A Remarkable Testimony from a Christian Man

Bless you brother.  Thank you for your honest testimony. Very powerful.

<block quote> ...I think the call to conversion is also an invitation to place ourselves, our very lives, between the hammer and the anvil as God undertakes the serious business of forging us into new creatures in Christ, to the extent that we will allow Him to do so. /block quote>

All I can say is WOW that is a powerful and humbling thought.  Thank you for speaking out.

RSB

This definitely deserved its own thread.  What a humbling gift to all of us.
He’s so right about the Biblical message not being about “making people into heterosexuals.”  The high place of chastity in the Scriptures gets very little play in today’s church (and probably won’t until my wretched baby boomer generation dies off and takes its idols with it to the grave).  While many (probably most) males will be husbands and fathers, we are not the LDS - our theology honors but does not mandate reproduction unless one is called to it.
One of the things that puzzles me about the LGBT is their harping on stuff like “erotic empowerment”.  Frankly, what does that say to the many people who are not having a lot of sex?  Illness, emotional problems, age, isolation…there are all kinds of people, loved by God, toward whom a “gospel” of sexual liberation seems cruel.  Even within marriages that have healthy erotic lives most of the time, there can be long “dry spells” due to any number of factors.  I sometimes think that LGBT people romanticize what goes on in heterosexual life.  There is a lot more agape and filias than eros, and this is only amplified over time.

This is a powerful testimony and really impressed me. Know this episcopalienated, you are in our prayers and have our every support in your trials.

Dear Episcopalienated,

In case you miss my comment on the original thread, let me again thank you for your moving and inspirational witness.

I would greatly appreciate your permission to republish it on my blog, The Continuum (http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com).

God bless you,

Albion Land

May the Lord continue to bless your walk with Him. Thank you for daring to share this with the people on Stand Firm.

But I think the call to conversion is also an invitation to place ourselves, our very lives, between the hammer and the anvil as God undertakes the serious business of forging us into new creatures in Christ, to the extent that we will allow Him to do so.

We are always free to decide for ourselves that the cost is too great, but we are never free to decide on our own just what that cost is going to be. Ultimately, we must accept it upon God’s terms or not at all.

These quotes are applicable to all heresies, not just sexual sins.  Thank you, Episcopalienated.

I hope that Susan Russell and Mark Harris and Louie Crew and Gene Robinson allow this man and folks like him to be part of the “listening” process.  These voices also need to be heard because they are faithful and powerful witnesses to the Gospel.

God bless you, Episcopalienated!

I hope that Susan Russell and Mark Harris and Louie Crew and Gene Robinson allow this man and folks like him to be part of the “listening” process.

Unfortunately, Eddie, These people are just the ones who will do all in their power to block this sort of testimony. To them the “listening”  process doesn’t include testimony that would go against theirs. You know how it is, we talk you listen.

The Susan Russell/Gene Robinson/Louie Crew/Elizabeth Kaeton’s of the world are really going to howl about this.  Episcopalienated is not a homosexual they will want to be inclusive of. I would be proud to include him in my church.

the snarkster

This made me think of the popular line from the revisionists… that there have always been gay priests and bishops serving the church.  Sure there have been, but they’ve all been like Episcopalienated!

Your magnificent witness goes far beyond sexuality, episcopalienated, far beyond.  I don’t believe there is a single soul who can’t learn much from your humility and wisdom.

May the Lord continue to bless you and may He bless us with your continued presence here.

We need to hear more of this kind of story. When I read this blog and Titusonenine it seems that most reappraisers just assume that this kind of story does not exist or that the person telling it is miserable. That certainly does not seem to be the case here.

In my grandparents’ generation and before, many famlies had maiden aunts and bachelor uncles who stayed at home and never married.  Who is to know how many of those didn’t marry because they didn’t feel called to it?  There is no need for us to define “success” as marriage.  Freedom from the compulsions that often characterize the “gay” lifestyle, and the joy of living with God’s truth are their own rewards.

Episcopalienated,

Blessings to you in your journey.  I know there are many more who bear witness to the transforming grace and power of the gospel in their lives in this area.  I for one appreciate your contribution to this blog on this issue. 

Your “blog” name appears to be a blending of episcopal and alienated and I am curious as to its intended meaning.  My interest is peaked because I believe that while your experience has been well received here I must question how well received you have been within orthodox circles in general.  The experiences of other gays and lesbians with your experience has been varied in the orthodox camp.  It has included those who have been made to feel obliged to be a “poster child” to those who have undertaken their faithful walk in silence and anonymity because of the prejudices which many of us orthodoxs still harbor regarding gays in general. 

Perhaps in the listening process it would help to listen to your experience and those of others who have not felt so welcomed in our midst despite their desire to be faithful to the call of the gospel.  One comment I have heard repeatedly is that while the orthodox message on the cost of discipleship is clear, the lack of grace and compassion (devoid of condescension and judgement) alienates many who would otherwise be drawn towards the gospel within a “welcoming” church such as the Episcopal Church.  Any thoughts?

What does episcopalienated say about the homosexual agenda? Where he has stated his “confession” regarding his own personal situation, what does he say about the organized homosexual agenda that has not only taken over TEC but has had major cultural manifestations in the United States if not the world?

I am interested how he assesses the fact that homosexuals will not admit that promiscuous sexual conduct is wrong. That they do not dare compare their sexual habits with the inclination for pedophilia. Nor are they critical of bisexuals who wander from the dedication of a true marriage for same-sex excursions.

Further, I am interested how he assesses the homosexual legislative agenda for teaching homosexuality in schools which is implemented in the name of toleration and obviously serves to introduce young people to accept their life-style—with the disastrous objective to persuade young people to experiment with and/or join homosexual practices.

What does he say about 2Cor 5:17 regarding his own experience?

These are hard questions deserving answers if episcopalienated is sincere in helping us understand—for he has said his “sexual orientation” is fixed where it is proven that its not with the will to change.

A great witness.
What a novel idea . . . asking God to intervene and change our lives to free us from our sins.
The revisionists have maintained that this issue is about sex.
It was never about sex . . . it has always been about sin.
There are more Episcopalienateds out there than they want to admit. These people are active in churches and filling vital roles in society.
Like the rest of us, they have elected not to go to the extremes of lifting their personal sins up and asking us as a church to call them Holy. Unlike VG Robinson, they have maintained their dignity.
Episcopalienated has my deepest respect.
Thanks for sharing.

Over the course of my ministry I have heard many such similar witnesses by men formerly caught up in the active gay lifestyle.  Their lives in Christ Jesus often put those of the “straight” community to shame.  That is why I am so adamant about insisting that any “holy listening” done with the gay community must and should include those gay folk who have found grace in their lives to live celebate or transformed lives.  Sadly Episcopal listening seems to mean hear us out until we have convinced you of our lifestyle or at least go along with it.  Going along with that is not being in conformity with the Christian Gospel.  Thank you sir for reminding us all once again of the cost of Christian discipleship.

We are always free to decide for ourselves that the cost is too great, but we are never free to decide on our own just what that cost is going to be.

God bless you, episcopalienated, for a witness that should make us all think about our own lives and where we are with God.

I’m reticent to comment on this, as this is one of those things where describing the joy and awe one feels, almost trivializes the event. 

It is a reason to get up early on Sunday.  It is a reason to keep on, keeping on. 

This will be trivialized (“Oh, nice anecdote.. here’s my counter-anecdote.”) by some, but these are the same folks who wouldn’t believe their eyes even if someone were raised from the dead.  So in the end, the trivializations are themselves irrelevant. 

God bless you (... even more), episcopalianated.  Thank you for writing your testimony of God’s faithfulness.  A million times, thank you.

Episcopalianated makes a great point: One does NOT have to be a homosexual Christian to be celibate.  Nor is sex the only thing a Christian may have to “give up.”  I just saw the movie “Facing Giants” and it exemplifies this same principle—although as a movie, it has a VERY happy ending!—of being willing to “give up” a lifestyle (such as sexual relationships or parenthood) and still being willing to stand for God.

I would hope Episcopalianated will “come out” or that several of his like will stand forth—and firm—for those in the Episcopal Church who have been scammed into thinking that the Integrity way is the only way.  May God richly bless you and all those like you! :

otis page,

What an ungracious and unkind response to a truly amazing testimony. Not only has the gentleman acknowledged homosexual behavior to be a sin and repented of his past failures, he has committed to remaining celibate. In the face of this firm resolve and faithfulness all you can manage is to ask what he thinks of the homosexual agenda? He has both acknowledged his sin and repented of it. You require of him more than does the Lord. Remember Mr. Page, the same measure you apply….

It is NOT at all necessary to reject the idea of inborn orientation to be repentant. That is rediculous.

I personally do not believe that the homosexual orientation is a choice. I am coming to the point of being persuaded that these impules can be inborn. This does nothing, in my mind, but confirm Paul’s description of homosexual desire in Romans 1 as one manifestation or ramification of our fallen nature.

Episcopalianated has done what we all should be doing he has committed himself to Christ’s own challenge, to “go forth and sin no more.”  Would that we all could be as strong a witness.

RSB

Episcopalienated:

Your testimony brought tears to my eyes, because you are a bigger and a better Christian than I will ever be. I haven’t experienced your struggle, but I’ve had some of my own in which I’ve utterly failed to demonstrate such strength and courage as you show here. You are a warrior for the Truth. Blessings on you!

Snarkster,

You are being too hard!!  I know that Mother Kaeton is a caring and compassionate Christian woman, and a priest of the church. I’m sure that she would love and accept Episcopalienated as her brother in Christ.

“Mother Kaeton” has as a primary concern her support of the homosexual aganda in TEC. As the appointed “point person, for Bishop Jack Spong she supports his theology—which is not Christian.

I like her—but not her witness. She at one time wrote the following to me (7/12/98):

“Mature people of ANY sexual orientation have impulse control on ALL of their appetites—including their sexual ones.  Indeed, if one watches movies or TV, there seems to be a much greater problem with heterosexual lust than a tiny segment of the lesbigay population—who also do not identify as being Christian. 

Which leads me to my final point. The fact is that I, like you and like most people, can behave sexually with anyone:  hetero, homo or auto.  That’s not the point.  For me, genital expression of one’s sexuality flows out of one’s sense of intimacy, one’s need to be in relationship.  That is involved with issues of trust and emotion.  Which stems from one’s understanding of self.  Which flows from one’s own nature and the way one has been nurtured.  Which are gifts from God.”

RichardC, you have a point about the need to not make every person who has won the battle over sexual immorality a “poster child”.  I wonder how many posters on this Board would like to openly discuss whether they engaged in heterosexual sex before marriage. That is no less of a sin, and no less forgiveable. 

However, I am in awe of the work of God in those remarkable folks like episcopalienated who feel called to share their story.

As so many others have said above, Episcoaliented, you bring glory to God through your beautiful testimony of faithfulness.  I am touched and blessed by your words.

I had a moving conversation with a young single woman in an Episcopal church in Los Angeles who said she wished people would not frame this debate in terms of “liberal” and “conservative.”  “I am usually politically pretty liberal,” she said,” and I am also single and celibate in honor of my Lord, Jesus.  If I can do this for Him, then why can’t Gene Robinson?”  She had, I thought, hit the very essence of why this is a “heart of the faith” issue.

Matt: My answer to you was inadvertantly posted on the wrong thread. My questions should be answered—but you chose to intervien and suggested a “fight”. Are you a “homosexual activist” since you beliveve homosexuals do not have a “choice” regarding their professed “fixed sexual orientation”?

Homosexual activists maintain those who are critical of them are on the wrong side of science when they say homosexuals have a choice of their lifestyle.

These activists refer to the American Psychological Association (APA) web site to substantiate their specious claim. But the APA’s positions are at issue, for the APA’s “science” is considered to be contradicted opinion. 

That opinion is challenged by “scientific” facts as established in the studies done by Dr. Robert L. Spitzer and as evidenced by declarations of those who were once active in the homosexual lifestyle and who state, “some of us are now in heterosexual marriages.” 

How can the APA substantiate its position that homosexuals do not have a choice, that their homosexuality is a function of a “Fixed Sexual Orientation”, when the scientifically established facts and other substantial evidence dispute this conclusion?

How can the Supreme Court designate Homosexuals being a class when that claim is based on a lie! Why should we allow homosexuals to teach children in our schools about homosexuality when it is not a Fixed Sexual Orientation but a function of sexual behavior?

What is the truth? Fixed Sexual Orientation is a failed theory. Many believe, with justification, the APA has been influenced by the homosexual lobby that has compromised the APA’s position.

It is conclusively proven that, as Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University states, “some homosexual persons who wish to change can indeed come out of that lifestyle and lead normal heterosexual married lives.” Homosexual activists should be reconciled to the truth that if they dispute these facts, they may be also rightly accused of being closed-minded homo bigots.

Bigotry has many fathers. For, when activists claim homosexual conduct is “ethical” between two consenting adults, they confuse the distinction between what is ethical and what is legal as held by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas.  Matt, do you make this claim?

The problem Grace, is that even if “mother Kaeton” were somehow accepting of episcopalienated, she is discouraging him from being obedient to Christ by teaching that engaging in these behaviors is not sinful. No one who struggles with SSA should expose themselves to the foul teaching by the likes of Kaeton - that could truly bring on misery. Either episcopalienated is doing a good, holy and noble thing by being celibate or he is doing a weak, self-centered, unenlightened thing by denying himself. I think that Kaeton implies the latter by her teaching. Also, the way that liberals talk about ex-gays or those who deny their desires does not imply to me that they would be at all accepting of episcopalienated. This to me is why this debate is so important. THere really is no middle ground. Either we encourage faithfulness to Christ through transformation and dying to self or we encourage the behavior - no middle ground.

The fact of the matter is, Mother? Kaeton is not very accepting of anyone who doesn’t buy into her “Gay is Good” theology 100%. She is dismissive and insulting to people who toe her LBGT line.

the snarkster

sorry:She is dismissive and insulting to people who don’t toe her LBGT line.

the snarkster

Kaeton showed her “loving kindness” to others when she posted that disparaging cartoon smearing Bishop Duncan on her site. The term witch is too good for her.

otis,

Again wiht your assumptions. I merely said that I believe homosexual orientation to be inborn. From that you assume/infer that I agree that behaving in accordance with this impulse is ethical? What an odd inference.  I believe it is inborn but I also believe it is disordered. The lustful thoughts and behavior by God’s grace can be controlled, the attraction or impulse, I am not so sure about.

You have thus far shown yourself to be singularly lacking in the ability to consider someone’s words without projecting your own issues onto them.

Here are my responses from the other thread:

You are making incredibly uncharitable assumptions about a brother who quite agrees that homosexual behavior is a sin and that. Why even assume that he would support the homosexual agenda?

I will not ask him those questions because as I said I believe they are irrelevant. Whether or not he thinks orientation is fixed has absolutely nothing to do with whether he is an orthodox believer. I think orientation is fixed. It is fixed in the same way that certain aspects of my sinful nature will never be defeated until I am in glory.

You are loading burdens far and above beyond what is warrented in the scriptures.”

and:

As I said, I will not re-pose your questions. You have posted them yourself. If he feels like answering he has every right to do so but biblically speaking he has no need to answer. Your questions and the assumptions underlying them are legalistic in the true sense of the word. 

As for a fight, you have obviously come with a chip on your shoulder. That’s fine, so long as you abide the rules, but don’t be suprised about the reaction you have recieved.

Greg Griffith is the editor. I am a contributor with editing priveleges.

Well, Matt—you derive conclusions while hiding behind your authority as a contributing editor to this web site. Your aggressive judgments reflect an insensitivity to the fact that some people—like myself—object to your type of editorial belligerence.

I asked for answers not a fight. You choose the latter and I will leave it at that.

I think you may be part of the problem that TEC faces today. I doubt that you would put your job on the line for STANDFIRM or for Jesus Christ considering your replies to me.

If you believed that Episcopalienated should answer my inquiry—why did you intervene? Did I touch on a nerve of apologetics for the homosexual agenda in TEC?

There are a few of us who feel strongly that a major fraud has been perpetuated by homosexuals in their takeover of TEC—and the responsibility for this rests with good old loving, faithful Episcopalian Saints who stood by and let it happen.

Did I touch on a nerve of apologetics for the homosexual agenda in TEC?

Otispage:
Boy did you miss the boat. You are obviously either very new to this site or very stupid. Matt+ is very definitely no apologist for the LBGT agenda as anyone could easily tell by reading any of his postings. You should really check your facts before you make unfounded assertions of that nature. It is also quite obvious that you had a chip on your shoulder from the start. What seems to be your problem?

the snarkster

Otispage….Matt makes no attempt whatsoever to hide the fact that he is a “contributing editor” or whatever you wish to call his “position” on SF.  T A K E   A   D E E P   B R E A T H   A N D   C A L M   D O W N

I didn’t ask for this fight, snarkster. I asked questions and the record speaks for itself. My assertion is based on his reaction to me—but if you wish to correct my understanding, please do so with facts. Like—what about my original query:

What does episcopalienated say about the homosexual agenda? ... what does he say about the organized homosexual agenda that has not only taken over TEC but has had major cultural manifestations in the United States if not the world?
How does he assesse the fact that homosexuals will not admit that promiscuous sexual conduct is wrong?

That homosexuals do not dare compare their sexual habits with the inclination for pedophilia. Nor are they critical of bisexuals who wander from the dedication of a true marriage for same-sex excursions.

How does he assess the homosexual legislative agenda for teaching homosexuality in schools which is implemented in the name of toleration and obviously serves to introduce young people to accept their life-style—with the disastrous objective to persuade young people to experiment with and/or join homosexual practices.

What does he say about 2Cor 5:17 regarding his own experience?

I admit these are hard questions deserving answers if episcopalienated is sincere in helping us understand—for he has said his “sexual orientation” is fixed where it is proven that its not with the will to change.

Do you, snarkster, believe these questions to be unfair or out of line? I am new to this site and I may be stupid. By I asked hard questions—and Matt was offended. If so, the offense was not of my making—but the need for honest questions from a homosexual who has given a great testimony but who professes his sexuality is fixed and will not change!

RE: “Are you a “homosexual activist” since you beliveve homosexuals do not have a “choice” regarding their professed “fixed sexual orientation”?”

Yes—Matt has finally been found out.  He’s a “homosexual activist”.  ; > )

I am sure that this totally scuttles any chance he may have once had to become the 2007 Anglican Blogger of the Year.  Thank goodness he’s been outed at last!  I do not know how he has been able to deceive so many for so long a time.

In the meantime, OtisPage, I believe that you are failing to distinguish between the words “lifestyle” and same-gender “attraction”.

Episcopalienated, in his very powerful testimony of submission to God’s will concerning sexual behavior, makes clear that he does not engage in same-gender sexual relationships—but that he continues to experience same-gender sexual attraction.

Although I am not certain that it matters that much, unlike Matt, I do not believe that same-gender sexual attraction is inborn, but rather a mysterious amalgm of “nature” and “nurture”.  I believe that, as with alcoholism and depression [along with a tendency to anger and so many many other challenging issues] there is most likely a genetic proclivity to those things—but that also along with that genetic proclivity there must be some crucial “nurture” steps that occur in order for the proclivity to become a “lifestyle”.

For instance, someone may have a genetic propensity to alcoholism, yet never take a drink in his life.  Others may have a genetic tendency to depression, but not experience the early childhood blows and patterns and life experiences that cause that illness to erupt.

You will note that Dr. Spitzer has carefully worded his conclusions—that some may “come out of that lifestyle” [ie, sexual activity between same genders] and “lead normal heterosexual married lives”.  He does not imply that no attraction exists, but merely that actions may change successfully, with a degree of joy and hope for some.

But that does not mean that such people never ever experience sexual attraction to the same gender, any more than it means that a recovering alcholic never experiences attraction to alchohol.

The truth is . . . all human beings experience particular attractions to certain sins.  And we struggle against the acting out of those attractions constantly.  My own impatience and selfish drivenness—both personality and family based, as well as inborn—is a constant scourge to me and my relationships.  I have to repent all the time.

So whether I can blame that particular sin on my heredity or my “nurture” does not really matter.  It seems likely that I will struggle with the tendency for the rest of my natural life.  My job is to repent and return to the Lord when I fall into sin.  God has determined to forgive me and offer grace unmeasured for my sin, so that I may have a relationship with him.

In this way, I and Episcopalienated have not a dime’s worth of difference between us, truth be told.

RE: “Matt+ is very definitely no apologist for the LBGT agenda as anyone could easily tell by reading any of his postings.”

Now, now, Snarkster.  Let’s not live in denial.

I’ve been hoping and waiting that someone somewhere would discover the Awful Truth About Matt.  He is a plant—he has infiltrated ECUSA and Stand Firm as a Homosexual Activist.

I am vindicated at last.  A year-and-a-half ago some Cruel Cruel Commenter denounced me as an Integrity Member and my self-esteem was Utterly Shattered.

It feels good that, at last, The Truth Has Been Found Out.

I know, Snarkster, that it will be hard to acknowledge.  You probably voted for him as 2006 Anglican Blogger of the Year.  It is hard to admit how terribly mistaken you were about Matt.

But . . . there is redemption and forgiveness once you “take the red pill” and leave The Matrix behind you and see Matt for what he truly is.

May I suggest that there are others—More Worthy—that would be good to vote for when the 2007 Anglican Bloggers of the Year award rolls around again.

Do you, snarkster, believe these questions to be unfair or out of line?

Short answer: YES

Long answer: I found your questions to be not only unfair and out of line, but rude, insensitive, and intemperate as well. I will leave it up to Episcopalienated to answer them, if he wishes, but if I were him, I’d invite you to take a flying leap.

Matt+ has his faults, not the least of which is continually talking over my head, but being an apologist for the LBGT agenda sure as hell isn’t one of them.

For the record: I tend to agree more with Sarah, blessed be her name, than Matt+ in the nature vs nurture department.

the snarkster

May I suggest that there are others—More Worthy—that would be good to vote for when the 2007 Anglican Bloggers of the Year award rolls around again.

David Ould? Sarah campaigning for David?

Mr. Otis - do you always give someone the third degree when they give testimony of deliverance?  If an alcoholic tesifies about being delivered from the demon rum, do you demand to know why he hasn’t lobbied to shut down the liquor stores?  Do you ask him why he hasn’t been delivered from smoking or gambling too?  Really, the brother was testifying for our benefit, and you want to put him through the ringer!  I agree with Father Matt that this is not quite charitable, and my mama would say it’s downright rude too!

Personally, I think there ought to be a Snarkster of the Year category. I would be a shoo-in.

the modest-to-a-fault snarkster

Thanks Sarah Hey for your thoughts.

I was a hopeless womanizer for 54 years of my life. Then the Holy Spirit came into my life. (Matt 10:16-20) I confessed and repented and my desire to womanize was reconciled with the truth that He changed me (2Cor 5:17).

My sin was no greater than a homosexuals—for the issue isn’t attraction (bees desire honey;honey attracts bees) but being “thrown over” to myself because of my unbelief—even though I was a cultural protestant Christian and married Episcopalian! (Rom 1:18-32)

I grieve for the state of Christ’s Church manifested by TEC and the Anglican Communion. As surely as Christ said the issue of sinful lust goes to intent (Matt 5:27,28), I say one who has not truly confessed and repented of their sin, and who cannot admit to Christ’s changing power, is either in denial or has not reached the truth on the miracle God provides.

Regarding homosexuality and the Scriptures I am reminded of the statements by Robert A. J. Gagnon’s conclusions in his book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Pages 487, 488):

“Scripture does not reject same-sex intercourse because of some alleged ignorance of non-exploitive forms of homosexual behavior or genetic causation factors. It does not reject homosexual intercourse because of some misperception that only idolaters in the strict sense could engage in such behavior or because of some superstition about defilement and purity.

It does not reject homosexual practice, at least not primarily, out of some need to assert the rule of men over women.

Rather, Scripture rejects homosexual behavior because it is a violation of the gendered existence of male and female ordained by God at creation.

Homosexual intercourse … distorts the sexuality intended by God for the health and vitality of the human race. God intended the very act of sexual intercourse to be an act of pluralism (numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups), embracing a sexual ‘other’ rather than a sexual ‘same.’

The biblical proscription of same-sex intercourse, like those against incest, adultery, and bestiality, is absolute (encompassing all cases), pervasive (by both Testaments and with each Testament), and severe (mandating exclusion from God’s kingdom.)”

I’m familiar with alcoholism as my brother is one. It wasn’t the 3rd degree that made him put down the bottle 30+ years ago but loving kindness.

RE: “David Ould? Sarah campaigning for David?”

Well . . . I was thinking of someone whose accent we can understand.

And then . . . I’ve always thought that the region of the South was underrepresented in the area of Anglican Bloggers of the Year awards.

And certainly the patriarchy as a whole has mopped up on awards all the live-long millenia, and so I would think that someone Not-In-The-Patriarchy would get the nod.

Once all the available criteria are plugged in, and once the Highest Quality Blogging is actually noticed and recognized . . . I feel certain that the Best Anglican Blogger will get her due.

But it will require some real repentance from the denial and blinders that certain people have had over the past year or so.

Why, Sarah, I didn’t realize my Southern accent was so prominent in my writing. 

otispage -
Please take time to re-read the thread.  Matt has stated you are welcome on the thread.  You appear to be demanding answers from someone who was kind enough to share his testimony.  Generally when testimony is given Q&A sessions are optional.  Please be gracious to await his answer should he choose to give it.  In the meantime, you are welcome to join in the conversation. 
And since I am here please allow me to remind all bloggers of the comment policy.

otis,

Hmmm once I actually edit your comments then you can complain about the quality or lack therof of my editing skills with some credibility. But up to this point I have simply pointed out your incredible lack of charity and, as others have also noted, your apparent absence of manners.

As for my position on homosexuality, well, as others have noted it is well documented on this site and others if you care to actually read and think before expressing and asserting, then you will see the rank absurdity of your accusations.

But it will require some real repentance from the denial and blinders that certain people have had over the past year or so.

“Up with dope !  Down with hope !
Er-ah-I-mean .. Up with hope, down with dope!”
- from a Jesse Jackson rally, held in an obscure part of Montana, in a time long long ago. 

Down with the patriarchy?  I’m all for it.  Just as long as I get my Supporting Chorus of Anglican Blogger of the Year Award.  I’ve got to practice my jumping-jacks and pentameters, a bit more, though. 

Here goes:
Banquo: And oftentime, to win us to or harms, The instruments of darkness tell us truths..
(Puff) (Puff)

Note:  (A snickers bar to the first Reappraiser who can correctly peg the allusion)! 

Moot…............Your sumpthin else…...

Timothy,
I had no intention of making individuals who had won the battle over sexual immorality a poster children.  My intention was to note the fact that the response to “reformed” gays has included among other responses, the response of making them poster children.  We raise them as examples of what God can do.  Rightly so.

The problem with poster children is that they are often individuals who are “used” to help us accomplish our mission.  Being used is often very subtle.  Most of us do not see it or acknowledge it when we do it.  I recall faithfully attending a church for over a year before anyone really said hello.  Once people became aware of my “social position” and financial means, suddenly, everyone was greeting me on Sunday morning.  I was saddened to think while I was a relative unknown, I was ignored.  Once my position and means became known, I was sought out.  I left that church because I did not want to be their poster child for the “distinguished” members they had on their rolls.

The gays and lesbians whom I have met who truly have an orthodox view of sexuality are very reluctant to come forth despite the overwhelmingly positive responses such as those witnessed here.  Why?  Because they often feel that they are treated like Caucasians treat many African-Americans - as the exception.  The anger and ignorance which is so characteristic of the evangelical camp toward gays and lesbians makes many “reformed” gays and lesbians stay in the closet because they do not want to have to contend with people who on the surface appear welcoming while inwardly have persistent prejudices.  Those prejudices are just not expressed about them because they are the “exception”.  They are the “poster child”. 

I think we in the orthodox camp can learn a lot about individuals such as Episcopalienated in listening not just to their stories of redemption and healing but also the stories about their experiences in dealing with orthodox “straight” folk.  We often don’t realize how painful our statements and attitudes are to others.  This listening experience may very well make us more compassionate believers.
 
richardc
http://www.thinkingreasserters.blogspot.com

Otis,
I’ve read the comments, acusations etc.etc.etc that have appeared. I personally found no offence in your questions..good questions, they were pertinent to the subject..I feel your questions were taken out of context by quite a number of people including Matt(sorry Matt), and they have developed an unjust picture of you and your beliefs. They were not you, and possibly not thinking before putting finger to key caused some very unloving comments about you..Let’s wait and see whether episcopalianated will reply…don’y reply for him bloggers
Brian from down under

Otis—Everyone has been so outraged/amused by your suggestion that Matt+ supports the LGBT agenda that they overlooked the greater insult you threw at him:
I think you may be part of the problem that TEC faces today. I doubt that you would put your job on the line for STANDFIRM or for Jesus Christ considering your replies to me. 

Matt+ is an outspoken conservative priest in the revisionist Diocese of Central New York.  If that’s not putting his job on the line for Jesus,  I don’t know what is.  His wife, Anne, is also a priest, and she puts her job on the line,too.  They happen to have a young family to raise and support.

I feel safe in saying that all of us here admire Matt+for his enormous courage, and his unwillingness to hide behind Episcobabble.  You owe
him a HUGE apology.  I would add that he is very firm about confronting sin—if he says that you are being uncharitable, there’s a
excellent chance that you are.

Everyone is outraged! Sorry. I don’t believe you, In Newark.

Newark—the home of Episcopal apostasy. Where homosexuals abide and encourage the takeover of TEC as orchestrated by Louie Crew and the Spongites on the Internet.

If Matt is an outspoken conservative priest in revisionist Diocese of Central New York, how come he has his job while other orthodox priests are “shot” when putting their head above the “trench”? (I was married in Goshen, NY)

Brian from DownUnder states, “I personally found no offence in your questions..good questions, they were pertinent to the subject..I feel your questions were taken out of context by quite a number of people including Matt(sorry Matt).”

With due respect for all who are offended by my inquiry, I ask for your forgiveness—but I insist that my questions as stated and repeated before are meaningful providing those who participate in this web site truly wish to grapple with and defeat TEC’s takeover by the homosexuals.

Otis—Maybe Matt+ still has his job because the Lord is protecting His faithful servant.  You ought to learn a lot more about him before you start making such base accusations—or before you publicaly accuse me of lying.

As for my living in Newark—I know perfectly well what goes in this Diocese.  I live among the wreckage that Spong and his henchman have left.  I live here because my spouse’s job requires it.  I am not half so brave as Matt+, but I do what I can as a “resistance fighter” in my parish.  I am surrounded by timid, but faithful people, and I will stay in the battle as long as I can.  If you knew half the anguish that this causes me, you might not be so quick to throw Louie Crew’s name at me—as if I were somehow responsible for him.

Otispage - Of course your questions are valid!  No one here suggested otherwise but many did question your demanding answers of Episcopalienated. 
I, too, would also suggest that you take a few minutes to browse through some of Matt’s past writings.  I think you will be comfortably assured of his orthodoxy.

Peace,

I think enough has been said on this that we can leave it lie now. There have to be many that are getting weary of it as I am. Otis if you want answers why don’t you e-mail episcopalianated yourself. It’s not really Matt’s place to do that.

A little peace and respect would be in order I think.

Otis

Though you are obviously not a man to be confused by evidence, reason, or logic, I do urge you, again, take the time to read before you speak. You obviously have no idea what is happening here and what my position and that of my parish is with regard to the bishop (we have already made the decision and are well on our way to a new affiliation) nor do you have any idea what is happening in Newark.

<blockquote> May I suggest that there are others—More Worthy—that would be good to vote for when the 2007 Anglican Bloggers of the Year award rolls around again.

David Ould? Sarah campaigning for David? </blockquote>

I can only wish….

Otis: With due respect for all who are offended by my inquiry, I ask for your forgiveness—but I insist that my questions as stated and repeated before are meaningful providing those who participate in this web site truly wish to grapple with and defeat TEC’s takeover by the homosexuals.

Then I have a suggestion for you, Otis.

1. Count to 10 and calm down.
2. Familiarise yourself with who you are actually dialoguing with. It does you no favours to portray people as holding positions that they do not hold. When someone has frequently expounded a stance that is diametrically opposed to the one that you label them with then you must recognise your error.
3. Learn to distinguish between those positions that are explicitly held and those that you consider to be implicit. I.e. you may think that Matt’s position is one that, through negligence, has led to our current state of affairs but that does not mean that he actually holds that position.
4. Learn to recognise who’s on your side and who’s not. When fighting in a battle I hope that my comrade-at-arms will shore up my defences, not use them as target practice.
5. Above all, please be courteous. Courtesy extends beyond the words used to the temper in which they are delivered. If you are unable to remained courteous and temperate then we will, sadly, remove your posting privileges. I am sure that you have a number of extremely helpful things to say to us all but they will not be heard if they continue to be delivered in this tone.

David (very sub(in every sense of the word) -editor)

Otis and Fr. Matt,

I personally think that people can experience same gender attraction for different reasons. Might it be possible that not all are actually constitutionally gay? Perhaps for some sexual orientation is fixed, and for others not.  For some folks there seems to be a strong bi-sexual component.

One thing is certain. We can trust God that He who began a good work in all of us will eventually conform us to His own image and likeness. The Lord is faithful!!

Newark, why are all these folks feeling timid and fearful?  Why are you afraid, and in anguish?

otispage,

I’ve read a few of your most recent comments on this thread, but not all of them. I do like this:

There are a few of us who feel strongly that a major fraud has been perpetuated by homosexuals in their takeover of TEC—and the responsibility for this rests with good old loving, faithful Episcopalian Saints who stood by and let it happen.

Because you’re absolutely right on both points - a major fraud has been perpetrated by homosexuals in their takeover of TEC, AND the responsibility for this rests with good old loving, faithful Episcopalian Saints who stood by and let it happen.

What you’ll find if you hang around this site long enough is that it’s a main theme of ours to remind our readers and allies that we are the ones at fault here. We let this happen to our church, and we are reaping what we have sown. Christ commands us to defend His church, and we have done a wretched job of it.

The main problem, though, is that I don’t think you’ve hung around this site long enough and read enough articles and comments, certainly not long enough to start calling Matt Kennedy out for being an LBGTQ apologist. Good grief. Here’s a guy who come Easter Sunday is going to usher any rainbow warriors into another room and give them an ultimatum - either repent of their support of the sin of homosexual behavior, or be denied communion - and you want to come down on him for being an apologist for them?

I haven’t read but your last three or four comments, so maybe you’ve already answered this, but where do you go to church? Because if you’re still in TEC, then you’re just as much to blame as anyone else here. And if you’re outside TEC, then where in hell do you get off passing out blame, especially to those still inside TEC trying to fight the good fight?

My suggestion: Take a couple of days off from commenting. Read Matt’s last 10 or 15 articles - just search on “Matt Kennedy” in the search box in the left-hand column. Matt, snarkster and others are right - you’re badly misinformed, and you’re itching for a fight. I won’t let it derail this thread or this site.

Grace—I don’t know, but I suspect the timidity is a combination of the heritage of Bishop Spong (who could be quite vicious to those who opposed him), and living in a very liberal part of the country.  Personally, I’m not afraid—just torn between opposing duties and calls to faithfulness.

but I insist that my questions as stated and repeated before are meaningful providing those who participate in this web site truly wish to grapple with and defeat TEC’s takeover by the homosexuals.

Otis,

Matt+ ‘s argument is based on the Western (i.e., Roman Catholic & Protestant) doctrine of Original Sin.  R.C. Sproul (a conservative PCA teacher) summarized the doctrine thus:

“We aren’t sinners because we sin.  We sin because we’re sinners.” 

In other words, we sin because we are born with a predisposition to sin. 

While it is true that the GLBT contingent has been trying to “prove” that their predisposition is innate, the doctrine of Original Sin would dismiss the GLBT’s “proof,” quite neatly.  As Matt+ said in his article on Pelagianism (scroll down a couple of articles), what had seemed like an ace, was really only a two. 

Now, whether it is just of God to condemn everyone, even from the time of their springing to life within the womb, is interesting, but irrelevant.  God is God - He sets the standard for justice, so therefore it is inappropriate for lil’ ol’ me to question God in these matters. 

For the record, I do believe that it’s possible (at least some of the time) for someone to be born with Same-Sex Attractions.  I just don’t think that granting this to the LBGT contingent will hurt the orthodox critique:

Whether or not I am born with a predisposition is irrelevant to whether the fulfillment of that predisposition is ethically good or bad.  That’s one of the implications of the doctrine of Original Sin.  That’s +Matt’s thesis, take it or leave it.  But do understand that it is an orthodox argument, and one that does not lend itself to the GLBT’s. 

Ask questions first.  Shoot later.  ‘K, buddy? 

Having read through all the posts (what a roller-coaster ride…)this thought comes to mind:

Please, do not feed the trolls.

(offered for what it is worth, with apologies for any errors)

Susan

“Ask questions first.  Shoot later.  ‘K, buddy?” Thanks Moot.

I did ask questions, and so far they are not answered except to say I was criticized by Matt for asking them. I asked, Matt and he replied—“shot” a criticism inflamed with the word “fight”. That is his right – but he also has to weigh the consequences of being wrong. And I believe he was wrong “to pull the trigger” in criticizing my questions.

Now I hope Matt is a conservative—and that he is a force for stopping TEC’s free fall in apostasy. But if he is so conservative—and so strong—why hasn’t he left? I raise the question because I sincerely do not think my observations and questions are out of line.

I raise the question what does STANDFIRM stand for? Is the is playground the facilitate the now understood tactic by TEC’s leadership to finesse compliance by the tactic of reconciliation?

My questions were directed to a confessed homosexual whose testimony is profound if true. But he must have concerns about how the homosexual agenda is being implemented in TEC, and for that matter, in the secular area if his testimony is true.

If this inquiry drives him to the closet—as some have suggested—I suggest that he “stand up for Christ” and tell us what he also thinks about TEC’s apostasy. Now if Matt disagrees with this point, that tells me something about Matt!

I have seen enough deceit by Griswold/Spong crowd (et al) to believe there is a huge game going on to defy the Communion and impress the relativistic, post modern thoughts and theories on TEC and the Communion—that are completely and unambiguously against “the faith once given”!

Again, Moot, all in the spirit of free discussion and exchange – in His Name. (1Cor 2:12)

Episcopalienated’s testimony reminds me that we often fail to realize that our identity is not found in our sexual orientation or in our jobs, our families, our habits or other labels.  Our identity is found in Christ Jesus.  It is Christ who has always known us and who will always know us.  It is Christ who calls us by name and makes us His own.

When we see ourselves as Christ see’s us, we then can start living our true life.  A life that is not slave to any sin but one that gladly serves the Lord.  A life of faith, charity and hope.  A life that sings with joy.    A life that knows that all of creation is a hymn to the Glory of God.

We gain so much when we smash the idols in our lives.  That is what Episcopaliented has done and I pray we all follow his example.

Otis— You missed most of Matt’s last reply to you:
You obviously have no idea what is happening here and what my position and that of my parish is with regard to the bishop (we have already made the decision and are well on our way to a new affiliation) nor do you have any idea what is happening in Newark.

But if he is so conservative—and so strong—why hasn’t he left?

I ‘dunno for sure.  But here’s some speculation from yours-truly:

i)  He’s a shepherd;
ii)  Because a good shepherd will risk his own life for the sheep;
iii)  Because historically, the tired conservative solution of “voting with our feet” has given away the farm to the Enemy’s minions;  and once we feel safe, we go after one another’s throats. 
iv)  Because he’s Episcopalian?  He’s fighting for what belongs to him.

Also, if you are still scandelized that a conservative would stay behind, let me give you an even bigger scandel.  I’m a conservative Christian (formerly OPC), and I joined TEC. 

Why?

One reason:  Sometimes you jump out of the bus’ way, and other times, you jump in front of it. 

God isn’t done with TEC.  He wasn’t done with the Israelites, wandering in the desert.  He certainly wasn’t done when Christ’s ministry began, when things were so bad in the Church that the average joe most likely sat next to a demoniac while worshipping.

Clearly, the discussion has been derailed.

otispage, re: “Now I hope Matt is a conservative—and that he is a force for stopping TEC’s free fall in apostasy. But if he is ...”

You continue to be out-of-line.  You don’t seem to know anything about whom you are writing here, and you are displaying rude, ignorant behavior by making assumptions and demanding answers where it has already been politely suggested by Mr.Griffith that you do a little reading here first.

The main theme here is Anglican orthodoxy and living through it in the wake of the apostasy of TEC, and Fr. Kennedy is one of the main contributors and bloggers here.  His position on these things can be read all over this web site.  Go to it!

If you only knew a little from what Fr. Kennedy has written and from what others have written about him, why you’d hang your head in shame and beg his forgiveness, and I pray that you do.

Wow!  Another hard day at the boiler factory and I come home to this!  I am totally overwhelmed by the kindness and graciousness with which you have all responded to my post.  A certain amount of fear and trembling preceded my hitting the “submit” button on that one, but it looks like I picked the right place and time to finally come out of lurker mode.  I thank you all from the bottom of my heart!  God be praised for the blessed company of faithful people!

Albion, you are certainly free to post my testimony on your blog and I am honored by your request.  I did check out your website and initially got your version of APA mixed up with the Anglican Province of America.  I mention that because one of their parishes is just down the road from me.  I have never visited there and I must confess that I have always been a bit leery of “continuers,” but perhaps that is an irrational prejudice on my part which I need to overcome.

RichardC, your level of insight and sensitivity is truly remarkable.  Yes, you have it quite right.  For those of us who have been converted to Christ from a gay lifestyle, the alienation in the Episcopal Church can come from more than one source.  It’s not always comfortable being a “poster boy” for someone’s “cause” (or worse yet, a side-show freak) when I am really just a rather ordinary version of a miserable sinner who has been touched by God’s grace.  We tend to get it sometimes, on the swings and the roundabouts.  Most of the Integrity folks think I’m a self-loathing homosexual who just needs to “get over it.”  But with some of the “biblically orthodox” it can be more like:  “Oh, goodness!  We have one of ‘those people’ in our Church.  Well, it’s been rumored abroad that Christ came into the world to save sinners, and some of ‘them’ were bound to find out about it.  I suppose we’ll have to be ‘nice’ to him.  After all, we are Episcopalians.  Let’s just hope he doesn’t break anything, and no eating off the good china!”  Oh, well!

But the really, really good news is: all the faithful Christians who demonstrated to me the true meaning of unconditional love at a time in my life when I had never, ever experienced such a thing (unless you count dogs, and I still do!) and at a point when I was still a real wreck.  And—mirabile dictu!—many of them were Episcopalians.  People so devoted to Christ that the power of the Holy Spirit shone forth in their lives like sunlight through a stained glass window.  People I can’t think of even now with weeping for joy.  People who literally loved me into the Body of Christ.  I was welcomed not only into their churches, but into their homes, and into their lives.  They knew exactly who and what I was, but couldn’t have cared less.  All they ever saw was a poor sinner who needed to hear the message of the gospel and, in faithfulness to their Lord, they made sure I did.  Thanks be to God!

When I am a bit less bleary-eyed I will be more than happy to address more fully the issue of “orientation.”  For now, suffice it to say that the evangelization of homosexual persons is not a “one size fits all” ministry.  There are “gay” people for whom a major change in orientation is not only possible, but entirely necessary and desirable.  They can experience the healing and growth that God has in store for them and go on to lead productive lives as husbands and fathers, wives and mothers, and to settle for anything less would be to miss out on God’s calling for them.  I rejoice for them and with them!  This is an area in which careful discernment is needed, and it is my firm belief that reparative therapy should only be entered into with the assistance of a qualified therapist and a godly confessor.  But, like it or not, it will not be possible for all, and in my estimation there is no greater deception than the notion that, “Well, I have accepted Christ but those awful feelings just don’t go away.  I guess Christianity isn’t true after all, and I might as well give it up.”  I remain convinced that that is absolute nonsense.  It goes back to the distinction I make between “success” (when measured in those terms) and “faithfulness.”  Success is not always possible, but faithfulness always is, and it is ultimately that to which all of us are called. 

Let me put it this way, based on my own past experience in wrestling with this issue.  I could drop to my knees right now and pray: “Oh God, please turn me into a heterosexual, and do it now!  Just imagine what a powerful witness that will be.  And Otis Page can finally be convinced I’m a real Christian!  If you won’t do it for my sake, why not for his?”  As sure as I live and breathe, the answer would come back something like this:  “Leave that alone.  You recently met a blind prostitute with AIDS.  What do you intend to do to help her, and what will she learn from you about how greatly she is loved by me?  Try to stay focused on the really important stuff, then get back to me.”  What can I tell you?  That’s what my prayer life is like.

Well, good night and God bless!  And please don’t be too hard on Mr. Page on my account.  I don’t mean any disrespect to him, but his posts gave me a much needed chuckle at the end of what had been a rather humorless day.  (See?  There is always something to be thankful for!)  God bless Mr. Page!  God loves him so much that he sent Our Blessed Lord into the world to die on the cross for his salvation.  That alone makes him a person of infinite worth and value.  What else do I need to know about him?  The rest, as they say, is commentary.

Now, I really do need to go and pray for, and about, that blind prostitute.  I really did meet her. . .and there may be an “assignment” in the works.  But if I have any spare time, I’ll try to check into that “gay agenda” thing and get back to you.  Goodness knows what they’ll be up to next!

I’m just jumping into this discussion…Wow.

Episcopalienated…you rock, dude.  Your testimony posted above and the comment you just posted at :18 past the hour is phenomenal. What a great testimony of God’s grace in action.  Thanks for sharing what God does in and around your life.

In every church I have ever been in as an adult, I have had friends who were struggling, and being overwhelmed at times, with same-sex desires.  Most of them realized celibacy was the path God was calling them to live on for the rest of their lives.

I confess I blundered once or twice concerning this issue by suggesting to one of them it was only a stage of recovery.  After a lot of talking, praying and getting that friendship back on an even keel, I realized that what God was calling them to do was definitely a special path that was making them as holy as my marriage was making me holy (though its a long road, either way).

I’ve seen too much of the “oh we’ve got one of those” types of reactions in church.  Such reactions kinda hit me in the revoltin’ department.  After twenty years of being in ministry, I’m no longer surprised by the various sin problems that become a life or death struggle for people.  I’m also amazed at the grace God bestows on our brokenness.

When we get to heaven the testimony time in worship is going to be amazing.  As will the people we meet who have been the recipients of God’s choicest bounties, kindnesses and grace.  Thanks for being one of them, I’m looking forward to hearing the rest of your story some day and joining you in praising God before His throne.

RE: “When we get to heaven the testimony time in worship is going to be amazing.  As will the people we meet who have been the recipients of God’s choicest bounties, kindnesses and grace.”

And won’t it be great to tell all of our stories, and “how God found us” in each one?

What an amazing time that will be.

All of us with our war wounds and crazy adventures—and what God did.  And people will say “oh my—you went through the Episcopal wars in the early 21st century—tell us your favorite Last Samurai story!”

; > )

God bless Mr. Page!  God loves him so much that he sent Our Blessed Lord into the world to die on the cross for his salvation.  That alone makes him a person of infinite worth and value.  What else do I need to know about him?  The rest, as they say, is commentary.

I am going to go pray for forgiveness…..oh that Episcopalienated’s reaction would have been my own as I read through this thread.  I will also pray for his new “assignment” .

As far as I’m concerned, episcopalienated answered all those questions implicitly, showing his obedience to God.  I don’t think he owes any more answers, but I rejoice in his companionship here on this site.

Otispage, you were referred to the comment policy, above, I note by the commenatrix. 

The link embedded in the below comment policy is this one right here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1825/

Please read it carefully.

Episcopalienated does not have to answer your questions.

And your attacks on Matt have been bizarre and uncalled-for.

I note that you have fallen right in to a number of the comment types that Greg personally warns against in the comment policy.

This is what he said, and I will quote for the benefit of all the commenters here:

Therefore, I’d like to see no more:

1. Charges that anyone who leaves the Episcopal Church is a quitter, a coward, etc.

2. Charges that anyone who stays in the Episcopal Church is wasting their time, a heretic by association, etc.

3. Demands that we all fold up our tents and become Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/LCMS/Presbyterian or whatever; and charges that those of us who prefer not to are idiots.

Our unofficial policy on staying or leaving is this: Go where God calls you, and go with our blessings, but don’t belittle someone who has received different orders.

Three more things I’d like to see no more of:

1. Sniping on a personal level. Example:

Commenter #1: “I think it is time for the orthodox to leave the Episcopal Church and join CANA or the AMiA.”

Commenter #2: (bad): “That’s because you are a crypto-baptist with no understanding of Anglican ecclesiology.”

Commenter #2: (good): “I disagree. I do not think that our ecclesiology allows for such action. Here’s why…”

2. Attempts to derail discussion with off-topic remarks, or crazed obsession with a single topic.

Please read the full comment policy in the link which I have pasted above and which the commenatrix referred to.

Otispage.  This is your one warning.

Thanks,

Sarah

[comment deleted]

[otispage banned—unable to follow comment policy]

Otispage:

Where were Moses, Calab & Joshua when the nation of Israel was in the wilderness? What did Moses do when the LORD wanted to wipe Israel out and make a great nation from him?

Are you not passing judgment on the Master’s servants without knowing specifically what He may have instructed them?

A brother in Christ opens up and shares a beautiful testimony of God’s grace, but you seem to be attacking him. This is not very loving and seems to be demanding instant sanctification, a measure that by your own writing I doubt you have yet obtained.

I do not have administration privileges to enforce Sarah’s warning but I will warn you that Matthew 12:33-37 cuts in as well as out. You might point to Romans 1 about being a good evidence for the point your trying to make, but I’ll point out that the chapters are artificial, Romans 1 is part of stair-step proof Paul uses for the first five chapters and Romans 2 might have more application in your case, you might want to consider.

In the end, I’ll *NEVER* have to answer for your behavior or your words, only those of my own, loose words I post on this blog are promised to be held account for in Matt 12:36&37;. You might want to ponder posts in those standards before you hit the “submit” button.

otispage:

Dear Otis:

I have been quietly reading this entire thread the last couple of days.  You know, you are perfectly right.  It is certainly acceptable to have in conversation someone who does not follow the rules of propriety, who calls others names, makes baseless accusations, and then, when others ask them to stop, call this ‘censorship’.  People do this all the time talking to one another at your church, office, or in the malls - right? 

Something tells me that you probably don’t do this in public.  So, why in the world are you doing this on a blog?

I am very sorry for you that the issues in your life have caused your bitterness, anger, and inability to agrue factually.  That is very sad.

However, as a friend of mine once said, “It’s OK to have issues, just don’t use your issues to hurt others.”

[otispage banned—unable to follow comment policy]

Good job guys! I am certainly no fan of banning, given my ongoing battles with our old friend Jake, but this blockhead asked for it and then dared you to do it. Good riddance to him.

the snarkster

The Commenatrix states that it is not kosher to further chastise Otispage when he is not here.  Not sporting.

Belligerence, or being misinformed is one thing.  One can be both on this blog, clearly.  But the comments policy clearly states among other things that people are not allowed to chastise people for either staying or leaving ECUSA, people are not allowed to snipe on a personal level, and people are not allowed to derail discussion with off-topic remarks, or crazed obsession with a single topic.

Persistence in doing those things will result in banning.

It’s a good thing we didn’t have a commenatrix (elf?) back in the wild and wooly early days of Stand Firm. The only poster left would be Jill W.

the much better behaved now snarkster

Just a few more comments while the coffee kicks in and before I have to go make more boilers.

Paula, this really made me sit up and take notice:
“our identity is not found in our sexual orientation or in our jobs, our families, our habits or other labels.  Our identity is found in Christ Jesus.”
Amen and amen!  That’s the whole point that makes our various and sundry “orientations” a matter of secondary importance at best.

As for poor Mr. Page: Perhaps I shouldn’t have been dismissive of his concerns about my possible support for the “gay agenda” (whatever it is this week), or lack thereof.  The funny thing is, if some of these “over the top” curmudgeons were willing to engage with me in something like rational and civil discourse, they might be surprised to find out how much I actually agree with them.  But when their rhetoric becomes so irrational, I don’t get angry, but I do get terribly amused, and it just becomes too difficult to take them seriously.  Maybe I need to work on that.

But for the record: the Biblical standard for human sexuality is one of lifelong, faithful, heterosexual monogamy.  Like other orthodox Christians, it’s the only standard I can accept.  It prohibits fornication, adultery, and sexual relations with members of one’s own gender.  All the time!  We may fail miserably in meeting these standards and, when we do, we must repent and return to the Lord to seek His forgiveness, but we are never free to change or abandon them.

I am opposed to the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals to any level of ministry, and to the blessing of same-sex partnerships.  I do not support the legalization of so-called “gay marriage” in civil society.  We are indeed called upon to combat the pernicious effects of the “gay agenda” in society at large, but we must do so in a manner befitting of Christians above all else.  We are not allowed to act like a bunch of angry hateful cranks.  Not if we want God’s blessing on our efforts.

OK, assignment number next: pray for Mr. Page.  And it’s not my decision to make, but if the commenatrix wants to “wage reconciliation” and invite him back for a second chance, I certainly have no objection.

P. S.  If the subject of my support (or the lack thereof) for liturgical reform comes up next, I am in favor of introducing the practice of reciting the Athanasian creed in Church on Trinity Sunday . . . but that’s about as far as I’m willing to go! 

RE: “It’s a good thing we didn’t have a commenatrix (elf?) back in the wild and wooly early days of Stand Firm.”

So true.  Whenever the commenatrix oils her way over to a thread, every one needs to duck and run.  It’s always an ominous sign when commenatrix shows up.  : < ( 

Having observed the elves as a species carefully—their lodging, travel, eating, sleeping, editing, and other habits—I notice a few differences.

The commenatrix tends to ban first, ask questions later.  There seems to be no comment “moderation” queu, as with the titusonenine site, which is a more gentle way of moderating commenters that have issues.  And there are no comment “revisions” issued by the commenatrix.  That’s why all of us bloggers try to scuttle over with warnings to a thread, when we see things going wrong—because once the commenatrix arrives, it means that her steely eye is on the thread and that she is contemplating Something Awful.

If someone is foolish enough to hit the “submit” button, then the commenatrix seems to feel free to issue wide and sweeping bannings at that point.  “Submit button = Banning” in the strange calculation of the commenatrix.

I have only met the commantrix a few times—most of them in dimly lit [by candles] smoke-filled rooms or gloomy castle hallways, once on a foggy moor as I was trail running.  But I assure you, my blood ran cold. 

Over here at StandFirm, we hunt elves. 

But the commenatrix . . . she hunts us.

No, no - this isn’t a gay man. This is a self-hating, deluded victim. I feel sorry for him - he is missing out on so much, all for the sake of a rather risible, mawkish, outdated religion.

But, there’s time yet - I spent a copuple of years in the prison of evangelicalism, until I realised what nonsense it was.

The entire membership of self-hating homophobic organisations in the UK isn’t even in three figures!

I’m a gay man. I’m in a fantastic relationship. Better than your version of Jesus and your god could ever be!

Merseymike, your angry rhetoric in the above comment reveals how anxious and fearful you are of his testimony.

RE: “Better than your version of Jesus and your god could ever be!”

That comment made sense, as we all recognize that there are two different religions fighting it out within the Anglican Communion.

But granted that truth—why so angry, Merseymike, on this thread?  It is unlike you.

Mersey,you spout off the standard GLBT party line pretty well,‘self hating deluded victim’,sounds a bit more like a case of 1 Peter 4:4:‘surprised when you no longer run with them and plunge into the flood of wild and destructive things they.So they slander you.’.
Funny,he sounds pretty free to me,pretty devoid of recriminations and malice with sincere commitment and conviction to and of what he believes and has come to know to be true.
And for his faith and freedom in Christ I commend and appreciate him as a brother in Christ(2 Thess.1:3-4).

But granted that truth—why so angry, Merseymike, on this thread?  It is unlike you.

Quite simple really. Episcopalienated pushes some buttons the Mersey Mikes and the Itegripalians don’t want to see pushed. It is a gross violation of their “victim” status.

the snarkster

Sorry,that should have been:‘surprised when you no longer run with them and plunge into the wild and destructive things they do.’

Over here at StandFirm, we hunt elves. 

But the commenatrix . . . she hunts us.

Sarah (blessed be her name):
Sounds like a cautionary bedtime story for StandFirmers. Be good, eat your vegetables, and keep a civil tongue in your head or the Commenatrix will slither out from under your bed in the darkest night and get you.

the snarkster

Yaaaaaaaa,she’s got meeeeeeeeee

Sarah,

A line from Pogo seems in order here, but I won’t quote it on blog.

Perhaps Otis got tired of being on Virtue exclusively.  He wrote some very interesting essays several years ago.

And Merseymike, is not Anglican; although, as a British Universalist, he is, in many ways, simmilar to TEC.

Merseymike,

I think your reaction is quite unreasonable. Like you, I am a gay man in a relationship; like you, I have got to where I am through a lot of soul-searching, unhappiness etc etc. And like you I am happy with where I am and I disagree with Episcopalienated’s position, and therefore disagree that the decisions he has taken as “necessary” are really necessary. Which doesn’t make them bad.

But please. I saw nothing of hate (of others or of self) in Episcopalienated’s post. I certainly saw nothing of delusion, or self-delusion. He is quite open about who he is, what he feels, and the sacrifices he has decided to make. For himself. Of himself. You and I may think he is wrong about that. But I don’t think he said anything insulting about me or you (only that he thought we were going the wrong way and making bad choices), and I don’t think it’s right to insult him.

I get fed up when I hear people talk about “what homosexuals want”, or the “gay lifestyle” or the “gay agenda”. Maybe you do to? It’s a way of depersonalising us. We’re all different, we want different things, lead different “lifestyles”, have different “agendas”. But your reaction is in effect to stereotype Episcopalienated as a bitter self-hating closet case, just because he disagrees with you on this issue. It’s a tired queer stereotype, and no better because it’s sometimes got a grain of truth in it (just as the stereotypical views of the “gay lifestyle” as one of promiscuous hedonism sometimes has a grain of truth in it). For me, these blunderbuss stereotypes won’t do. On a personal level, it’s offensive. On a theoretical level, it’s unreasonable. And in terms of persuading anyone, it’s counterproductive.

Sure, let’s disagree with Episcopalienated (I would). Sure, let’s say “Episcopalienated has found his way in celibacy, but maybe that’s not for everyone.” Sure, ask questions (polite and pertinent ones!) about why he thinks, personally, he arrived at where he has, and whether he is sure that he should make the same choice for others. Sure, ask him to expand on the negative side he mentions (the moments of despair). But we of all people should know how words hurt and insults embitter us—heaven knows we complain about it often enough, and often with good reason—and we ought to be able to do better than that.

The commenatrix tends to ban first, ask questions later.

Actually, she doesn’t do a whole lot of question-asking, come to think of it.

Episcopalienated is not a self hating gay man.  He is quite simply following the call that we are all given the grace to follow.  That love of God should be the rule by which we live.  That the Truth revealed by God is the benchmark by which all other truths must be measured.

We either call Jesus Lord over all our life or we reduce Him to a caricature.  Not a Lord of majesty and glory but a pocket Christ.
All of us are drawn to sin.  We are selfish and would surround ourselves with Idols, if not for the grace of God.

Submitting ourselves to the love and will of God no matter the cost may at times seem bitter.  But with grace and faith and love it becomes the source of our greatest Joy.  Union with Christ Jesus.

I pray that all of us will be freed of our idols and return to worship the Triune God alone.

Thank you, Fr. Matt, for providing a wider forum for Episcopalienated.  And thank you Episcopalienated for your candor in sharing what the Lord has done for you. 

There have been so many comments that I may have missed someone else making the same point I would like to make, i.e. that the Episcopal Church needs to ask for forgiveness not only of those other branches of the AC that they have offended, but of the innumerable people we have failed because we did not (for whatever reason) provide a community where true healing could be found.  The passage from Matthew 5:17-19 I read today once again brought that conviction:  “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”

When human sexuality first became an overt issue in PECUSA, I was deeply touched when a young man expressed many of the ideas expressed by Episcopalienated.  In a diocesan meeting where many others were adamant that homosexuality was a good thing that we should all fully accept and bless, he stood and pleaded that we understand the importance of being faithful to biblical standards.  He told us that he had found healing and a deeper relationship with Jesus because a loving community of Episcopalians had said there is a better way.  That community didn’t just pray for him and send him off.  They didn’t just refer him to the passages in the Bible that speak to the issue of homosexuality.  They prayed and taught and they took him in and gave him the unconditional love and support he needed at that time to find healing.

We have been so afraid of seeming unkind and “unpastoral” that we have not held up scriptural truth; and souls have been damaged and lost because of it.  I liken the church holding up and teaching those truths to parents setting rules for their beloved children.  The parents’ job is to set the parameters (the family rules, the “scriptures” of family living).  The child’s “job” is to test those parameters.  It is part of their developmental process of becoming independent adults.  There may be times the child will step outside those parameters, and then it is the parents’ job lovingly to remind them of why the parameters are there and to follow through with the consequences.  It is important that the child feel the safety of the parameters, to learn that they are there because the parent loves him or her, and that there are consequences for violating them.  Children without this will flounder and will find parameters of some sort somewhere—even in a gang.  The church’s parameters are found in the scriptures.  God has given us his rules because it is a better way—a life-giving way, even though it may not appear that way to us at the moment.

That life-giving way may not become evident until we have paid the cost of discipleship which Episcopalienated expressed so well.  Jesus advised us that it is not easy to enter his kingdom.  Yet he tells us his yoke is easy if we will risk putting it on! 

I pray for the church to be more and more a place where we (in all our diversity) can give and receive the mercy of God even as we are being forged into new creatures in Christ.  Let us be drawn together to share in the joy, celebration and fulfillment of which Episcopalienated speaks eloquently.

RE: “Actually, she doesn’t do a whole lot of question-asking, come to think of it.”

Okay, you’re right.  I don’t think I’ve ever read a question from the commenatrix.

Commenatrix acts—then all of us end up asking the questions and trying to bury the dead bodies in her wake.

Yes, we do believe in totally different religions. I am clear that I do not beieve in traditional Christianity - and I think that lack of self-acceptance is something I feel sad about, and to an extent angry, because I don’t believe it is something anyone does whilst accepting of themselves.

I suppose I’m just relieved that I saw sense all those years ago - and have been able to help many.many others do the same.

Thanks for the clarification, Merseymike.  I don’t know whether you missed by ecstatic greeting to you the day you first commented on this blog—but I’m glad you’re here.  Brian, in his place as #2 Most Favorite Reappraiser is far behind you with little chance of catching up.

I have a question.

When you talk about self-acceptance, do you think that self-acceptance should extend to those people who desire something sinful?  In other words, if you and I were able to actually agree on something that is sinful—say, mutual adult consensual loving sexual relations between siblings [although I know I can’t count on your believing that to be sinful], or something like that—would we merely counsel the person who desires to do something sinful like that to “accept themselves for who they are” or would we counsel something else.

I am genuinely curious and it is not a trick question, as I already understand that you do not believe that sexual relations between same genders is immoral or sinful.

I am just wondering what you do with people who genuinely desire something sinful.

Or maybe you don’t believe that there is such a thing as sin—I dunno.

I think ‘sin’ is a not-terribly-useful concept in the way that traditionalists tend to use it

But more broadly, because i firmly believe that being gay is not only NOT sinful, but simply a variant of humanity and sexual orientation , and because I also equally firmly believe that gay relationships are beneficial for those of us with that sexual orientation, then it isn’t an issue.

Consent is important, and also the values which make up a relationship - faithfulness, love, caring for another person. I have been fortunate enough to be in that sort of relationship for 15 years and it is something I treasure - far more than anything your religion could ever offer me!

With regard to the siblings issue, it is very rare - most of the cases tend to be siblings separated at a young age. Would I make it illegal - probably not, given that there are no victims. Many countries have removed this from the statute as an offence.

But I don’t think that this is at all comparative - I think being gay is a sexual orientation, as is heterosexuality. That is also the consensus view of the medical profession. The only comparable orientation is heterosexuality, thus that would be the comparative. After all, sibling sex is almost always heterosexual, but is not a sexual orientation in itself. So, I think to raise the issue is a total red herring from my point of view - although I have no problem with explaining my view. So, self-acceptance of one’s orientation , yes. But incest isn’t a sexual orientation.

If I’m honest, Sarah, I neither believe on your religion, nor find it in the least attractive. Having spent some time within it, I think I am in a good position to comment.I doubt whether you could imagine coming to a rational decision that your religion was actually wrong, but it is quite possible that you may come to do so - i would certainly recommend it!

Merseymike—you did not answer my question. You gave a ringing defense of your same-gender sexual relationships.  But I’ve already acknowledged that, since we do not share the same religion, we do not agree on what sin is.  I’ve understood for years now [can’t believe that it is years] that you do not find my religion attractive any more than I find your religion attractive.  We both acknowledge that neither one of us finds the other’s religion attractive nor do we either one of us believe it.

But none of the above was the question I asked.  If you were capable of believing something to be a sin—let’s say, a person acting on their innate predisposition to a hot temper—anything at all—what would you recommend to him?  Would your recommendation merely be “self acceptance”?

Again—I am genuinely curious as to your philosophy here.

Mind you Mike, I and probably many of us here, have spent many years outside Christianity and can’t imagine returning to a life without it.

PS: If you prefer not to use the word “sin” that’s fine.  How about “taking an action that is immoral” or some other non-religiousy sounding term indicating that a human being has done something wrong.

PPS: I should point out as a rabbit trail aside that you reveal an astounding ignorance as to the sexual orientations of human beings when you say “the only comparable orientation is heterosexuality, thus that would be the comparative”.

There are sexual orientations—*total* sexual orientations—towards sex with those who are “life challenged”, sex with those which are of the non-human species, sex with shoes [and numerous other fetishes], and on and on and on.

The list of sexual orientations is wildly and widely varied.  And many of those orientations are *exclusive*—as in the person holding that orientation has NO OTHER orientation at all except to that minority orientation.

Again—that’s a rabbit trail—I understand that you and I will never agree about sexual practices because we do not hold the same foundational worldviews, and so there is no common value or foundation from which to stand in common. 

That is why I’m asking you a foundational question about moral behavior above.

Mersey Mike -

May I interject?  You appear to have established firm residency in your religion of choice.  If say someone like me or maybe Sarah or a stray elf wanted to come join you in your invitation to see the “other side” and once there we decided that there were things we didn’t like and set about a plan to break down your religion and crush into the nether regions your belief systems - whatever they may be - would you go gently into that good night?

MerseyMike,

Disagreements aside, I have to join Sarah in commending you on your uncompromising rejection of the true religion.  I’m sure you are at least as tired as I am of some, who constantly reach for the synthesis that just isn’t there. 

The Gospel is about antithesis.  It offends everyone, including (from time to time) those of us who have been slain by it.  Which is why it becomes annoying when the Gospel comes under attack by Rodney-King philosobabbler types who want to keep all the words the same, but just “tweak” the meanings, if only by an eensy squitch**.

Again, a warm welcome. 

***BTW, does anyone know how many scocshes make up an eensy squitch?  My family still hasn’t figured that one out. 

As for you, Mr. episcopalianated - it’s a delight to have you amongst this motley band of sinners, even more. 

Dear Episcopalienated—

Is there any chance you would be JA Langteaux?  Even if you are, I would understand if you’d rather not say, but your grace filled answer to Otis Page on 03-13-2007 at 09:18 PM sounded just like something he would write.  I have purchased and given away many copies of one of his books, <u>God.com</u>.  It is an incredible book.  If you are not Langteaux, I think you would really enjoy this book—if you haven’t read it already.  I would like to recommend it to anyone else who hasn’t read it.

A young college student stopped by to visit last week.  She had been here in the summer and began to talk about knowing the Lord and wanting to hear Him more clearly.  I gave her two books, one of which was <u>God.com</u>.  She came by to tell me that book has changed her life.  For the first time, she has begun to understand how much it is all about the Lord’s love, and how He desires to love others through us, and she received that from reading this book.

So, Episcopalienated, I wanted to tell you how much your writing reminds me of his, and how effective his has been to bring grace into the lives of others.  Thank you. ~Pat

Sarah - Who in the world is Commenatrix?

I’m sorry, I’ve been off-and-on line so much I haven’t kept really good track of what’s been going on.

Re:  Christianity vs. Universalism

You know, I think Lewis sums up so well the end result of both of these beliefs in Perelandria.  Ransom - who looses his life to find it in Christ - becomes TRULY the man who he was meant to be (thus achieving REAL self-esteem and true self-actualization) while his arch-nemsis, who chooses the Universalist thought ends up being the ‘Unman’ who is swallowed by the inclusive nothingness to become nothing.

In light of this reality, Merseymike, forgive my feeling just sorrow for your choice.  It’s like choosing faux fur over real, or sacrine over sugar, or plastic jewelry over gold.  The first is much easier to obtain, and in the short term, satisfying - but has little long term value.

Coming to know Christ costs a great deal in the short term, causes us to give up some things we believe are essential, and even might cause short term pain… but the end of the road, the goal is truly becoming the REAL person God made us to be.  “If you want to save your life, you must loose it, if you loose your life for My Sake you will find it.”  Hard words, Jesus speaks - totally contrary to this grasping , vicious, duplicitious world in which we live - however, so liberating when we actually DO what Christ asks.

How sad that you will not take the chance.

I am not quite sure Sarah why you thought necessary to mention me the way you did.Americans have their own logic?
If you spoke of my understanding, I have a little more experience than you being a retired (not senile) Anglican Priest aged 70, with various pastoral experiences(and still do)including 6 years in a foreign country as missionary, and have been with people of various persuasions. When this thread started, Otis asked some simple questions(I repeat) and it has been blown out of all proportion and stirred up all sorts of incriminations by ALL, including the frustrations of Otis by what he sees as the demise of TEC (so do I) and I can see him crying from the bottom of his splanknitza (if you know Greek you will understand what that means, my computer can’t write greek),and nobody seems to care a hoot about that, but you all have attacked him, and I am wondering whether your comment about me falls into the same category…but everybody is bending over backwards not to offend a person(s) who openly profess sin as good, where the Word of God says it is sin, regardless of what you think…it is either the Word or your thinking, you can’t have both.if you choose the latter (which it seemsTEC has done), then we have no common ground..I choose to stand where the Word leads me, I know then that I will be secure and within the Father’s Will.
Episcopalianated agrees with this, doesn’t he, but in what I read Merseymike has chosen the other path (I know to his detriment both now and eternally because the Word says so.
Take away the absolute and you have vanity and a striving after wind, and I fear some bloggers have been causing a cyclone.
I will continue to watch the blogs until it is stopped, and watch with amazement how you American’s think that the rest of the world and their opinions don’t either matter or mean anything, and that you know everything, and I note this particularly about Peter Akinola and his stand for the Word of God, and not only him but the rest of the global south, unfortunately Australia is not included in the global south, as we have a Primate who is very pro TEC.
I’m not angry, just hurt that Jesus doesn’t get much of a look in around this blog.
Brian
Aussie

Sarah ; I think the problem is that not only do we start from different worldviews, but we don’t even begin to ask the same questions.

For a start, I don’t actually consider any of those examples you have given,  ‘orientations’. They are not referring to gender, and instead, are largely behavioural. Now, you will attempt to reduce gay sexual orientation to behaviour, but unfortunately for you, medical science and contemporary psychology does not agree.

I don’t ‘recommend’ things to people in the way you do, Sarah. People have to come to their own conclusions, but again, you haven’t really read anything I said,because you are too locked into your own world-view to do so. And for me, that has no worth or credibility, so I see no reason to adjust my view to suit yours. Basically, if someone wishes to do something and it doesn’t do them or others any direct harm, I think its their business. That doesn’t mean I have to ‘approve’, because that’s not the way I look at the world.

However, i do not believe that something which is self-repressing and rejecting of something which I clearly believe to be positive and life-affirming - being gay, which I would certainly never wish to change - is something i would recommend to anyone. Different world-view again. What you value, i do not, and vice versa. There is no point of compromise or consensus and there never can be.

Eclipse ; I have already mentioned - I did ‘take that chance’ and positively rejected it, because I think it is wrong . I don’t believe your religion to be anything more than an unappealing delusion. I wish, even if you don’t agree, that you can accept that it is quite possible to come to that conclusion!

I am the real person I am now - your god has absolutely nothing to do with that, because I don’t believe that your god exists. Neither do I think that the first century Jewish mystic called Jesus was anything but a human being.

Merseymike, you are treading on dangerous ground, and according to the Word of God, I am bound to warn you that Judgement is yours…If the Word says so, so do I, no matter whether you think it is uncharitable, it is more uncharitable on my part not to tell you, otherwise I am as guilty as you…you have just made a most blasphemous statement,

because I don’t believe that your god exists.

(Chuckle).  That’s funny, because I don’t believe in the existence of that conclusion.

Brian from Australia—When you spoke of Sarah’s reference to a Brian, did you mean her comment at 12:51?  If so—that was to another one, Brian from T1:9, he calls himself here.  You are orthodox, he rather is not, but seems to be a kind hearted person, and honest about what he believes.  He is one of the “worthy opponents” people have come to know and cherish, even if often disagreeing with his premise on certain issues.

I guess Americans may have a bit of a wacky take on things at times.  Sarah’s running commentary on her favorite reappraisers is both an affectionate “joke” of sorts, and yet a truth.  She really does value them.  That being said, I have never seen her let them take an inch.  Anywhere.  At any time.  I suspect, she never will.

A side note—Sarah’s humor can get, um, a bit wild at times…  The first time I read a few things of hers, I could not for the life of me figure out why on earth she was “being so mean” to this “Timothy.”  Can’t remember what the thread was, but I couldn’t even figure out what side she was on at that point.  So after church, like after our second meeting after we walked away from our building, I asked my pastor in a squeaky voice, “Um, who IS this Sarah Hey?  Do you know anything about her?”

Sarah—you’ll love this.  He started telling me all about you, then said, “She’s absolutely <u>brilliant!</u>”

As for the Lord, Jesus—It has seemed to me these past months I have been reading along, He is much loved and honored here and at T19.  Certainly, it has been our desire to follow Him no matter what, that has lead a number of us to these blogs in the first place.

His peace,
Pat

Sorry Moot,
    The statement is not funny, its damnable and eternally disastrous for Mersymike

Brian ; you can warn away all you like, but as I don’t believe in your religion, i think its utterly unimportant.

I will happily make some more ‘blasphemous’ statements , if you wish? But there will be precisely no consequences.

No Pat, it was my position in 12.40, and it referred specifically to meI would hope Sarah herself would reply.

Merseymike,
Sorry mate you are the deluded one, and one day you will know, and then it will be too late, but even then Jesus will Love you, regardless what you think, but he doesn’t approve your verbage, in the same way He Loves Homosexuals, but despises what they do, and this is true of all of us sinners.He Loved the rich man all the way, but he (the rich young man)had a will like you do. He chose, so do you.

Pat,
Our time difference is sometimes confusing. I am now writing at 11.17am your time Tomorrow..are you now confused.

Hey Brian—No kidding!  Boy, am I ever confused!

I have been scrolling and searching and trying to figure out where on earth your comment at 12:40 is, and just could not find it.  Now at least I understand why, lol!  I even tried a different thread.  I really had wanted to see what you were referring to. 

So—how did you figure out I was wandering around in a blogdaze?  Thanks for the rescue!

Merseymike:

Hmm… curiouser and curiouser.  You know, there are things I don’t do.  I don’t go to the Santa Claus Fan Club website and try to convince children there is no Santa because I don’t believe in him.  I also don’t hang out at the ‘Budha R Us” site or the “We R WICCA”  site either… b/c I don’t believe in that either.  So, I have to wonder WHY if you are not a believer why you are here.

You remind me of a friend I once had who kept saying he didn’t believe in God.  Once time he touched a Bible by mistake and recoiled with a ‘uggg!’  I looked at him and said, “So, if I put “The Grinch that Stole Christmas” on the table are you going to jump away from that too?

I usually don’t waste a great deal of time thinking about stuff I don’t believe in - basically - because I don’t believe in it.  I have to wonder about someone who affects this stance and DOES. 

My friend wasn’t really an atheist, you know, he was just angry with God because he didn’t agree with Him.  I highly suspect this is your issue as well.  Otherwise, you wouldn’t be here.

Pat,
Sorry my mistake…It was Sarah’s blog at 12.51pm her time
Brian

Oh, Brian—That IS the other Brian.  Too many Brians.  On T19, a Lutheran pastor who is orthodox used to sign his posts “Maryland Brian—not the other Brian” just because of the mix up.  The other Brian is generally a reappraiser, yet a friend of those on these blogs, in spite of the differences.  No one in his or her right mind would call you a reappraiser, and Sarah is in her right mind.  I think.  Unless you get her started on elves.  What ever you do, do not mention elves when she is around.  Oops…I just did, didn’t I?  Well, she isn’t around just yet…and hopefully won’t see this post

Mersey Mike:

First of all, thank you for feeling sorry for me.  I truly mean that!  I have had to give up feeling sorry for myself quite a while back—one of those nagging Christian “growth” issues, you see—but I must confess to a certain guilty pleasure when others are sometimes willing to do it for me.  I will accept your sympathy (or, if you prefer, your pity) as today’s little indulgence in that which I normally try to avoid.  Even if we are in Lent!

Two years in “the prison of evangelicalism”?  My goodness, that’s much too long!  Perhaps I should feel sorry for you.  Those dreary inmate uniforms, no pastel shades, lectures about Luther and Calvin all day.  It’s enough to make one swear off religion altogether.  But then, apparently you’ve already done so.  I quite understand.  Thankfully, I was spared a similar fate.  I was rescued by a roving band of quite merry Anglo-Catholics within sight of those prison walls myself, just in the nick of time.  And it’s made me the happy “Broad Church Henrician” I am today!

I very much respect the fact that you do not find the truth claims of the Christian religion to be credible.  Historically, you are in very fine company.  And in order to truly reject Christianity, you must first of all take it seriously.  You seem to have done just that, and I find it quite commendable.  It’s a tremendous improvement over apathy and indifference.  I hope this won’t come as too much of a disappointment, but the God we Christians believe in may actually be quite pleased with your progress thus far.  Although, of course, we will dare to suspect that He may not be finished with you just yet.  The end of the story remains unwritten.  (But don’t worry!  I’m quite certain that any further plans He has for you won’t include a return to “incarceration.”  You’ve done your time!) 

To be sure, I am anything but an apologist for Islam (Henry VIII would not have approved!), but your posts remind me of the charming story of the devout imam who had quite a burden of the heart for atheists.  As you may know, the Muslim profession of faith goes like this:  “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.”  Rather than getting angry with the unbelievers he met, the imam commended them on their ability to get the first four words of that profession right (“There is no God. . .”) while inviting them to further dialogue about the remaining seven.  As Christians, we would do very well indeed to emulate his example in our own approach to evangelism and witness when we are engaged with those who do not share our faith. 

Now . . . If I understand you correctly, I am not in a position to ask for your prayers on my behalf to address the sad situation of what you have identified as my status of “deluded victim”?  Very well, then, we will leave that alone.  But perhaps you meditate?  If so, please do remember me in your thoughts and meditations, and I will thank you for it.  As you can see, I am a man who has learned to take what he can get.  All in all, not a bad way to be. 

God bless!

Brian,

The statement is not funny, its damnable and eternally disastrous for Mersymike

Agreed that MM is headed for a rude awakening.  However, that’s not what I found funny about his statement.

OK Pat,
I give notice that I am “Aussie Brian” to save the confusion, but I hope your assessment of Sarah’s comment is correct.
  Aussie Brian

Paul Stanley:

You dear man!  Our true character is best revealed by the way in which we deal with those with whom we most disagree.  How proud and pleased Our Lord must be by your fine example of Christian charity and forbearance!  Heart speaks to heart, and rest assured that yours will never need to explain or justify to mine the hurt and suffering you have no doubt experienced as a gay man.  Our pain is quite real, isn’t it?  And none of it was ever what our Savior had in mind for us!  Ours is the common lot of a fallen humanity and, as the Body of Christ, we are all in this together to bear one another’s burdens.  Be assured of my prayers for you and your partner.  Your kind post was greatly appreciated. 

Ms. Hey:

You were on my mind earlier today, and I think the Lord impressed upon me one word where you are concerned.  That word is “valiant.”  And why shouldn’t Prince Valiant have a female counterpart?  (I don’t think it’s one of those “ontological” issues.  At least I hope not.)  I hereby nominate you for that position! 
Pat Kashtock:

No, sorry, I am not J. A. Langteaux.  But as time permits, I will definitely check out “God.com.”  Sounds intriguing, and thanks for the reference.

Dear Moot,
Do tell,I can’t yet see it or why.
Ausie Brian

Well, I have finally gotten done with work and now can return to this thread.  As an aside, it was an awful day.  ; < (

RE: “Sarah - Who in the world is Commenatrix?”

Commenatrix was someone that Greg imported over here about a year ago to handle comments.  He gave her posting privileges and everything and she audits comments.  My understanding is that every comment arrives in her email box [after it is posted] and she looks at it and ponders it.  Believe me, I was pretty shocked the first time that I noticed commenatrix appearing and issuing draconian penalties galore!!!

I had not met her for the longest and did not even know her real name either.  But one day, she introduced herself to me by email . . . Anyway—she swings a big axe.  ; < (

I know some sort of something is needed—and certainly with my crazy work schedule—as well as Greg’s, Matt’s, Jackie’s, and Andy’s—we could never keep up.

Commenatrix, though, is superhuman.  She works too and keeps up with comments.

I know some sort of something is needed—and certainly with my crazy work schedule—as well as Greg’s, Matt’s, Jackie’s, and Andy’s—we could never keep up.

I, on the other hand, just idle my days away…. 

RE: “I am not quite sure Sarah why you thought necessary to mention me the way you did.Americans have their own logic?”

Yikes—I had been referring to Brian from T19.  He is the #2 Most Favorite Reappraiser.  I should have been clearer—but I had not noticed any other revisionist people named Brian over here.

I certainly did not intend any insult to either you or the other Brian.

I am not certain what you meant by this . . . “but everybody is bending over backwards not to offend a person(s) who openly profess sin as good, where the Word of God says it is sin, regardless of what you think”—I can’t think of anything on this thread that I’ve said to imply that I think the opposite of Holy Scripture.  But maybe I have misunderstood you.

RE: “but again, you haven’t really read anything I said,because you are too locked into your own world-view to do so. And for me, that has no worth or credibility, so I see no reason to adjust my view to suit yours.”

Merseymike—of all the comments you have said, this one is the most ridiculous.  I don’t accuse you of not reading anything that I have said—why accuse me of that?

For the record I hang on your every word.  And why on earth you would claim that, just because you and I ardently disagree on religion I “haven’t really read anything” that you’ve said is beyond me!

Furthermore I have no interest at all in your adjusting your “view to suit” mine.  Nor do I have any interest in “compromise or consensus”.

“For a start, I don’t actually consider any of those examples you have given, ‘orientations’. They are not referring to gender, and instead, are largely behavioural.”

Yikes.  Are you serious here?  You don’t consider that a person who has a singular and sole attraction to sex with shoes—and nothing human—to have an “orientation”????  Then what on earth would you call ‘em—certainly not a “homosexual” or a “heterosexual”—they don’t want sex with either, only shoes!!!  The same applies to those who have attractions to other, er, non-living, or non-human categories.  They certainly cannot be described fairly as “homosexual” or “heterosexual”.  No—they are of differing orientations than either homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Okay—now we get to my actual and now oft-repeated question which was “When you talk about self-acceptance, do you think that self-acceptance should extend to those people who desire something sinful? . . . would we merely counsel the person who desires to do something sinful like that to “accept themselves for who they are” or would we counsel something else.”

You seem to have offered your definition of “sin” or “immorality” for me, which appears to be “Basically, if someone wishes to do something and it doesn’t do them or others any direct harm, I think its their business.”

Setting aside the fact that “harm” is a rather relative term without an outside authority explaining what “harm” is [after all, some people have mental illnesses that cause them to mutilate themselves . . . but they would claim that such actions are not “harmful”] . . . I will assume, I guess, that if someone wanted to do something that you considered “harmful” to self or others, that you would not merely counsel them to “accept themselves for who they are—including their harmful inclination”.

I’d like to think that if you were dear friends with someone who, for instance, gashes herself with a knife in a frenzy that you would want to help—and not by saying “c’mon—accept your knife-gashing orientation and flow with it”!  ; > )

But then you turned around and said, Merseymike, “I don’t ‘recommend’ things to people in the way you do, Sarah. People have to come to their own conclusions . . . ” . . . And yet, just a few comments earlier you had said the following to Episcopalienated:

“I feel sorry for him - he is missing out on so much, all for the sake of a rather risible, mawkish, outdated religion.  But, there’s time yet . . . I’m a gay man. I’m in a fantastic relationship. Better than your version of Jesus and your god could ever be!”

And this:

“and I think that lack of self-acceptance is something I feel sad about, and to an extent angry, because I don’t believe it is something anyone does whilst accepting of themselves.

I suppose I’m just relieved that I saw sense all those years ago - and have been able to help many.many others do the same.

And this to me:

“I doubt whether you could imagine coming to a rational decision that your religion was actually wrong, but it is quite possible that you may come to do so - i would certainly recommend it!”

To sum up.

1) Merseymike believes there’s such a thing as “sin”—anything that harms self or other.

2) Merseymike denies that he recommends things to people—they can come to their own opinions.

3) That denial is incorrect—Merseymike recommends things to people all the bloomin’ time, as demonstrated on this thread.  If Merseymike believes that something is “harmful” according to his definition [like the Christian religion or celibacy], then he does not recommend “self acceptance” at all, but rather heartily recommends CHANGE.

4) Of the many major differences between me and Merseymike, one Really Really Big One would be that I know that I cannot count on my own feelings or intuition about what is “harmful” to self and others, but rather must rely on an outside-of-self authority to help me determine what is “harmful” to self and others.

But both of us recommend CHANGE to those who do things that are “harmful”.  So in that way we are quite similar.  . . . Only . . . Merseymike seems to find it challenging to his own self-concept to admit that he recommends CHANGE.  ; > )

At any rate, and as always, I have enjoyed and appreciated our exchange, Merseymike.  I also really appreciate your engaging with my question as I was genuinely curious about what you thought of sin or what you did/do with those whom you deem to be performing wrong actions.

RE: “A side note—Sarah’s humor can get, um, a bit wild at times…”

And . . . “Sarah is in her right mind.  I think.”

What??  Insult after insult [she squeaked] . . .

Where is the Commenatrix WHEN I NEED HER????  Suddenly, she disappears in a puff of vague abstraction!!!

The cruelty is flying about as thick as hail here on this thread and the Commenatrix suddenly is focusing on other threads, watching the Shopping Channel or QVC, getting a manicure, or cheering on some high school sports team, while I’m left defenseless out here in the wilds of the raging sea.

; > )

...Sarah’s humor can get, um, a bit wild at times… The first time I read a few things of hers, I could not for the life of me figure out why on earth she was “being so mean” to this “Timothy.” Can’t remember what the thread was, but I couldn’t even figure out what side she was on at that point…

Pat, my feelings entirely!! Why was Sarah being so mean to “Timothy”?  And what side was she really on? 

I am a very sensitive person, and it took weeks of therapy for me to even be able to blog again after running into the Sarah Hey buzz saw!

Sarah ;

No, you still don’t get where I am coming from, at all.

Forget about ‘sin’. It just isn’t the way i approach things. I don’t think things which harm self or other are to be recommended, but I don’t think the former should necessarily be illegal! The sin language is part of an orthodox Christian viewpoint, and thats not the way I look at the world.

I am essentially a situation ethicist, which is why I find your questions just don’t relate to how I look at the world.

No, I’m not recommending change. I am recommending that people be the people they are. No need for change. I think that problem is his perception of the need to be anything other than the person he is, caused by his adherence to the delusion of conservative Christianity. Within that context, there are then questions of how you treat both others and yourself. That’s another issue where I think Christianity has simply got it wrong - the idea that people are basically bad and need ‘saving’

Its interesting - I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who left evangelical Christianity, with my assistance, a couple of years back. He has recognised the use and benefit of being kind to himself and realises that the Christian stress on suffering and always putting this God-person first ie following dogma, really stopped him being the person he really is - which has precisely nothing to do with the myths of Christian dogma.

I fully agree that we are different in terms of external authority and its existence. There is none. If God is anything, it is a force which exists within humanity.

Okay, Sarah—now I’m worried.  You MUST have had a rough day yesterday.  You didn’t pick up on my comment that my pastor said you are brilliant….........

Hope today is better.

Timothy—a different Timothy.  Over at T19.  It was all about tennis or something?  Sarah kept asking him why he ever thought she cared about what he thought of her.  (but always w/ her signature winkie, of course)  Once I figured out they were on the same side and just sparring, it was hysterically funny.  The lightheartedness that shines through from time to time is one of the things that has kept me reading.  One of the others is that it has been awesome to watch what has continued to develop as a community that includes both the people who are devoted to a common cause and those who oppose them.  Such a community could be fragile if we did not treat each other with some sort of basic respect, so I am glad that respect is expected of commenters here and over at T19.

But my question related great to your world, Merseymike.  You admitted that you “don’t think things which harm self or other are to be recommended” [LOL] .

You just don’t like to admit that you HAVE recommended CHANGE—as you did repeatedly on this thread and as you’ve admitted that you do in real life. 

So you’ve disguised it—you try to cover it by claiming that “oh no, I don’t recommend CHANGE—I just recommend that people ‘be who they are’—and whatever it is that you are right now—THAT’S NOT REALLY WHO YOU ARE, BECAUSE I, MERSEYMIKE, BELIEVE THAT YOU’RE NOT.”

Let’s face it, Merseymike. You’ve got a religion—it’s called the Religion of Merseymike!  ; > )

We’re all ideological and steeped in “dogma”.  You’ve got your dogma—“Merseymike dogma”—and I’ve got mine—traditional Christianity.  Christians also urge people to “be who they are”—or as Irenaeus has famously said: “become who you already are”.

It’s just that you—of the Religion of Merseymike—think that *you* know “who people are”, and the religion of Christianity thinks that it knows “who people are”—and BOTH urge “change”.

You’ve got some nice new words and definitions in the Religion of Merseymike—but at the end of the day, you think some people shouldn’t do some things they do, and in response you adjure them to “be who they are”—which necessarily means “do what Merseymike thinks you should do and ‘become’ who Merseymike thinks you should become’.

There’s only one thing that I find suspicious in all of your answers.  The old Merseymike of even a year ago would have admitted “yep—I’ve got a dogma, I think there’s sin, I think people should change” . . . but this Merseymike tries to hide it.

Re: “You didn’t pick up on my comment that my pastor said you are brilliant.”

Ah, but Pat Kashtock, I knew that you were placing that comment there just to try to throw me off the scent of all the flying insults!!!

; > )

Just kidding—it was a nice thing for your pastor to say, although, you know, even if I were really brilliant, that sort of thing doesn’t really help with most of real life.  . . . More’s the pity.

No, I have just moved on, Sarah - away from Christianity.

Yes, I do believe that being gay is a sexual orientation: in that, my views concur with the official position of, say, the British medical Association, and the British government, which has introduced many laws to protect people of that orientation. This is diametrically opposed to conservative Christian doctrine, but that’s not even a necessary starting point for me any more. I think we need to create and develop a post-Christian position, not simply tweak Christianity. There is too much about Christianity which is simply unreformable.

My views are certainly developing and changing, but then, they always have, and no doubt always will.

I think we all have our own beliefs: you just choose to give yours a label. Mine are more difficult to pigeon hole! I’m quite sure that my beliefs are mine, though - no controversy there?

Sarah,

There’s only one thing that I find suspicious in all of your answers.  The old Merseymike of even a year ago would have admitted “yep—I’ve got a dogma, I think there’s sin, I think people should change” . . . but this Merseymike tries to hide it.

Maybe the Religion of Mercymike is doing “a new thing!” 

Commentatrix (now that I have a clue who you are):

I posted the above re: Otis before he was banned - hence the reason I referred to the banned comment.  Just one of the blog glitch items -
so I wasn’t trying to toast the guy.

Sarah:

I liked this:

For the record I hang on your every word.  And why on earth you would claim that, just because you and I ardently disagree on religion I “haven’t really read anything” that you’ve said is beyond me!

Merseymike:

I am essentially a situation ethicist, which is why I find your questions just don’t relate to how I look at the world.

You know my BIble-challenged friend would have said the very same thing.  My response to him was, “That’s a great ideology - until someone’s personal fufillment concerns killing 6 million Jews, torching your house, believing the laws of the land don’t concern them.”  The ol’ moral relativism doesn’t work that great when push comes to shove in reality.

I remember taking an ethics course once in college.  My professor had assigned us ‘moral dilemnas’ to sort out.  He was NOT amused by the responses.  The gist was this:  while people would give up their jobs to save the seals, however, they would participate in human sacrifice because it was the culture of the island people to which they were visiting.  He berrated the entire class because of how inconsistent and illogical the belief system was.  This is the end result of ‘moral relativist’ thinking.  You have neither consistency, intelligence, or any sort of reason to your actions.  It’s easy to be a ‘situational ethicist’ because it takes absolutely no serious thought.

Having a set of standards, however, whatever they might be, you have to constantly weigh the pro’s and con’s of each action by them.  THIS is much more difficult.

RE [back earlier from yesterday]: “medical science and contemporary psychology does not agree.”

LOL!  ; > ) 

Merseymike, I have a father who is a physician and a brother who is a physician.  If you knew how much we laugh over “medical science” and “contemporary psychology” [nice word, “contemporary”] and their changes every year [not just every decade], you wouldn’t flourish those words about so much and expect us all to fall down before them.

After all, “contemporary psychology” back in the 1920s was busy proclaiming that my gender’s difficulties were because of “penis envy” . . . ; > )

We can all be confident that, if “medical science” [ah, how that term thrilled the eugenist of ‘modern’ industrialized early 20th century!] and “contemporary psychology” don’t agree with someone this month—they will next month.  ; > )  It’s a scary thing to be dependent on the whims of “science”—the problem with “science” is that there’s always a “scientist” behind it—hang on cause it’s a wild ride!

RE: “There is too much about Christianity which is simply unreformable.”

Now you’re talking!! ; > )

RE: “I think we all have our own beliefs: you just choose to give yours a label.”

And you just choose to try to come up with different words to obscure your basic garden-variety narcissistic religion.

RE: “Mine are more difficult to pigeon hole!”

Again, Merseymike . . . you flatter yourself.  Your religion is as old and as common as the hills.

Commentatrix (now that I have a clue who you are):

Highly unlikely, Eclipse, highly unlikely.  Although I will grant that we may have passed in the night one dark and foggy evening.  I was the one wearing the long hooded cape.  The tantalizing scent that brushed your nostrils - well, it’s a family secret.  Along with where we learned to tell others - “It’s best you not know.”

I posted the above re: Otis before he was banned - hence the reason I referred to the banned comment.  Just one of the blog glitch items -
so I wasn’t trying to toast the guy.

Forgiven —this time.

Commenatrix was someone that Greg imported over here about a year ago to handle comments.

We have an imported Commenatrix? I would have thought a nice domestic Commenatrix would have been more in order.

the snarkster

Snarkster, it is my understanding that the rare imported Commenatrix is fiercer and wilder.  Greg felt that the domesticated Commenatrix would end up like a Tame Elf—always eager to put people in moderation, editing comments in the dead of night, and chastising reasserters.

The only thing I think he made a mistake on is that the Fierce Imported Commenatrix doesn’t “chastise” reasserters—she seems to ban ‘em in the drove.  I don’t remember a time when she has banished a revisionist—although I’m sure she has.  But the reasserters are the one’s that seem to end up on the side of the road.

I think he made the right choice—the Commenatrix was an incredible find [seriously, how many of us would be willing to view every comment and glide silently in to a thread to issue bannings], although a bit Fiercer and Wilder than I was prepared for.

Sarah,

“prepared for”  or ‘prepared to be’!  HAH!

Since the snarkster is always civil to a fault and never says anything even remotely considered ban bait, I feel I am eminently qualified to comment about this. I may have missed one or two but of all the posters I have seen banned by anyone (Greg, Sarah, Matt+, Commenatrix, et al), all have richly deserved their banning. It is true that more reasserters have been banned than revisionistas but that is not necessarily bad. We shouldn’t tolerate trolls and bomb throwers whatever their perspective.

the really civil snarkster

Ah, Bill C, you are barking up the wrong tree—I am not the Commenatrix.  Wouldn’t have the time, the aptitude, or the stomach for it.

The Commenatrix lets the writers write and the Commenatrix . . . well, I won’t say what she does out loud.

Eclipse ; I don’t agree. I think any other position than that of situation ethics ignores the reality of humanity in all its complexity and diversity.

And I think situational ethics ignores the human potential and settles for the human minimal.

Sarah ; its not really of much concern to me what you think of ‘my religion’ as long as your religion has no ability to discriminate against me or restrict my own life. Thankfully, this is largely the case in the UK.

I fully agree that we are always discovering new information, and so we should respond to that new information as we find it - discarding that which is unreformable, recognising that it is simply obsolete, rejecting that which is harmful.
Of course, that’s where we differ - there is simply no possible meeting point between our perspectives. Tell you what, though, I’d be very critical of myself if, in 20 years time, I was still saying ‘I believe the same as I did 20 years ago!’ Very sad to think that I was closing my mind to the possibility of personal growth - impossible within the boundaries of the conservative Christian mindset which denies the self in favour of an external god which it fails to recognise as a social construction.

That’s the basic problem - you believe that those very same obsolete, delusional and contradictory beliefs you hold are ‘the truth’, and there is little which you could conceive changing your mind, because it isn’t primarily an thought-centred process but ‘revealed truth’. There is no such thing.

But, I came to see this, so you might too!

Merseymike, in spite of what you say about 20 years from now, it doesn’t sound as if your mind is especially open to change.

RE: “Sarah ; its not really of much concern to me what you think of ‘my religion’ as long as your religion has no ability to discriminate against me or restrict my own life.”

Two things.  Humans beings will *always* be able to discriminate against other human beings, no matter what state is in power at a given time.  But it’s not important to me, in the long run, what the UK does or does not choose to do as a state.  [Although I’ll point out again that the more you talk about power, MM, the less I see that you have—people with power don’t have to talk about it.]

And . . . I’m just enjoying the conversation.  Of course, neither of us have much concern about the other’s religion, MM.  Should Merseymike be elevated to the position of Supreme Dictator of the World and have the power to institute the Religion of Merseymike globally—which all religions of the self ultimately desire by definition—I will recognize that such States have risen and have fallen. 

But future travelers from antique lands will walk over such ancient States and return to describe them to us, as did the wanderer when he discovered Ozymandias.

I’ve enjoyed the chat—but I must wander away to other duties. 

See you at other threads!!  ; > )  And thanks for joining Brian [from T19] here and making my cup of happiness complete.

Strange thinking! I don’t think I have a lot of power, that’s why I work for change - but I don’t think any individual has a great deal of power unless they have financial resources . That’s why we need to organise collectively, to achieve social change. We have achieved change, certainly, but I’m under no illusions as to holding power. I wish you could convince some of your conservative colleagues who are convinced that Britain is run by a gay mafia!

I think I’ll give Supreme Dictator of the World a miss….

Oscewisee: its probably fair to say that I am unlikely to return to a religion which I have positively rejected on a number of different levels.But that doesn’t mean that I won’t change my mind on a variety of topics.My own perspective isn’t the sort of ‘grand theory’ epitomised by Christianity, or other religious/political worldviews such as Islam or Marxism.

...and I must return to writing my lecture on research methods!

I wonder what Merseymike means by a ‘gay’ man. A gay man is one who has same-sex desires, there is not even any concensus of scientific opinion for any genetics that makes a ‘gay’ man.

This may not be a gay man according to Mersymike’s defintion but he is a homosexual man according to his definition and the dictionary definition.
Merseymike seems to classify homosexuals as homophobic if they dont support same-sex sex. 
This man is evidently not self hating as he seem content and liberated so I would say Merseymike seems to be the only one with hate in his heart as out the heart the mouth speaks.
But when he says
“I’m a gay man. I’m in a fantastic relationship. Better than your version of Jesus and your god could ever be!”
Is it sex or Jesus that he is angry against?