tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206783518364639866.post3593750531791802517..comments2023-09-06T05:07:39.158-04:00Comments on Stone of Witness: Diocesan Convention I--No, Doug, it isn't all about Sodomy!Muthah+http://www.blogger.com/profile/10589837671378205837noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206783518364639866.post-17323911119155500552008-11-19T00:07:00.000-05:002008-11-19T00:07:00.000-05:00The point of the Resolution (neatly hidden beneath...<I>The point of the Resolution (neatly hidden beneath a plea for "openness" to the Ordination process, something already in the Constitutions and Canons) was to clarify the Diocese's official teaching on sodomy. It was to declare that sex apart from marriage is legitimate and no barrier to holiness. That is a lie.</I><BR/><BR/>I CALL BULLSH*T!!!<BR/><BR/>"Sodomy" is the supremely inhospitable sin of <B>rape</B>. It has NOTHING to do with <I>spousal intimacy</I> between two committed partners, whether of the same- or opposite-sex.<BR/><BR/>Your attempt, Father Doug, to <B>crash through the bedroom door</B> of committed spouses is OFFENSIVE and UNACCEPTABLE, by the canons of the Episcopal Church. It's <B>none of your business</B> what spouses do in the privacy of their homes. Period. End of discussion.<BR/><BR/>You <I>say</I> you believe you're the "worst sinner in the room". Then why don't act as a <B>properly repentant sinner</B>, by amending your OWN life, and quit trying (coercively) amend other peoples'?JCFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14516376500318551838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206783518364639866.post-36257092267008148122008-11-18T17:06:00.000-05:002008-11-18T17:06:00.000-05:00To Gus:For years I've tried to instruct the bishop...To Gus:<BR/>For years I've tried to instruct the bishop that just because somebody goes to a microphone and says, "I call the question," does not and cannot automatically stop debate. "Calling the Question" is actually to "move the previous question" and is a motion to cut off debate. If others still want to speak, it must be seconded and voted on. Furthermore it must pass (I think) by two-thirds. No matter, the bishop keeps pretending that anybody has the absolute power to stop debate by simply "calling the Question."<BR/><BR/>Had you come to the microphone, I might have wondered how you deal with, say, drunk drivers. Are they wrong? Is their behavior sinful? If I point out the sin in drunk driving, am I no longer "respecting the dignity of every human being." What if the drunk driver insists he's done nothing wrong? Does respecting his dignity mean that he gets to decide right and wrong for himself? Does it mean that if I contradict him ("No, I disagree. I believe that drunk driving is a sin.") I do not respect him?<BR/><BR/>I draw these questions from your (undelivered) comment. Aren't you assuming that because I identify a certain behavior with sin I somehow no longer "respect the dignity" of those who perform the behavior. I ask you, if indeed the behavior is a sin (as in drunk driving, or stealing, etc.) is it I who do not respect their dignity by pointing out the truth or is it they, those who in fact carry out the sin, who do not respect their own dignity, since they are letting themselves fall into sin.<BR/><BR/>I know that when I commit sin, which is often, I am the one who is not respecting my own dignity--a dignity that is mine in Christ. If someone says to me, "Oh, that's OK. We all do that. It's not a very big sin, not probably any sin at all," then that person also does not respect my dignity. But if someone stands up to me and says, "You, Douglas, are in the wrong. You have sinned," I am indebted to that person. That person, not the other, truly respected my dignity because he truly believed that I was able not to sin.<BR/><BR/>Doug Taylor-WeissFather Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14847913093723860020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206783518364639866.post-65236749937994317812008-11-18T16:54:00.000-05:002008-11-18T16:54:00.000-05:00OK, let's make sure we're talking about the same e...OK, let's make sure we're talking about the same event. I introduced my comments by saying something I happen to believe: I am the worst sinner in the room. I also said at the start that I am not worthy of being a priest or of going to heaven. The only reason I can do either is that Jesus loved me (why, I don't know!) and gave his life for me on the cross.<BR/><BR/>You said that we "neo-conservatives" (why the "neo-"?) are Pelagian. How exactly is that Pelagian? We are saved by grace, period, not by whether we do or do not live up to a standard of righteousness.<BR/><BR/>The point of the Resolution (neatly hidden beneath a plea for "openness" to the Ordination process, something already in the Constitutions and Canons) was to clarify the Diocese's official teaching on sodomy. It was to declare that sex apart from marriage is legitimate and no barrier to holiness. That is a lie. <BR/><BR/>You seem to want to argue that this has something to do with people living together. It doesn't. It has to do with "married/partner status." We're talking about sexual relationships here, Lauren, not roommate arrangements. If that were not the case, then we could easily have passed roommate legislation in all the states giving any two persons marriage-like status for legal and inheritance purposes. One would only need to register one's partnership with the clerk. It could be, as you suggest, sisters, parent-child, friends, etc. But, no. The gay-rights crowd doesn't want to live with that. Instead, it has to be "same-sex marriage," a sexual and romantic relationship that is equally good, equally holy and equally legitimate as real marriage. <BR/><BR/>That's what the resolution pushed for.Father Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14847913093723860020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206783518364639866.post-57515076203107748452008-11-18T00:41:00.000-05:002008-11-18T00:41:00.000-05:00Gus, last year was not so bad, but the previous 4 ...Gus, last year was not so bad, but the previous 4 conventions we had to sit through hours of nastiness. On that issue this convention was better than most. But what was much worse is the total loss of what a convention can and should mean.Muthah+https://www.blogger.com/profile/10589837671378205837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206783518364639866.post-46465901552469073212008-11-17T22:00:00.000-05:002008-11-17T22:00:00.000-05:00This was my first Convention. I can't say it was ...This was my first Convention. I can't say it was a really good use of my time. <BR/><BR/>That anti-sodomy rant made me mad. I wanted to head for the nearest mike and say "Respect the diginity of EVERY human being," but the question was called. I suppose that's as well; I was mad enough that I know very well I would not have said it nicely, probably muttering "DUH" under my breath as I turned away from the mike, probably just loud enough to be heard.Gushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18086776053112679099noreply@blogger.com