Re: new world church secretary -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:24:48 11/15/12 Thu
Author: George
Subject: Re: new world church secretary
In reply to: - 's message, "Re: new world church secretary" on 08:23:37 11/15/12 Thu

>>>>>>>but then again, your assertions are just that.
>>>your
>>>>>>>assertions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>john
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John, her assertions are only her assertions
>>because
>>>>>>there is not the least concept of truth in the
>>>>>>Community of Christ. In the Community of Christ,
>>the
>>>>>>"truth" is whatever the people who matter believe
>>is
>>>>>>necessary to execute their agenda. Also, those who
>>>do
>>>>>>not believe what is necessary to execute this
>>agenda
>>>>>>by definition do not matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>George
>>>>>>
>>>>>What I should do is, whenever I post the url for
>>>>>something the c-not-of-c said or did, I should put
>>>>>under it, "true?" or "false?"
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>href="http://www.cofchrist.org/OnlineResources/issu
>e
>>s
>>>/
>>>>1
>>>>>982homosexuality.asp">http://www.cofchrist.org/Onli
>n
>>e
>>>R
>>>>e
>>>>>sources/issues/1982homosexuality.asp
>>>>>
>>>>>In the critical matter of ordination, the church
>>>>>should not admit a practicing homosexual to the
>>>>>priesthood. It cannot sanction homosexual acts as
>>>>>morally acceptable behavior any more than it can
>>>>>endorse heterosexual promiscuity. If a member
>of
>>>>>the priesthood admits to, or is found to be engaged
>>>in
>>>>>homosexual behavior, the administrative officer
>>>having
>>>>>jurisdiction should institute procedures for
>>>silencing
>>>>>according to church law.
>>>>>
>>>>>This was the stand in 1982. True? False?
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>href="http://www.cofchrist.org/usaconf/FAQ.asp">htt
>p
>>:
>>>/
>>>>/
>>>>>www.cofchrist.org/usaconf/FAQ.asp
>>>>>
>>>>>USA National Conference
>>>>>Frequently Asked Questions
>>>>>
>>>>>4. Why are we talking about same-gender marriages
>>and
>>>>>ordaining people in same-gender relationships?
>>>Doesn�t
>>>>>the church already have a policy about ordaining
>>>>>homosexuals?
>>>>>
>>>>>a. In 1982, the Standing High Council wrote a
>>>>>document. From that document, the First
>>Presidency
>>>>>created a policy that does not allow ordination of
>>>>>anyone (heterosexual or homosexual) involved in
>>>sexual
>>>>>relationships outside of marriage.
>>>>>
>>>>>The wording is different, the second one changing
>>the
>>>>>meaning of the first one. True? False?
>>>>>
>>>>>That makes the c-not-of-c leadership a pack of
>>liars.
>>>>>True? False?
>>>>>
>>>>>Lois
>>>>True
>>>>False
>>>>False
>>>>
>>>>if you read the SHC statement, it is clear that it
>is
>>>>about extramarital sexual relations. That is the
>>>>clear context. It further lays the basis for that
>in
>>>>the fact that homosexuals, in 1982 (and still in
>many
>>>>places today),could not legally marry.
>>>>The context of the policy in 1982, as it still is,
>>>>relates to sexual promiscuity...not whether it is
>>>>heterosexual or homosexual, per se.
>>>
>>>matt,
>>>
>>>true, true, true
>>>
>>>I see you are up to your old legal schmlegal game
>>>again. Namely, that now that in some states same
>>>gender marriages are legal that it is not fornication
>>>anymore. The 1982 statement was against practicing
>>>homosexuality. I mentioned the book, 1984, not long
>>>ago. The community of anti-christ is fond of
>rewriting
>>>history.
>>>
>>>Lois
>>
>>Lois, what has happened in the Community of Christ is
>>that it has become so secular that it looks to secular
>>law for guidance in what used to be spiritual matters.
>>As Jesus said of the apostate Jews, "Ye have made the
>>Law of none effect by your traditions." And in the
>>case of Christians, the salvation of Jesus Christ has
>>been made null and void by their traditions as well.
>>It's just ironic that a Restoration cult has done it,
>>too.
>>
>>I just fail to see why apostates act so anxious to
>>court approval.
>>
>>George
>no defense of the policy or statement against it.
>just pointing out that the basis of the 1982 SHC
>statement is sex outside of marriage. in 1982 there
>was no place in the US that homosexuals could be
>legally married. indeed in many states homosexuality
>was illegal.
>the clarification or restating of the SHC later in
>200? was basically an appeasement. again, i am not
>defending or condemning that policy, just stating
>reality.
>you may twist it however you wish, and conclude
>whatever you wish to conclude, but you should know the
>fact.
>now, today, the issue that the national conferences in
>australia and canada have already met to discuss and
>usa conference will discuss in april 2013, is being
>considered under significantly different
>circumstances. in a growing number of places, same
>sex marriage is now legal. anti-homosexuality laws
>have been stricken across the usa, etc.
>so now the church in these places is confronted by the
>fact that the societal basis for a policy no longer
>exists. and the question before the church(not just
>now in this specific situation and time, but always)
>is how does the church faithfully represent the christ
>in the world.
>some would choose to basically ignore that question or
>insist that the world must conform monolithically to
>some (their) predetermined set of mores and rules and
>theology - none of which will ever be specifically
>stated, because there is never consensus of more than
>one on what the list is, but the one is very certain.
>many, however, would choose to confront that question
>daily, aware that such questions are messy and
>difficult and rarely have satisfactory answers; but
>also aware that the answer is not really the important
>matter. rather it is the faithful pursuit and
>persistent questioning to know and understand the will
>of god and how gods heart of justice and love can be
>most effectively demonstrated in the world.
>i choose to be counted in the latter.

Matt, are you pursuing the question of how mankind can possibly be saved, or save itself, or whatever?

When the jailer asked Paul, "What must I do to be saved?" was the question important, or was the important thing at the moment the fact that the jailer was seeking something.

The Titanic sinking was a great disaster, but it would have been worse if friendly deckhands in the service of the White Star Lines had responded thus:

"Where are the lifeboats?"

"Madam, the answer to that question is not nearly as important as the search for the answer."

"How do I get this lifejacket on?"

"Madam, you will be interested to know that throughout the world, there are many different floatation devices in use, and, depending upon the culture and mindset of the inventor, they work by various different means."

My wife says if I go back below deck, I'll die."

"Sir, obviously your wife is narrow-minded and judgemental, and would never be considered for the position of steward by the White Star Line. You know, there are many respectable people on board this ship who are of the opinion that this ship is unsinkable. Though your wife means well and is concerned about your immediate safety, in her lowbrow provincialism, she is completely ignoring and invalidating these persons whose opinions differ from hers, and she obviously needs remedial therapy from an objective deckhand."

George

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]