Comments on: This is not a public discussion (honest) http://johnorr.me.uk/2010/06/01/this-is-not-a-public-discussion-honest/ Random mutterings and musings of mine - a work in progress Tue, 08 May 2012 19:55:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: John http://johnorr.me.uk/2010/06/01/this-is-not-a-public-discussion-honest/comment-page-1/#comment-5089 John Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:24:26 +0000 http://johnorr.me.uk/?p=677#comment-5089 <p>Thanks Kathryn.</p> Thanks Kathryn.

]]> By: Kathryn http://johnorr.me.uk/2010/06/01/this-is-not-a-public-discussion-honest/comment-page-1/#comment-5088 Kathryn Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:13:54 +0000 http://johnorr.me.uk/?p=677#comment-5088 Hello John, Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City has produced this sensible discussion of the biblical evidence, available at: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink   Hello John,
Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City has produced this sensible discussion of the biblical evidence, available at:
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink
 

]]> By: David http://johnorr.me.uk/2010/06/01/this-is-not-a-public-discussion-honest/comment-page-1/#comment-5087 David Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:43:40 +0000 http://johnorr.me.uk/?p=677#comment-5087 Thanks John Thanks John

]]> By: John http://johnorr.me.uk/2010/06/01/this-is-not-a-public-discussion-honest/comment-page-1/#comment-5085 John Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:10:49 +0000 http://johnorr.me.uk/?p=677#comment-5085 <p>OK, link to GA report found and article updated.</p> OK, link to GA report found and article updated.

]]> By: John http://johnorr.me.uk/2010/06/01/this-is-not-a-public-discussion-honest/comment-page-1/#comment-5084 John Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:03:17 +0000 http://johnorr.me.uk/?p=677#comment-5084 <p>Hi David,</p> <p>The 'discussion document' referenced was produced by Mission and Discipleship for the GA of that year. It was not produced by OneKirk, just made available through them. If you have a link from the CofS site I'll link from that instead so that there can be no hint of bias. The 'refutation' article was produced for OneKirk and represents their side of the debate.</p> <p>I do not endorse any one over the other. I simply present what I consider to be good articles representing the main views. What you decide based on the arguments is entirely up to you.</p> Hi David,

The ‘discussion document’ referenced was produced by Mission and Discipleship for the GA of that year. It was not produced by OneKirk, just made available through them. If you have a link from the CofS site I’ll link from that instead so that there can be no hint of bias. The ‘refutation’ article was produced for OneKirk and represents their side of the debate.

I do not endorse any one over the other. I simply present what I consider to be good articles representing the main views. What you decide based on the arguments is entirely up to you.

]]> By: David http://johnorr.me.uk/2010/06/01/this-is-not-a-public-discussion-honest/comment-page-1/#comment-5083 David Wed, 02 Jun 2010 08:30:06 +0000 http://johnorr.me.uk/?p=677#comment-5083 Just a thought... The General Assembly did NOT produce the document you list. It's produced by One Kirk, a group within the Kirk pro gay clergy. Just a thought… The General Assembly did NOT produce the document you list. It’s produced by One Kirk, a group within the Kirk pro gay clergy.

]]> By: David http://johnorr.me.uk/2010/06/01/this-is-not-a-public-discussion-honest/comment-page-1/#comment-5082 David Wed, 02 Jun 2010 08:27:22 +0000 http://johnorr.me.uk/?p=677#comment-5082 In the spirit of not having a public discussion.... Having viewed the DVD starter for Presbytery and Session to respond to the Special Commission, what has surprised me is that to take a view in opposition to the revisionists is tantamount to declaring yourself homophobic.. It wasn't a terribly well balanced presentation but it did start discussion. What is a little alarming is that the 'ordinary' elders don't see a problem. It's only when the awkward Scriptural passages are pointed out and explained that they begin to see what the 'fuss' is all about. As far as they are concerned, society has moved on, why hasn't the church ? This position does beg the question about whether society's 'progress' is always a good thing (or not), and it does raise the question about what Jesus meant when he called his disciples to be 'salt' and 'light'. Those words imply a distinctiveness that stands out from and can be in contrast to what is considered to be the accepted norm. I looked at the Australian comment and wasn't too surprised by the tone of the report. It did highlight the obvious double standard within the press about such things. A 'normal' sex scandal makes a politician fair game, but being gay allows them to be the victim and gain sympathy. That just jars with me. Not saying ai have any answers on this. The GA for 2011 will certainly be interesting and I don't envy whoever is chosen as Moderator for that one !   In the spirit of not having a public discussion….
Having viewed the DVD starter for Presbytery and Session to respond to the Special Commission, what has surprised me is that to take a view in opposition to the revisionists is tantamount to declaring yourself homophobic.. It wasn’t a terribly well balanced presentation but it did start discussion. What is a little alarming is that the ‘ordinary’ elders don’t see a problem. It’s only when the awkward Scriptural passages are pointed out and explained that they begin to see what the ‘fuss’ is all about. As far as they are concerned, society has moved on, why hasn’t the church ? This position does beg the question about whether society’s ‘progress’ is always a good thing (or not), and it does raise the question about what Jesus meant when he called his disciples to be ‘salt’ and ‘light’. Those words imply a distinctiveness that stands out from and can be in contrast to what is considered to be the accepted norm.
I looked at the Australian comment and wasn’t too surprised by the tone of the report. It did highlight the obvious double standard within the press about such things. A ‘normal’ sex scandal makes a politician fair game, but being gay allows them to be the victim and gain sympathy. That just jars with me.
Not saying ai have any answers on this. The GA for 2011 will certainly be interesting and I don’t envy whoever is chosen as Moderator for that one !  

]]>