Re: This is what's next on the liberal agenda. -- 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: 21:00:44 08/25/11 Thu
Author: George
Subject: Re: This is what's next on the liberal agenda.
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: This is what's next on the liberal agenda." on 18:51:31 08/25/11 Thu

>>>>and yet statistics show that the vast majority of
>>>>pedophiles are straight... go figure...
>>>>
>>>>john
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, John, if you are still alive by the time the
>>>same tactics used to convince you to buy into same
>sex
>>>marraige get turned on you by the pedophiles, are you
>>>going to bowl over as easily as you did the first
>>time?
>>>
>>>Morality is morality, John. It can't be subdivided
>and
>>>remodeled piece-meal.
>>>
>>>Acceptance of fornication leads to acceptance of
>>>adultery. Acceptance of adultery leads to acceptance
>>>of same-sex marriage (which, like the other two, is
>>>just another nail in the coffin of Christian
>>>marriage.) The only question here is whether
>>>pedophiles or polygamists are going to be the next to
>>>jump on the bandwagon.
>>>
>>>Since you are a priest of the CofC, and the CofC has
>>>official ceremonies for "blessing" the sexual
>>>cohabitation of unmarried couples, married (but not
>to
>>>each other couples), and same sex couples, you are
>>>already to the next fork in the road.
>>>
>>>Of course, when you reach it, you can always break
>>>down in uncontrollable laughter.
>>>
>>>George
>
>>George;
>>
>>the community of christ has no such ceremonies for
>>sexual cohabitation of unmarried couples, nor for same
>>sex couples. as a matter of fact, as joanne chapman
>>has already stated, our ministers are no longer
>>allowed to even perform a blessing on a same sex
>>couple.
>>
>>lets keep with the program george...
>>
>>john
>
>john,
>
>Are you trying to tell us that at the moment they are
>following their own rules? Do you really expect us to
>believe that? Grant McMurray admitted to not following
>the rules in 2002. Maybe, but I don't think so, the
>real reason Grant McMurray had to resign was because
>he let the cat out of the bag. On again, off again, on
>again, off again.
>
>Lois
>
>

>Called to Discipleship: Coming Home in Search of the
>Path
>W. Grant McMurray 2002 World Conference Address April
>7, 2002
>
>�I am not in the habit of telling our delegates how
>they should vote, but I am about to make an exception.
>I request the delegates to this World Conference to
>table or refer all pending legislation on
>homosexuality so that we can avoid actions that will
>be divisive and shape a process by which a broader
>understanding and consensus can be built. I will ask
>the Standing High Council to participate with others
>in looking anew at this matter, seeking issues on
>which we can surely agree (God's love of all people,
>fidelity, the value of family, the sacredness of
>sexuality as part of creation) and shaping dialogue in
>areas where we do not agree (the blessing of same-sex
>relationships, standards for ordination, the
>interpretation and authority of scripture).
>
>In the meantime, I ask the Community of Christ to be
>willing to live with us on the boundary for a while.
>To do this means that we may not have a policy that
>guides every decision, but we will have to trust the
>Holy Spirit to accompany us in our choices. It
>means that some parts of the church may function
>differently from other parts of the church and there
>will be distinctions that are occasionally unsettling
>but representative of the diversity of our body,
>both in terms of viewpoints and cultures. We recognize
>that certain national governments have requirements
>that our local church leaders in those nations will
>need to respect and interpret in accordance with their
>own cultural understandings.
>
>Because of these many differences, our church stands
>in the midst of much ambiguity and inconsistency.
>We have a twenty-year-old statement from the
>Standing High Council that serves as official
>guidance, but has not been universally adhered to
>throughout the church. I will be totally honest and
>acknowledge that I have myself participated in
>situations where its provisions were not honored.
>I have been present in conferences where persons I
>knew to be in long-term, committed homosexual
>relationships were approved for priesthood in
>jurisdictions where their lifestyle was known and
>their ministry was accepted. The conflict within me
>was between lawgiver and pastor. To enforce the policy
>would have required me to intervene and prevent the
>ordination of someone whose call to ministry I could
>not deny. This I could not do. This I will not
>do.�

Lois, by "declaring a moratorium" on something, they signal that it is right and legal within the church to do it, but they choose not to. You cannot impose a moratorium on breaking the rules. If there is a rule against it, then no "moratorium" is necessary.

For instance, grab this fictional news item.

New York. Today Mayor Bloomberg officially declared a moratorium on bank robbery. He stated, "We are so sorry to interfere with the entrepreneurial socialist spirit, but at this time, small-minded and bigoted people -- especially those with Bible and guns -- may cause trouble for bank robbers, and we hope that if we bide our time and wait patiently, a solution for objections to bank robbery may be found. One avenue that has been considered is the banning of Bibles and guns inside the greater New York metropolitan area. It is a terrible tragedy when some gun-toting bank guard shoots at bank robbers trying to make a living; often innocent parties are hurt."

Mayor Bloomberg also suggested that a city ordinance be passed ordering all citizens with bank accounts to forward a percentage of their balances to all known bank robbers to prevent carnage. Applications for licenses to rob banks would be required.

This article show a position just as stupid and idiotic as the CofC leadership declaring a moratorium on something that they vehemently insist is "against the rules."

George

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