud of witnesses that came before us... or allow everyone to preach whatever morality their "itchy ears" want to hear. If the Holy Spirit was truly with the early apostles, then we ought to listen to what they had to say. If the Holy Spirit was not with the early apostles, then Christianity is a crock and a fraud we should stop pretending to be Christians.

I myself sense that the Bible has a lot to offer, in a way that transcends common legalist conceptions about the Bible. Just read, say, Ecclesiastes... or Corinthians... and you get a sense that there is something more to the text than "rules"... There is HOLY WISDOM there. It is this sense that convinces me that there is more to the Bible than unpopular rules.

-RT

. Can somebody please tell me when Christ actually comes out and condemns homosexuality? And I mean explicitly targeting homosexuality. Where does He come out and say, "For man to lie with another man is wrong"? I can't find it. I'm not talking about the Old Testament here. I'm talking about Christ here. Not Paul and his letters. Not Paul. Not Mary. Christ.

Now I know Dan listed Matthew 15 and Mark 7 but there Christ only talks about sexual immorality. Kinda vague, ain't it? He could mean premarital sex. He could mean masturbation. He could mean rape or incest. Does he mean using contraception? Well, I guess not as contraception wasn't rally an issue then. Does he mean any sort of sex outside of the purpose of creating children? If so, does that mean couples who were unable to have kids but still had sex as being sexually immoral? See, that citation is waaaay open for personal interpretation.

For me personally, I characterize it as two fold: acts which impinge on the rights and health of the participants and any act done outside the confines of love. So, for me, as long as the folks engaging in the act are both consenting and in love, it's all good. So under these criteria I view a monogamous heterosexual or homosexual relationships (within or outside the confines of marriage) okay but rape and promiscuity not okay. Don't get me wrong. Rape and promiscuity are not on the same level. Whenever one sets out to hurt another human being, that is totally 100% unacceptable. Sleeping around with other consenting adults doesn't really hurt anyone. Not physically anyway (unless STDs are involved). Here it's about having sex without love and to me that's wrong. To me you shouldn't have sex without love.

Does that mean I think people who are promiscuous as bad people? Not really. I actually feel sad because they can't seem to find love in their life. Maybe they don't want love in their lives. To me, that's kinda depressing. I try not to judge, though. Who am I to judge, after all? I'm not perfect. I won't condemn them for their actions. I would espouse to them the benefits of love if they were interested but I leave the judgment up to God as to who is right or wrong.

So that's how I feel and until someone can point out to me where Christ SPECIFICALLY says homosexuality is a no-no, it's what I will continue to believe

Brambleton,

Consider a reversed point of view: If I were gay and a Christian, and started going to a local Christian Church, whatever the pastor or the denomination said, I couldn't psychologically consider it to be a warm welcome to be told that something I did out of my inner nature was sinful, when I knew it wasn't.

It's an impossible situation for both the church and the gay churchgoer.

Brambleton,

I think we're at semantic cross-purposes here and it may well be my fault.

Your original post spoke of "denominations", which, in my mind, I translated, without justification, to "individual churches".

Denominations necessarily talk globally and in abstractions. You're right: probably most denominations "preach" (your word) a warm welcome to gays. Though certainly not the diocese of the Nigerian bishop who wants to jail gays who lunch together in public, and which some Virgina churches are hot to join.

And both the Devil and denominations can quote scripture for their purposes, meaning that preaching doesn't necessarily describe the "facts on the ground".

To quote you: "I don't know of any Christian denominations that would not welcome a homosexual as a neighbor." The word "neighbor" made me think of individual churches - I don't think of denominations as having or welcoming a neighbor - that's concrete, not abstract.

Now, consider the individual defecting Virginia Episcopal churches. They are so abstractly anti-gay that I can't imagine them welcoming a gay neighbor to join them in worship.

What I really was thinking of were the members of individual churches. You know, better than I, how members scrutinize the other members, gossip, and tut-tut about what the others do that isn't o.k with the gossipers. I'm sure that a gay person would not feel welcome in a majority of Christian churches in the U.S. today.

Here's an experiment for you: take a vacation to small-town Alabama with a male friend. Live together for a month. Drop little misleading false hints that you two are gay. See how you're welcomed by your local fundamentalist church and its members. Want to bet on the outcome? Or, you could move to rural Maine - the outcome would probably be the same.

I think it's simply impossible for most people to warmly welcome a person whom they believe is doing something really, really bad.

I've gone on too long and rather disjointedly, but you get my point.

Norrie,

I would ask you to specify which churches/denominations did not preach a warm welcome for all peoples but I'm sure you couldn't name any. I, on the other hand, have contact with a least two dozen churches, that comprise at least a half dozen denominations, and I see none of that in any of them. Perhaps you blur the line between labeling a choice of lifestyle a sin and a warm welcome.

Perhaps it has been a while since Susan has read the Bible: maybe she should glance at MATT15:19,MARK 7:21,1 COR 5:1, 1 COR 6:9, HEB 13:4 & REV 2:20.
Isn't the real goal of Christian love to bring your neighbor to salvation? If your neighbor is a drug addict or a prostitute would you really be loving them be accepting their life choice ? But because it is "politically correct" to accept homosexuallity Susan and the UCC should sellout Christ to be Cool and accepted by the world ?

Brambleton,

"I don't know of any Christian denominations that would not welcome a homosexual as a neighbor."

A hint, my friend: Try moving south. Actually, try moving anywhere.

Papal,

Like "Franco" in these posts, who echos his namesake, The Grand High Catholic Executioner Generalissimo Franco, you echo your namesake, the Grand High Chief Bureaucrat of the Roman religion.

You wrote; "...calling a dog a tiger does not make him a tiger."

You might better have said:

"Calling the Pope a Christian does not make him a Christian."

Susan the coward,

Why don't you tell us all why you support Children being raised without Mothers or Fathers? Come on Susan, skip the hippie love ethic and get down to defending your position. Take responsibility, don't hind behind "all you need is love"!!

Tell us Susan, why you feel there is nothing special about the union of man and woman that is different from 2 men?

Tell us why "gay marriage" is the same as a Marriage that can actually produce life?

Take responsibility for the trash and lies you are pushing!

How can I deny to my gay neighbors, what my husband and I claim for ourselves; if the gift of love is given to you, that it should be honored by marriage?

Because calling a dog a tiger does not make him a tiger.

And because

Marriage is not in place to honor your love, it is in place to honor your one flesh union of man and woman in love. It is in place to bring new life into the world through its generative property. To raise children with a masculine and feminine identity because that combination most accurately reflects the image and likeness of God as stated clearly in the Genesis and validated in multiple places throughout the bible.

To think that marriage is about honoring love is to take a pop psychology or superficial view of a meaningful and long held institution.

Dr. Thistlethwaite,

First, thank you for caring well for my alma mater ('77 :-)).

Second, just to expand a bit on you point, loving my neighbors and granting my neighbors the priviledge of ordination or recognition of marriage are not the same thing. In the main, the criteria that we have held for ordination and marriage are still in effect but hetrosexual orientation and behavior are no longer part of the criteria, having gone the way of gender and race. We're on the same page.

I agree with R.T. in lamenting that our denomination has become divided and a witness more to particular cause than a unity in Christ which transcends cause. The prophetic is rarely if ever the predictable; and alas, we have become at some levels, quite predictable.

Again, thank you for your faithful care and witness.
Yours in Christ,

I don't know of any Christian denominations that would not welcome a homosexual as a neighbor. But the Bible is clear on this issue. Choosing the homosexual lifestyle is a sin. Just because Ms. Brooks cherry picks a few verses out of the Bible, doesn't bring any validity to her argument. I don't think anyone would argue that homosexuals should be treated like everyone else, but it's still a sin. I didn't love my brother any less when he was addicted to pornography, but I held him accountable because he was sinning.

I respond to Ms. Brooks with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Genesis 13:13; Romans 1:24-32; and Romans 8:1-15.

Jude 1

3 Dear friends, I had been eagerly planning to write to you about the salvation we all share. But now I find that I must write about something else, urging you to defend the faith that God has entrusted once for all time to his holy people.

4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. The condemnation of such people was recorded long ago, for they have denied our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

5 So I want to remind you, though you already know these things, that Jesus[b] first rescued the nation of Israel from Egypt, but later he destroyed those who did not remain faithful. 6 And I remind you of the angels who did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place where they belonged. God has kept them securely chained in prisons of darkness, waiting for the great day of judgment. 7 And don’t forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God’s judgment

The question for the week is an invitation for "people of faith" to spew invective against a group of people who are not hurting anyone at all and who ask for nothing other than equal treatment under the law -- something they are supposed to be granted anyway under our Constitution. Appeals to a "Holy" authority as a basis for bigotry and oppression has been granted a respect it does not deserve for far too long.

Susan Brooks: In the end, it is God that will judge!

Thistlethwaite is providing a false witness about "what the UCC believes". She knows very well that the UCC is congregationalist, and so neither she nor UCC "General Synod" have any right to speak for UCC congregations.

The 2001 "Mutual respect within the faith community" General Synod resolution specifically instructs UCC members, organizational bodies, and leaders to "be sensitive to, recognize, respect, and welcome this diversity within our denominational family, as we gather in our congregations and at association, conference, or national events and when public statements are madeor public actions are taken."

The same resolution "calls upon all national covenanted ministries,conferences, and associations to explain in public statements or press releases that, because of the autonomy of our individual congregations and our structure,no national, conference, association body, or officer thereof speaks for the 1.4 million members as a whole."

There are many controversies within this and other denominations over various political issues including gay ordination, gay marriage, , but also the right of the national leaders to speak on behalf of the local congregations with respect to these potentially divisive issues. The UCC recently embarked on a national advertising campaign called "God Is Still Speaking" that clearly brands the UCC as a GLBT-relationship-affirming denomination even though a 2001 Hartford "FACT" study showed that there are more conservatives in the UCC than liberals. Mostly we are a moderate bunch (45%) that would rather worship the Christ than talk about sexuality, but this fact gets lost in the soundbite. CTS is a very liberal seminary, but the UCC laity... not so much.

It's nice to see that one Christian denomination is following Christ.