ke5b@my-deja.com wrote:

> > Just because the church wants to ~allow~ (not require) blessing of gay

> > relationships doesn't mean that those who disapprove must leave. That

>> is their choice.

> Its really an embarrassment to the Episcopal Church

> that this is even still debated. This conflict within the church has the

> potential to destroy it. The blessing of a gay relationship is simply ludicrous.

> If it were consistent with Christianity, it would have been done

> throughout the ages. Same sex weddings were not conducted in the Bible.

> Its a union conjured up by leftist liberals like Spong. I can see a big split

> happening soon in the Episcopal church.
 

QBaal  adds:

Why even think of a big split? Talk about Jewish Princess! North American Christians are princesses (not queens) sleeping on a stack of 50 mattresses.


Still can't sleep for the pea of homosexuality bugging them. It's good to add
sensitivity to your repertoire as follower of Jesus. But not over sensitivity.
I mean the homosexuality issue is not like nuclear arms race where the fate
of humanity hangs in the balance. Rightly, almost everyone regards use of
nuclear weapons as a great evil. On the other hand, homosexual issues are
very divisive among Christians. Good, dedicated Christians are on both sides
of the split re ordination of practicing homosexuals.

Christians have been wrong on other issues before like evolution, flat earth, Virgin Birth literally understood, etc. Probably many Christians are wrong on the homosexual issue. Rationality takes a big hit as many Christians are probably just plain homophobic. In any case, God will forgive the side sinning. He apologizes he  has not made his own position clear enough in the Bible. Now he surely wishes he had moved Jesus to give us the definitive answer on homos along with a clear cut ruling on abortion.

If Jesus walked into my house today, I would not berate him for mentioning hell, his naive cosmology, his laughable theory of disease (antibiotics will take you a lot further than exorcisms) or his failure, by getting killed too young, to put his immediate disciples straight on many things including their penchant to form power groups within the larger early Christian community.  And yes, their cover their ass tactic of transferring  the blame
for Christ's death from the guilty as heck Romans onto the Jews as a whole.

Rather, I would say "howdy, care for a meal?" After a few days of enjoying each others company we might get round to some of the problem issues plaguing Christianity. Including homosexuality.

Heresy is surely a matter of displaced emphasis. Seems to me its right to discuss homosexuality till the cows come home. But not to take a foaming at the mouth view of it. Nor inciting division of Christ's body over "queer" relationships. That's giving the issue more emphasis than it merits.