I shouldnt be suprised at this point...

[jimmiej]

Yes, but it is up to the parent to teach these rules to their children, and hand out the consequences when they are disobeyed, not the child's brothers and sisters. Most parents don't like it when siblings try to rule each other in their name.

The problem is, one of the sisters (Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in this case) is saying "Dad's" rules don't apply!

 

[VSL]

Then surely it's up to the rest of the children to individually decide whether they agree with that sister or not

 

[jimmiej]

Then surely it's up to the rest of the children to individually decide whether they agree with that sister or not

Incorrect! As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the Church is required by Scripture to police itself.

 

[eclectics]

Incorrect! As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the Church is required by Scripture to police itself.

And unless God himself is the policeman that gets to clean it all up, it's kind of like letting the oil companies write their own pollution laws, isn't it?

 

[jimmiej]

And unless God himself is the policeman that gets to clean it all up, it's kind of like letting the oil companies write their own pollution laws, isn't it?

Unfortunately, you're correct in many situations. See Revelation, chapters 2-3.

 

[eclectics]

Unfortunately, you're correct in many situations. See Revelation, chapters 2-3.

Which is why I'm no fan of organized religion. I can do without the constant infighting. It's bad enought to have to battle your neighbors within your own sect, but to feel the need to question someone elses also is, sorry, just wrong. Again, just imho.

 

[MerryPoppins]

I just found this thread. It was an interesting read.

Another cradle Episcopalian checking in. I'm thrilled with the selection of the new PB! I'm pleased with what I've read about her so far. Yes, it may cause division and I hate that. But if some Episcopalians don't like the direction the church is being led by the Holy Spirit, they can branch off. It's as easy as that. If you aren't a member of the Episcopal Church, what is any of this to you?

And yes, I do believe the selection of the PB is led by the Holy Spirit. It would have been much easier to elect someone less controversial. The House of Bishops elected her after much prayer, because they felt it was the right choice to make. I'm sure of that.

I'm proud to be part of a denomination that allows members to think and make informed and prayerful decisions about what God is calling us to do. I'm also proud to have raised two intelligent teens who are active in our church. Both are interested in current events and the future of our church. Both were also thrilled with the direction the new PB was leading us.

You can't put God in a box. He's dynamic. The Bible is important, but it's not the only basis for my Christianity. God is alive and among us. I am called to keep Him in my heart. I prayerfully make decisions each day according to what He would have my actions be.

I've been taught that following rules and doing good deads does not get you into heaven. It's by God's grace that I'm going there. I try to follow the rules and live a good life because God calls me to do that, not because if I don't I'll be doomed to hell.

Jesus said that the two most important rules we have to follow (and I'm obviously not quoting here) were to love God with all our heart, soul and mind and to love our neighbors as ourselves. All the other laws are fullfilled if we just keep our sight on these two. I don't see how homosexuality keeps me from loving God less or how it keeps me from loving others. Love seems to be what it's all about. It's not my place to judge other people.

 

[Saxsoon]

My changes are in Caps with scripture qouted.

You didn't quote anything past that. God didn't say the same laws as he did in Exodus 20.

Here they are:


Exodus 20 is on top, Exodus 34 is on the bottom.


1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.


1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god). SAME


2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.


2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. SAME


3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.


3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn. EXODUS 23:14-15


4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.


4. All the first-born are mine. EXODUS 22:29


5. Honor your father and your mother.


5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest. SAME AS FOUR JUST OUT OF ORDER


6. You shall not kill.


6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. EXODUS 23:16


7. You shall not commit adultery.


7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread. EXODUS 23:18


8. You shall not steal.


8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning. EXODUS 23: 18


9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.


9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. EXODUS 23: 16


10. You shall not covet.


10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk. EXODUS 23:19

He didn't just pull these out of nowhere. Most of the changes were about the feasts that he commanded in Exodus 23. Don't know why it is like that, but these are laws that God asked of the Isrealites before the commandments were "changed" I am going to need to look it over some more.


I found this just now while researching the topic.

Question 94a
Another ten Commandments?
"Is it a coincidence that the set of commandments in Exodus 34 happens to number ten, like the better known 10 commandments of Exodus 20?"
--Steven C. Yacconi

ANSWER
Like you, every time I read Exodus 34 I too wonder what the significance of the "ten commandments" is. At the Biblical Archaeology Seminar (in Boston, November 19-21, 2000) I attended a lecture on the Ten Commandments, or Decalogue ("ten words")-including Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5 and Exodus 34-by Michael Coogan. (He was in fact one of my Hebrew teachers at Harvard twenty years earlier.) Coogan maintained that the 10 commandments originally circulated in different forms. Scholars sometimes call the Exodus 34 list "the Ritual Decalogue," as opposed to the "Ethical Decalogue" of chapter 20. In other words, your observation has not gone unnoticed by scholars. But why is this Decalogue so similar-and yet so different-to the original chapters earlier?
A good rule of thumb whenever we are "stuck" in our understanding of a Bible passage is this: Examine the context! After the earlier giving of the law in chapter 20, along with its amplification in the chapters which follow, Israel had fallen into gross idolatry in chapter 32. Moses had shattered the first covenant. Chapter 34 is a sort of "renewal" of the covenant, a strong warning against returning to the temptations of Canaanite idolatry. This section of Exodus deliberately imitates the original Decalogue: ten words of warning to urge moral, doctrinal, and religious purity in undivided devotion to Yahweh. From chapter 35 to the end of Exodus we read of the obedience of Moses and the Israelites in constructing the Tabernacle, faithfully and "according to the book."
Thus this second edition of the covenant serves a triple function: a rebuke after the idolatrous incident of chapter 32 (the golden calf/bull), a recap of God's distinctive covenant requirements, and a reminder to holy living, which anticipates Leviticus in its gravity and specificity.
Incidentally, many scholars recognize the reason there were two tablets to be, not that they would not all fit onto one tablet, but that covenants were normally written out in duplicate: one copy for each party. In this case, one copy was Israel's, one was God's.

http://www.acesonline.org/Columnists/Jacoby/question_94.htm

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

How many of our Bible-quoting, word-of-God touting bretheren are fluent in Greek and Hebrew and have studied the historical period when the Bible was written? Have you meditated on the original Greek? Do you understand the subtleties of the language?

My guess is that you're all reading English translations, which is fine, but let's not pretend that you're reading the actual words of God. Lets not pretend that you've meditated over the text and studied the history behind the Bible. At least the PB has read the Greek, has meditated on the text, and has studied the history. She has developed a well-reasoned, thoughtfully supported opinion on the matter.

 

[jimmiej]

Which is why I'm no fan of organized religion. I can do without the constant infighting. It's bad enought to have to battle your neighbors within your own sect, but to feel the need to question someone elses also is, sorry, just wrong. Again, just imho.

We humans tend to screw up! That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get things right. God's plan for us is perfect; we're imperfect.

 

[goofygirl]

God said to love our fellow man, but He gave specific rules for sexual relations.

Well then according to the "rules", not only should you refrain from homosexuality, you should also never have sex outside of marriage, and you should never use birth control, either. After all the whole point in making homosexuality "taboo" is because such relations can't produce children.

I hope you were a virgin until your wedding night, otherwise you are a "sinner" just like the homosexuals. Hope you are not using birth control, either. What about divorce? Do you think that's a sin too? How far do these "rules" go?

My Episcopal priest has been divorced (he's remarried now), as are many clergy and parishoners in the church. Are they are sinners?

Birth control and divorce is permitted in the Episcopal church. I am so glad to be part of a church that prides itself on being one where "you don't have to check your brain in at the door." Some Episcopalian are even (gasp!) pro-choice!

I know I'm "sinning" just like the gays. I've had premarital sex, used birth control, and I have no intention of having children. I'm doomed, right?

 

[Saxsoon]

And that is why Jesus died for our sins ^

I don't think anyone hear will argue that they have never done wrong.

I truly don't think there is anything beyond God's compassion to forgive if you just ask for it. In other word's, there is no straight ticket to hell.

 

[zagafi]

How many of our Bible-quoting, word-of-God touting bretheren are fluent in Greek and Hebrew and have studied the historical period when the Bible was written? Have you meditated on the original Greek? Do you understand the subtleties of the language?

My guess is that you're all reading English translations, which is fine, but let's not pretend that you're reading the actual words of God. Lets not pretend that you've meditated over the text and studied the history behind the Bible. At least the PB has read the Greek, has meditated on the text, and has studied the history. She has developed a well-reasoned, thoughtfully supported opinion on the matter.

Aw, now don't go muddying the water with REASON, for Pete's sake! Thing that amazes me most is all these non-Episcopalians have NO idea how much the clergy and laity have been struggling with these issues since Gene Robinson's consecration. It's been very thoughtful, contemplative and Scripturally based--and there has been division. The bottom line is the church realizes this is not such a simple, black and white issue (nothing in life is) and is trying to proceed accordingly.

And another thing--if homosexuality is indeed a sin, where is it stated that it is THE sin? Cause that seems to be the one thing people fixate on.

 

[Saxsoon]

And another thing--if homosexuality is indeed a sin, where is it stated that it is THE sin? Cause that seems to be the one thing people fixate on.

I agree. It is something that God asked not to be done, but it is not a something that should be the equivalent of murder among other sins. If nothing else, most certainly not beyond God's grace to forgive.

 

[jimmiej]

Well then according to the "rules", not only should you refrain from homosexuality, you should also never have sex outside of marriage, and you should never use birth control, either. After all the whole point in making homosexuality "taboo" is because such relations can't produce children.

I hope you were a virgin until your wedding night, otherwise you are a "sinner" just like the homosexuals. Hope you are not using birth control, either. What about divorce? Do you think that's a sin too? How far do these "rules" go?

My Episcopal priest has been divorced (he's remarried now), as are many clergy and parishoners in the church. Are they are sinners?

Birth control and divorce is permitted in the Episcopal church. I am so glad to be part of a church that prides itself on being one where "you don't have to check your brain in at the door." Some Episcopalian are even (gasp!) pro-choice!

I know I'm "sinning" just like the gays. I've had premarital sex, used birth control, and I have no intention of having children. I'm doomed, right?

God knows our heart. If we know we are living in sin and have no intention of changing, then obviously a relationship with Christ is not at the top of our priority list. When we become a Christian, we become a new person; we put the old things behind us. Our priorities change. When we sin, it bothers us; we're convicted by the Holy Spirit to repent.

 

[eclectics]

We humans tend to screw up! That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get things right. God's plan for us is perfect; we're imperfect.

Okay, but exactly who on this earth wins the prize and gets to determine what's right? The Episcopal BP is certainly a Christian and she thinks she is right. Who is anyone to tell her she's not?

 

[zagafi]

I agree. It is something that God asked not to be done, but it is not a something that should be the equivalent of murder among other sins. If nothing else, most certainly not beyond God's grace to forgive.

Thank you *so* much for this. It's nice to know someone else feels this way!

 

[discernment]

It's not my place to judge other people.

Please read this in its entirety and then tell me if you still feel the same way. This is an excellent bible study on the issue.

http://www.cicministry.org/commentary/issue94.htm

Its how we judge other people that is the crux of the matter not if we should or not. Especially we are commanded to judge false teachers within the church.

That is why all Christians, Episcopalians and non-Episcopalians, should be concerned when someone within the Christian church says that homosexuality is not a sin.

 

[MerryPoppins]

I read the whole thing, but it didn't change the way I feel. I think God wants me to use my head (instead of blindly follow). I'm called to love above all else. I don't feel he's calling me to judge. If I am wrong, I feel sure he will forgive me for this.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

Aw, now don't go muddying the water with REASON, for Pete's sake! Thing that amazes me most is all these non-Episcopalians have NO idea how much the clergy and laity have been struggling with these issues since Gene Robinson's consecration. It's been very thoughtful, contemplative and Scripturally based--and there has been division. The bottom line is the church realizes this is not such a simple, black and white issue (nothing in life is) and is trying to proceed accordingly.

Actually, the debate has gone on for far longer than this. Prior to Bishop Robinson's vote, there was the Spong controversy in Newark. This issue was being tossed around at the General Convention I attended as a teen delegate a while ago.

So folks, how do you resolve the Bible's endorsement of (or at least neutraility toward) slavery, concubinage, leverite marriage, etc. and prohibitions on homosexual relations? Do you think that it is okay to own your wife? Should you be able to own another woman and have sex with her? If you are unable to impregnate your wife, will you allow your brother to impregnate her to produce an heir for you? The Bible doesn't have a problem with these things, but I think most of us would agree that they are immoral actions and unacceptable within our society. Is it so outrageous, then, to have a scholarly person decide that maybe the prohibitions on homosexual behavior must be read in context --- with a mind toward our greater understanding of the human psyche and ultimately conclude that homosexual behavior isn't a deal-breaker?