Episcopal diocese of Washington to drop male pronouns for God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

[b]Because 1-2 of the frequent posters here were part of the schism a few years ago when some left the Episcopal Church over women’s ordination and gay marriage—they now refer to themselves as Anglicans. As evidenced by recent vitriolic posts on other threads, they’re still hopping mad that the Episcopal Church wouldn’t let them keep the church buildings after they left.

I don't think so. It would be impossible to have a discussion about current affairs in the Catholic Church without a discussion about the Pope's tweets and messages. Similarly, Schori was head of the Episcopal Church here in the USA and left it bankrupt and in shambles because she initiated all the lawsuits. One can't really have a discussion about problems within an institution without talking about its heads and their positions

The Episcopal Church itself and Schori are totally separable, and you’re not making sense. You can have a low opinion of Schori’s financial management skills and still think the Episcopal Church itself has much to offer.

So to return to pp’s question, why do you show up on every thread to trash the church itself? You’ve made it abundantly clear, on this thread and every related thread, that you don’t like gays and women ministers. So why can’t you let it drop now? Don’t put a rainbow bumper sticker on your car and don’t attend the Episcopal Church. Easy, done. Move on, spend your time worshipping and volunteering with the Anglican Church if that’s your think. However, your obsession with Schori makes me think this really is lasting bitterness over the buildings. I’m not that familiar with her or when she was in charge, but arguably all those lawsuits were just defending the church against the theft of its property and buildings, and the courts apparently agreed. So enough, move along, for your own sake if not ours.

If you don't know who Schori is, or when she was in charge, or what the problematic issues were that caused her to be fired, then why are you here arguing at all? You don't have a leg to stand on.

pp has a point. It's easy enough to find out about schori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Jefferts_Schori and to defend her based on factual information.

Tactic: can’t answer the question at 7:52 about taking Paul literally, or some other uncomfortable question? Want to keep the thread alive indefinitely so you can keep spewing vitriol about the Episcopal Church? Dredge up a post from a day or two ago and bully that poster. That’s the 2nd or 3rd time I’ve noticed you doing that on this thread alone.

[Anonymous]

Generally speaking, in the US at this time, of a person refers to themselves as members of the Anglican Church, they’re speaking about a group of churches that broke from The Episcopal church (USA). the Anglican Church in the US doesn’t ordain either gay priests or women.

Now, the semantics get strange because TEC and the Anglican churches in the US are both in the Worldwide Anglican Communion, just part of a different segment than the Anglican churches in the US (they’re either under Latin or some other bishops, not the Presiding Bishop of the US because they aren’t part of TEC anymore. At their choice.)

As an Episcopalian, I am also an Anglican who follows Anglican theology and worship style. I say I’m an Episcopalian and it wouldn’t occur to me to use Anglican. If an American person says they’re Anglican, goes to the trouble of making that distinction, then they are memebers of the church that broke from TEC due to issues regarding ordination of women, gay people or of fully allowing gay people to be members of the church by offering them the sacrament of marriage.

Some people will say that TEC got kicked out of the Worldwide Anglican Comminion. This is fake news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Generally speaking, in the US at this time, of a person refers to themselves as members of the Anglican Church, they’re speaking about a group of churches that broke from The Episcopal church (USA). the Anglican Church in the US doesn’t ordain either gay priests or women.

Now, the semantics get strange because TEC and the Anglican churches in the US are both in the Worldwide Anglican Communion, just part of a different segment than the Anglican churches in the US (they’re either under Latin or some other bishops, not the Presiding Bishop of the US because they aren’t part of TEC anymore. At their choice.)

As an Episcopalian, I am also an Anglican who follows Anglican theology and worship style. I say I’m an Episcopalian and it wouldn’t occur to me to use Anglican. If an American person says they’re Anglican, goes to the trouble of making that distinction, then they are memebers of the church that broke from TEC due to issues regarding ordination of women, gay people or of fully allowing gay people to be members of the church by offering them the sacrament of marriage.

Some people will say that TEC got kicked out of the Worldwide Anglican Comminion. This is fake news.

Thanks for the history, pp. Signed, a Presbyterian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

[b]Because 1-2 of the frequent posters here were part of the schism a few years ago when some left the Episcopal Church over women’s ordination and gay marriage—they now refer to themselves as Anglicans. As evidenced by recent vitriolic posts on other threads, they’re still hopping mad that the Episcopal Church wouldn’t let them keep the church buildings after they left.

I don't think so. It would be impossible to have a discussion about current affairs in the Catholic Church without a discussion about the Pope's tweets and messages. Similarly, Schori was head of the Episcopal Church here in the USA and left it bankrupt and in shambles because she initiated all the lawsuits. One can't really have a discussion about problems within an institution without talking about its heads and their positions

The Episcopal Church itself and Schori are totally separable, and you’re not making sense. You can have a low opinion of Schori’s financial management skills and still think the Episcopal Church itself has much to offer.

So to return to pp’s question, why do you show up on every thread to trash the church itself? You’ve made it abundantly clear, on this thread and every related thread, that you don’t like gays and women ministers. So why can’t you let it drop now? Don’t put a rainbow bumper sticker on your car and don’t attend the Episcopal Church. Easy, done. Move on, spend your time worshipping and volunteering with the Anglican Church if that’s your think. However, your obsession with Schori makes me think this really is lasting bitterness over the buildings. I’m not that familiar with her or when she was in charge, but arguably all those lawsuits were just defending the church against the theft of its property and buildings, and the courts apparently agreed. So enough, move along, for your own sake if not ours.

If you don't know who Schori is, or when she was in charge, or what the problematic issues were that caused her to be fired, then why are you here arguing at all? You don't have a leg to stand on.

pp has a point. It's easy enough to find out about schori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Jefferts_Schori and to defend her based on factual information.

Tactic: can’t answer the question at 7:52 about taking Paul literally, or some other uncomfortable question? Want to keep the thread alive indefinitely so you can keep spewing vitriol about the Episcopal Church? Dredge up a post from a day or two ago and bully that poster. That’s the 2nd or 3rd time I’ve noticed you doing that on this thread alone.

I believe some on here are conflating posters. I am the PP who has been questioned about shellfish, etc., in Leviticus and taking Paul literally. I am not nor have I ever been Episcopalian, and I haven't heaped vitriol on any Episcopalians. I also haven't called anyone stupid, but I did say the question about taking Paul literally was stupid, because I believe it was.

I'm still confounded by the question about taking Paul literally, and I've reached the conclusion that the poster who asked that question doesn't mean "literally" but "seriously." Paul's writings are extremely straightforward. There's no way to give them a metaphorical reading. If there is now some rule that a writer must state at the beginning of his writings, "Please take me literally," then there is no way for us to communicate anymore. So I must believe the question to really be, "Why do I have to pay attention to Paul? Can't I pick and choose what I believe and what I don't, just like some people are doing with the Episcopal Church?" The answer goes back to something I said a few pages ago: This is the essence of unbelief. The letters of Paul are Scripture. They are confirmed as Scripture in Peter's letters. Paul states on occasions too numerous to cite here that He is speaking the express will of the LORD, that he is Christ's mouthpiece. Indeed, the entire book of 2 Corinithians is a defense of his apostolic authority, that what he writes is binding on the church. His writings are part of Scripture, and a Bible-believing Christian accepts that they are part of the entire counsel of God, that they are part of the Word, as it says in John 1:1, who is Christ, who is God. So a Bible-believing Christian takes them both literally AND seriously. No, Paul did not claim to be divine, and I've never heard an orthodox Christian make that claim. Neither did any of the other writers of Scripture. But you either believe that all of Scripture is the word of God or you don't, and that is really the dividing line of belief in a Christian sense.

Regarding shellfish, etc. It seems that posters who fall back on that can't and won't be bothered to read the New Testament Scriptures that address that. God in the Old Testament prefaces His laws with a statement that if you follow His commandments, you will have life. Were there good refrigeration systems back then? Maybe it wasn't a good idea to eat shellfish because it wasn't healthy (i.e, wasn't "clean."). The laws about not being clean if you had a disease were the first quarantine. They kept the population as a whole healthy. (Incidentally, there's a good bit of science for those of you who think the Bible is anti-science). Surely, if you're sophisticated enough to log on to a computer, you should be able to tell a difference between moral laws such as the 10 Commandments and more ceremonial, practical ones. These were given to, yes, the Jews, because it was through the Jews that God revealed Himself to mankind. They were laws to set them apart from everyone else, because it was through them that the Messiah was brought into the world. They were a set-apart people whom God wanted to maintain a distinction with so that He would be fully known by everyone. But what Christ made clear in the Gospels was that the Pharisees, the Jewish religious authorities, had made a strict following of these laws the supreme test of whether someone was righteous before God, without any understanding that a relationship with the LORD is a matter of the heart, of love for God and for others. They had become sanctimonious and self-righteous out of an asceticism that had nothing to do with love for anyone. The Pharisees at one point told Christ that His disciples were sinful because they hadn't washed their hands before dinner. Here was Christ's response:

"Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

Notice the things He does mention. These are all reaffirmed as sin by both Christ and the writers of the New Testament letters. Everyone there knew what he meant by "fornications," and it covered all sexual sin (homosexuality included), which had already been clearly defined.

In Acts, Christ told Peter that all things were acceptable to eat. Christ was the originator of a new covenant, whereby we are made righteous by faith in Him as God and by His death and resurrection. But he did not entirely rewrite the laws of what sin is. Lying is still lying. Theft is still theft. Adultery is still adultery. Murder is still murder. These things separate man from God and man from man. If you want to get hung up on shellfish and mixd fabrics, you're willfully missing the point, because you want to be free to do these other things in some form or another.

So there's your answer. If you don't like it, that's fine, and you can take it up with Christ at the judgment. But your claims that those who see this distinction and understand Scripture are hypocrites is entirely hollow. And you can't defend your position by appealing to Scripture, because the totality of Scripture addresses it all. It makes you the one who's picking and choosing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

[b]Because 1-2 of the frequent posters here were part of the schism a few years ago when some left the Episcopal Church over women’s ordination and gay marriage—they now refer to themselves as Anglicans. As evidenced by recent vitriolic posts on other threads, they’re still hopping mad that the Episcopal Church wouldn’t let them keep the church buildings after they left.

I don't think so. It would be impossible to have a discussion about current affairs in the Catholic Church without a discussion about the Pope's tweets and messages. Similarly, Schori was head of the Episcopal Church here in the USA and left it bankrupt and in shambles because she initiated all the lawsuits. One can't really have a discussion about problems within an institution without talking about its heads and their positions

The Episcopal Church itself and Schori are totally separable, and you’re not making sense. You can have a low opinion of Schori’s financial management skills and still think the Episcopal Church itself has much to offer.

So to return to pp’s question, why do you show up on every thread to trash the church itself? You’ve made it abundantly clear, on this thread and every related thread, that you don’t like gays and women ministers. So why can’t you let it drop now? Don’t put a rainbow bumper sticker on your car and don’t attend the Episcopal Church. Easy, done. Move on, spend your time worshipping and volunteering with the Anglican Church if that’s your think. However, your obsession with Schori makes me think this really is lasting bitterness over the buildings. I’m not that familiar with her or when she was in charge, but arguably all those lawsuits were just defending the church against the theft of its property and buildings, and the courts apparently agreed. So enough, move along, for your own sake if not ours.

If you don't know who Schori is, or when she was in charge, or what the problematic issues were that caused her to be fired, then why are you here arguing at all? You don't have a leg to stand on.

pp has a point. It's easy enough to find out about schori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Jefferts_Schori and to defend her based on factual information.

Tactic: can’t answer the question at 7:52 about taking Paul literally, or some other uncomfortable question? Want to keep the thread alive indefinitely so you can keep spewing vitriol about the Episcopal Church? Dredge up a post from a day or two ago and bully that poster. That’s the 2nd or 3rd time I’ve noticed you doing that on this thread alone.

I believe some on here are conflating posters. I am the PP who has been questioned about shellfish, etc., in Leviticus and taking Paul literally. I am not nor have I ever been Episcopalian, and I haven't heaped vitriol on any Episcopalians. I also haven't called anyone stupid, but I did say the question about taking Paul literally was stupid, because I believe it was.

I'm still confounded by the question about taking Paul literally, and I've reached the conclusion that the poster who asked that question doesn't mean "literally" but "seriously." Paul's writings are extremely straightforward. There's no way to give them a metaphorical reading. If there is now some rule that a writer must state at the beginning of his writings, "Please take me literally," then there is no way for us to communicate anymore. So I must believe the question to really be, "Why do I have to pay attention to Paul? Can't I pick and choose what I believe and what I don't, just like some people are doing with the Episcopal Church?" The answer goes back to something I said a few pages ago: This is the essence of unbelief. The letters of Paul are Scripture. They are confirmed as Scripture in Peter's letters. Paul states on occasions too numerous to cite here that He is speaking the express will of the LORD, that he is Christ's mouthpiece. Indeed, the entire book of 2 Corinithians is a defense of his apostolic authority, that what he writes is binding on the church. His writings are part of Scripture, and a Bible-believing Christian accepts that they are part of the entire counsel of God, that they are part of the Word, as it says in John 1:1, who is Christ, who is God. So a Bible-believing Christian takes them both literally AND seriously. No, Paul did not claim to be divine, and I've never heard an orthodox Christian make that claim. Neither did any of the other writers of Scripture. But you either believe that all of Scripture is the word of God or you don't, and that is really the dividing line of belief in a Christian sense.

Regarding shellfish, etc. It seems that posters who fall back on that can't and won't be bothered to read the New Testament Scriptures that address that. God in the Old Testament prefaces His laws with a statement that if you follow His commandments, you will have life. Were there good refrigeration systems back then? Maybe it wasn't a good idea to eat shellfish because it wasn't healthy (i.e, wasn't "clean."). The laws about not being clean if you had a disease were the first quarantine. They kept the population as a whole healthy. (Incidentally, there's a good bit of science for those of you who think the Bible is anti-science). Surely, if you're sophisticated enough to log on to a computer, you should be able to tell a difference between moral laws such as the 10 Commandments and more ceremonial, practical ones. These were given to, yes, the Jews, because it was through the Jews that God revealed Himself to mankind. They were laws to set them apart from everyone else, because it was through them that the Messiah was brought into the world. They were a set-apart people whom God wanted to maintain a distinction with so that He would be fully known by everyone. But what Christ made clear in the Gospels was that the Pharisees, the Jewish religious authorities, had made a strict following of these laws the supreme test of whether someone was righteous before God, without any understanding that a relationship with the LORD is a matter of the heart, of love for God and for others. They had become sanctimonious and self-righteous out of an asceticism that had nothing to do with love for anyone. The Pharisees at one point told Christ that His disciples were sinful because they hadn't washed their hands before dinner. Here was Christ's response:

"Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

Notice the things He does mention. These are all reaffirmed as sin by both Christ and the writers of the New Testament letters. Everyone there knew what he meant by "fornications," and it covered all sexual sin (homosexuality included), which had already been clearly defined.

In Acts, Christ told Peter that all things were acceptable to eat. Christ was the originator of a new covenant, whereby we are made righteous by faith in Him as God and by His death and resurrection. But he did not entirely rewrite the laws of what sin is. Lying is still lying. Theft is still theft. Adultery is still adultery. Murder is still murder. These things separate man from God and man from man. If you want to get hung up on shellfish and mixd fabrics, you're willfully missing the point, because you want to be free to do these other things in some form or another.

So there's your answer. If you don't like it, that's fine, and you can take it up with Christ at the judgment. But your claims that those who see this distinction and understand Scripture are hypocrites is entirely hollow. And you can't defend your position by appealing to Scripture, because the totality of Scripture addresses it all. It makes you the one who's picking and choosing.

I’m not the pp whose Q you called stupid but I want to suggest maybe that pp meant Paul’s writings not be taken out of their historical and social context to be applied to the church of 2018. His writings can be important and inspired by God without being applied in the same way they were in his historical context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

[b]Because 1-2 of the frequent posters here were part of the schism a few years ago when some left the Episcopal Church over women’s ordination and gay marriage—they now refer to themselves as Anglicans. As evidenced by recent vitriolic posts on other threads, they’re still hopping mad that the Episcopal Church wouldn’t let them keep the church buildings after they left.

I don't think so. It would be impossible to have a discussion about current affairs in the Catholic Church without a discussion about the Pope's tweets and messages. Similarly, Schori was head of the Episcopal Church here in the USA and left it bankrupt and in shambles because she initiated all the lawsuits. One can't really have a discussion about problems within an institution without talking about its heads and their positions

The Episcopal Church itself and Schori are totally separable, and you’re not making sense. You can have a low opinion of Schori’s financial management skills and still think the Episcopal Church itself has much to offer.

So to return to pp’s question, why do you show up on every thread to trash the church itself? You’ve made it abundantly clear, on this thread and every related thread, that you don’t like gays and women ministers. So why can’t you let it drop now? Don’t put a rainbow bumper sticker on your car and don’t attend the Episcopal Church. Easy, done. Move on, spend your time worshipping and volunteering with the Anglican Church if that’s your think. However, your obsession with Schori makes me think this really is lasting bitterness over the buildings. I’m not that familiar with her or when she was in charge, but arguably all those lawsuits were just defending the church against the theft of its property and buildings, and the courts apparently agreed. So enough, move along, for your own sake if not ours.

If you don't know who Schori is, or when she was in charge, or what the problematic issues were that caused her to be fired, then why are you here arguing at all? You don't have a leg to stand on.

pp has a point. It's easy enough to find out about schori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Jefferts_Schori and to defend her based on factual information.

Tactic: can’t answer the question at 7:52 about taking Paul literally, or some other uncomfortable question? Want to keep the thread alive indefinitely so you can keep spewing vitriol about the Episcopal Church? Dredge up a post from a day or two ago and bully that poster. That’s the 2nd or 3rd time I’ve noticed you doing that on this thread alone.

I believe some on here are conflating posters. I am the PP who has been questioned about shellfish, etc., in Leviticus and taking Paul literally. I am not nor have I ever been Episcopalian, and I haven't heaped vitriol on any Episcopalians. I also haven't called anyone stupid, but I did say the question about taking Paul literally was stupid, because I believe it was.

I'm still confounded by the question about taking Paul literally, and I've reached the conclusion that the poster who asked that question doesn't mean "literally" but "seriously." Paul's writings are extremely straightforward. There's no way to give them a metaphorical reading. If there is now some rule that a writer must state at the beginning of his writings, "Please take me literally," then there is no way for us to communicate anymore. So I must believe the question to really be, "Why do I have to pay attention to Paul? Can't I pick and choose what I believe and what I don't, just like some people are doing with the Episcopal Church?" The answer goes back to something I said a few pages ago: This is the essence of unbelief. The letters of Paul are Scripture. They are confirmed as Scripture in Peter's letters. Paul states on occasions too numerous to cite here that He is speaking the express will of the LORD, that he is Christ's mouthpiece. Indeed, the entire book of 2 Corinithians is a defense of his apostolic authority, that what he writes is binding on the church. His writings are part of Scripture, and a Bible-believing Christian accepts that they are part of the entire counsel of God, that they are part of the Word, as it says in John 1:1, who is Christ, who is God. So a Bible-believing Christian takes them both literally AND seriously. No, Paul did not claim to be divine, and I've never heard an orthodox Christian make that claim. Neither did any of the other writers of Scripture. But you either believe that all of Scripture is the word of God or you don't, and that is really the dividing line of belief in a Christian sense.

Regarding shellfish, etc. It seems that posters who fall back on that can't and won't be bothered to read the New Testament Scriptures that address that. God in the Old Testament prefaces His laws with a statement that if you follow His commandments, you will have life. Were there good refrigeration systems back then? Maybe it wasn't a good idea to eat shellfish because it wasn't healthy (i.e, wasn't "clean."). The laws about not being clean if you had a disease were the first quarantine. They kept the population as a whole healthy. (Incidentally, there's a good bit of science for those of you who think the Bible is anti-science). Surely, if you're sophisticated enough to log on to a computer, you should be able to tell a difference between moral laws such as the 10 Commandments and more ceremonial, practical ones. These were given to, yes, the Jews, because it was through the Jews that God revealed Himself to mankind. They were laws to set them apart from everyone else, because it was through them that the Messiah was brought into the world. They were a set-apart people whom God wanted to maintain a distinction with so that He would be fully known by everyone. But what Christ made clear in the Gospels was that the Pharisees, the Jewish religious authorities, had made a strict following of these laws the supreme test of whether someone was righteous before God, without any understanding that a relationship with the LORD is a matter of the heart, of love for God and for others. They had become sanctimonious and self-righteous out of an asceticism that had nothing to do with love for anyone. The Pharisees at one point told Christ that His disciples were sinful because they hadn't washed their hands before dinner. Here was Christ's response:

"Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

Notice the things He does mention. These are all reaffirmed as sin by both Christ and the writers of the New Testament letters. Everyone there knew what he meant by "fornications," and it covered all sexual sin (homosexuality included), which had already been clearly defined.

In Acts, Christ told Peter that all things were acceptable to eat. Christ was the originator of a new covenant, whereby we are made righteous by faith in Him as God and by His death and resurrection. But he did not entirely rewrite the laws of what sin is. Lying is still lying. Theft is still theft. Adultery is still adultery. Murder is still murder. These things separate man from God and man from man. If you want to get hung up on shellfish and mixd fabrics, you're willfully missing the point, because you want to be free to do these other things in some form or another.

So there's your answer. If you don't like it, that's fine, and you can take it up with Christ at the judgment. But your claims that those who see this distinction and understand Scripture are hypocrites is entirely hollow. And you can't defend your position by appealing to Scripture, because the totality of Scripture addresses it all. It makes you the one who's picking and choosing.

I’m not the pp whose Q you called stupid but I want to suggest maybe that pp meant Paul’s writings not be taken out of their historical and social context to be applied to the church of 2018. His writings can be important and inspired by God without being applied in the same way they were in his historical context.

Yes, I retract my "stupid" comment. As I've tried to understand this question, I came to realize this is probably what was meant by the questioner, though I don't think it holds up as an explanation of Paul's letters. I was thrown off the by the world "literally," which as I understand it means we are to take a more metaphorical approach to a statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I believe some on here are conflating posters. I am the PP who has been questioned about shellfish, etc., in Leviticus and taking Paul literally. I am not nor have I ever been Episcopalian, and I haven't heaped vitriol on any Episcopalians. I also haven't called anyone stupid, but I did say the question about taking Paul literally was stupid, because I believe it was.

I'm still confounded by the question about taking Paul literally, and I've reached the conclusion that the poster who asked that question doesn't mean "literally" but "seriously." Paul's writings are extremely straightforward. There's no way to give them a metaphorical reading. If there is now some rule that a writer must state at the beginning of his writings, "Please take me literally," then there is no way for us to communicate anymore. So I must believe the question to really be, "Why do I have to pay attention to Paul? Can't I pick and choose what I believe and what I don't, just like some people are doing with the Episcopal Church?" The answer goes back to something I said a few pages ago: This is the essence of unbelief. The letters of Paul are Scripture. They are confirmed as Scripture in Peter's letters. Paul states on occasions too numerous to cite here that He is speaking the express will of the LORD, that he is Christ's mouthpiece. Indeed, the entire book of 2 Corinithians is a defense of his apostolic authority, that what he writes is binding on the church. His writings are part of Scripture, and a Bible-believing Christian accepts that they are part of the entire counsel of God, that they are part of the Word, as it says in John 1:1, who is Christ, who is God. So a Bible-believing Christian takes them both literally AND seriously. No, Paul did not claim to be divine, and I've never heard an orthodox Christian make that claim. Neither did any of the other writers of Scripture. But you either believe that all of Scripture is the word of God or you don't, and that is really the dividing line of belief in a Christian sense.

Regarding shellfish, etc. It seems that posters who fall back on that can't and won't be bothered to read the New Testament Scriptures that address that. God in the Old Testament prefaces His laws with a statement that if you follow His commandments, you will have life. Were there good refrigeration systems back then? Maybe it wasn't a good idea to eat shellfish because it wasn't healthy (i.e, wasn't "clean."). The laws about not being clean if you had a disease were the first quarantine. They kept the population as a whole healthy. (Incidentally, there's a good bit of science for those of you who think the Bible is anti-science). Surely, if you're sophisticated enough to log on to a computer, you should be able to tell a difference between moral laws such as the 10 Commandments and more ceremonial, practical ones. These were given to, yes, the Jews, because it was through the Jews that God revealed Himself to mankind. They were laws to set them apart from everyone else, because it was through them that the Messiah was brought into the world. They were a set-apart people whom God wanted to maintain a distinction with so that He would be fully known by everyone. But what Christ made clear in the Gospels was that the Pharisees, the Jewish religious authorities, had made a strict following of these laws the supreme test of whether someone was righteous before God, without any understanding that a relationship with the LORD is a matter of the heart, of love for God and for others. They had become sanctimonious and self-righteous out of an asceticism that had nothing to do with love for anyone. The Pharisees at one point told Christ that His disciples were sinful because they hadn't washed their hands before dinner. Here was Christ's response:

"Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

Notice the things He does mention. These are all reaffirmed as sin by both Christ and the writers of the New Testament letters. Everyone there knew what he meant by "fornications," and it covered all sexual sin (homosexuality included), which had already been clearly defined.

In Acts, Christ told Peter that all things were acceptable to eat. Christ was the originator of a new covenant, whereby we are made righteous by faith in Him as God and by His death and resurrection. But he did not entirely rewrite the laws of what sin is. Lying is still lying. Theft is still theft. Adultery is still adultery. Murder is still murder. These things separate man from God and man from man. If you want to get hung up on shellfish and mixd fabrics, you're willfully missing the point, because you want to be free to do these other things in some form or another.

So there's your answer. If you don't like it, that's fine, and you can take it up with Christ at the judgment. But your claims that those who see this distinction and understand Scripture are hypocrites is entirely hollow. And you can't defend your position by appealing to Scripture, because the totality of Scripture addresses it all. It makes you the one who's picking and choosing.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

The argument that Paul was “straightforward” and that his letters were included in the Bible by the early church aren’t enough reason for many Christians to take him literally in addition to seriously. Plenty of writers are straightforward, starting with our current and past presidents, but that doesn’t mean we agree with everthing a straightforward writer says. This throws us back on your argument that his writings were included in the New Testament by the early church and therefore should be accorded special status, but many disagree with this argument, too. As PP says, many argue that Paul was speaking specifically to the first century developing church.

The gospels—witness writings of Jesus’ sayings—have a much higher status to many Christians.

Regarding shellfish, the original question posed to you concerned other parts of Leviticus, for example, not mixing different types of cloth in your outfit, or trimming your beard. You can google “lists of Leviticus rules.” The passages about “it’s not what goes in your mouth but what comes out of your mouth” are indeed beautiful and revolutionary, and I presume most Christians here are already familiar with them. The problem for a literalist Christian, however, is that Jesus’ abolition of dietary rules didn’t address these other rules.

You accuse other Christians of “picking and choosing,” but if you condemn sodomy based on the OT, yet your DH trims his beard or you wear polyester with cotton on the same day, then you’re doing the same “picking and choosing.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Generally speaking, in the US at this time, of a person refers to themselves as members of the Anglican Church, they’re speaking about a group of churches that broke from The Episcopal church (USA). the Anglican Church in the US doesn’t ordain either gay priests or women.

Now, the semantics get strange because TEC and the Anglican churches in the US are both in the Worldwide Anglican Communion, just part of a different segment than the Anglican churches in the US (they’re either under Latin or some other bishops, not the Presiding Bishop of the US because they aren’t part of TEC anymore. At their choice.)

As an Episcopalian, I am also an Anglican who follows Anglican theology and worship style. I say I’m an Episcopalian and it wouldn’t occur to me to use Anglican. If an American person says they’re Anglican, goes to the trouble of making that distinction, then they are memebers of the church that broke from TEC due to issues regarding ordination of women, gay people or of fully allowing gay people to be members of the church by offering them the sacrament of marriage.

Some people will say that TEC got kicked out of the Worldwide Anglican Comminion. This is fake news.

Incorrecct. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/01/14/anglican-communion-suspends-the-episcopal-church-for-3-years-from-committees/?utm_term=.52de4bc087bb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I believe some on here are conflating posters. I am the PP who has been questioned about shellfish, etc., in Leviticus and taking Paul literally. I am not nor have I ever been Episcopalian, and I haven't heaped vitriol on any Episcopalians. I also haven't called anyone stupid, but I did say the question about taking Paul literally was stupid, because I believe it was.

I'm still confounded by the question about taking Paul literally, and I've reached the conclusion that the poster who asked that question doesn't mean "literally" but "seriously." Paul's writings are extremely straightforward. There's no way to give them a metaphorical reading. If there is now some rule that a writer must state at the beginning of his writings, "Please take me literally," then there is no way for us to communicate anymore. So I must believe the question to really be, "Why do I have to pay attention to Paul? Can't I pick and choose what I believe and what I don't, just like some people are doing with the Episcopal Church?" The answer goes back to something I said a few pages ago: This is the essence of unbelief. The letters of Paul are Scripture. They are confirmed as Scripture in Peter's letters. Paul states on occasions too numerous to cite here that He is speaking the express will of the LORD, that he is Christ's mouthpiece. Indeed, the entire book of 2 Corinithians is a defense of his apostolic authority, that what he writes is binding on the church. His writings are part of Scripture, and a Bible-believing Christian accepts that they are part of the entire counsel of God, that they are part of the Word, as it says in John 1:1, who is Christ, who is God. So a Bible-believing Christian takes them both literally AND seriously. No, Paul did not claim to be divine, and I've never heard an orthodox Christian make that claim. Neither did any of the other writers of Scripture. But you either believe that all of Scripture is the word of God or you don't, and that is really the dividing line of belief in a Christian sense.

Regarding shellfish, etc. It seems that posters who fall back on that can't and won't be bothered to read the New Testament Scriptures that address that. God in the Old Testament prefaces His laws with a statement that if you follow His commandments, you will have life. Were there good refrigeration systems back then? Maybe it wasn't a good idea to eat shellfish because it wasn't healthy (i.e, wasn't "clean."). The laws about not being clean if you had a disease were the first quarantine. They kept the population as a whole healthy. (Incidentally, there's a good bit of science for those of you who think the Bible is anti-science). Surely, if you're sophisticated enough to log on to a computer, you should be able to tell a difference between moral laws such as the 10 Commandments and more ceremonial, practical ones. These were given to, yes, the Jews, because it was through the Jews that God revealed Himself to mankind. They were laws to set them apart from everyone else, because it was through them that the Messiah was brought into the world. They were a set-apart people whom God wanted to maintain a distinction with so that He would be fully known by everyone. But what Christ made clear in the Gospels was that the Pharisees, the Jewish religious authorities, had made a strict following of these laws the supreme test of whether someone was righteous before God, without any understanding that a relationship with the LORD is a matter of the heart, of love for God and for others. They had become sanctimonious and self-righteous out of an asceticism that had nothing to do with love for anyone. The Pharisees at one point told Christ that His disciples were sinful because they hadn't washed their hands before dinner. Here was Christ's response:

"Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

Notice the things He does mention. These are all reaffirmed as sin by both Christ and the writers of the New Testament letters. Everyone there knew what he meant by "fornications," and it covered all sexual sin (homosexuality included), which had already been clearly defined.

In Acts, Christ told Peter that all things were acceptable to eat. Christ was the originator of a new covenant, whereby we are made righteous by faith in Him as God and by His death and resurrection. But he did not entirely rewrite the laws of what sin is. Lying is still lying. Theft is still theft. Adultery is still adultery. Murder is still murder. These things separate man from God and man from man. If you want to get hung up on shellfish and mixd fabrics, you're willfully missing the point, because you want to be free to do these other things in some form or another.

So there's your answer. If you don't like it, that's fine, and you can take it up with Christ at the judgment. But your claims that those who see this distinction and understand Scripture are hypocrites is entirely hollow. And you can't defend your position by appealing to Scripture, because the totality of Scripture addresses it all. It makes you the one who's picking and choosing.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

The argument that Paul was “straightforward” and that his letters were included in the Bible by the early church aren’t enough reason for many Christians to take him literally in addition to seriously. Plenty of writers are straightforward, starting with our current and past presidents, but that doesn’t mean we agree with everthing a straightforward writer says. This throws us back on your argument that his writings were included in the New Testament by the early church and therefore should be accorded special status, but many disagree with this argument, too. As PP says, many argue that Paul was speaking specifically to the first century developing church.

The gospels—witness writings of Jesus’ sayings—have a much higher status to many Christians.

Regarding shellfish, the original question posed to you concerned other parts of Leviticus, for example, not mixing different types of cloth in your outfit, or trimming your beard. You can google “lists of Leviticus rules.” The passages about “it’s not what goes in your mouth but what comes out of your mouth” are indeed beautiful and revolutionary, and I presume most Christians here are already familiar with them. The problem for a literalist Christian, however, is that Jesus’ abolition of dietary rules didn’t address these other rules.

You accuse other Christians of “picking and choosing,” but if you condemn sodomy based on the OT, yet your DH trims his beard or you wear polyester with cotton on the same day, then you’re doing the same “picking and choosing.”

That's just the thing... sodomy is condemned in the New Testament. It's just that you see that, don't like it, and then claim that the books written by Paul aren't binding Christian doctrine. No better example of picking and choosing could be had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Generally speaking, in the US at this time, of a person refers to themselves as members of the Anglican Church, they’re speaking about a group of churches that broke from The Episcopal church (USA). the Anglican Church in the US doesn’t ordain either gay priests or women.

Now, the semantics get strange because TEC and the Anglican churches in the US are both in the Worldwide Anglican Communion, just part of a different segment than the Anglican churches in the US (they’re either under Latin or some other bishops, not the Presiding Bishop of the US because they aren’t part of TEC anymore. At their choice.)

As an Episcopalian, I am also an Anglican who follows Anglican theology and worship style. I say I’m an Episcopalian and it wouldn’t occur to me to use Anglican. If an American person says they’re Anglican, goes to the trouble of making that distinction, then they are memebers of the church that broke from TEC due to issues regarding ordination of women, gay people or of fully allowing gay people to be members of the church by offering them the sacrament of marriage.

Some people will say that TEC got kicked out of the Worldwide Anglican Comminion. This is fake news.

Incorrecct. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/01/14/anglican-communion-suspends-the-episcopal-church-for-3-years-from-committees/?utm_term=.52de4bc087bb

Did you even read the article you posted?

[Anonymous]

As an Episcopalian it's nice to see we can still make an impact on the news cycle. Happy Shrove Tuesday!

https://cathedral.org/event/shrove-tuesday-races-2018-02-13/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

The argument that Paul was “straightforward” and that his letters were included in the Bible by the early church aren’t enough reason for many Christians to take him literally in addition to seriously. Plenty of writers are straightforward, starting with our current and past presidents, but that doesn’t mean we agree with everthing a straightforward writer says. This throws us back on your argument that his writings were included in the New Testament by the early church and therefore should be accorded special status, but many disagree with this argument, too. As PP says, many argue that Paul was speaking specifically to the first century developing church.

The gospels—witness writings of Jesus’ sayings—have a much higher status to many Christians.

Regarding shellfish, the original question posed to you concerned other parts of Leviticus, for example, not mixing different types of cloth in your outfit, or trimming your beard. You can google “lists of Leviticus rules.” The passages about “it’s not what goes in your mouth but what comes out of your mouth” are indeed beautiful and revolutionary, and I presume most Christians here are already familiar with them. The problem for a literalist Christian, however, is that Jesus’ abolition of dietary rules didn’t address these other rules.

You accuse other Christians of “picking and choosing,” but if you condemn sodomy based on the OT, yet your DH trims his beard or you wear polyester with cotton on the same day, then you’re doing the same “picking and choosing.”

That's just the thing... sodomy is condemned in the New Testament. It's just that you see that, don't like it, and then claim that the books written by Paul aren't binding Christian doctrine. No better example of picking and choosing could be had.

It looks like you don’t plan to answer the question about beards and mixing fabrics? At least the people who take Paul “seriously but not literally” have mustered various arguments about why (Paul is talking in a specific historical context; his letters are pastoral; he’s not divine). Your picking and choosing among Old Testament rules (no sodomy but groom yourself as you like) seems like more brazen picking and choosing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

The argument that Paul was “straightforward” and that his letters were included in the Bible by the early church aren’t enough reason for many Christians to take him literally in addition to seriously. Plenty of writers are straightforward, starting with our current and past presidents, but that doesn’t mean we agree with everthing a straightforward writer says. This throws us back on your argument that his writings were included in the New Testament by the early church and therefore should be accorded special status, but many disagree with this argument, too. As PP says, many argue that Paul was speaking specifically to the first century developing church.

The gospels—witness writings of Jesus’ sayings—have a much higher status to many Christians.

Regarding shellfish, the original question posed to you concerned other parts of Leviticus, for example, not mixing different types of cloth in your outfit, or trimming your beard. You can google “lists of Leviticus rules.” The passages about “it’s not what goes in your mouth but what comes out of your mouth” are indeed beautiful and revolutionary, and I presume most Christians here are already familiar with them. The problem for a literalist Christian, however, is that Jesus’ abolition of dietary rules didn’t address these other rules.

You accuse other Christians of “picking and choosing,” but if you condemn sodomy based on the OT, yet your DH trims his beard or you wear polyester with cotton on the same day, then you’re doing the same “picking and choosing.”

That's just the thing... sodomy is condemned in the New Testament. It's just that you see that, don't like it, and then claim that the books written by Paul aren't binding Christian doctrine. No better example of picking and choosing could be had.

It looks like you don’t plan to answer the question about beards and mixing fabrics? At least the people who take Paul “seriously but not literally” have mustered various arguments about why (Paul is talking in a specific historical context; his letters are pastoral; he’s not divine). Your picking and choosing among Old Testament rules (no sodomy but groom yourself as you like) seems like more brazen picking and choosing.

I actually gave a rather long answer addressing this. Picking the topic of shellfish was an example. When I originally responded to this line of argument, I mentioned that this is all addressed in various books of the New Testament, among them Acts, Romans, Galatians and especially Hebrews. I am certain you have not actually read the Bible, nor taken the attempt to understand in these books how the new covenant of Christ replaced the old covenant of the law, and how it was always intended by God to be that way. Christ more than once corrected the Pharisees' unscriptural misunderstanding of the law, in more contexts than just shellfish. You are being deliberately obtuse and not bothering to engage with the larger points of Jewish law and the covenant of New Testament grace based on faith, nor on how the Bible explicitly says that much of the Old Testament law is not binding on Gentiles. And then, where the New Testament does touch on things that are considered eternally sinful by the LORD, you say those writings don't count. Your entire line of reasoning boils down to, "Well what about THIS, huh? huh?" You don't believe. That's your prerogative. I'm sure I won't convince you. I write these responses so that anyone reading this who does wish to understand the topic can have something to put some attention toward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

The argument that Paul was “straightforward” and that his letters were included in the Bible by the early church aren’t enough reason for many Christians to take him literally in addition to seriously. Plenty of writers are straightforward, starting with our current and past presidents, but that doesn’t mean we agree with everthing a straightforward writer says. This throws us back on your argument that his writings were included in the New Testament by the early church and therefore should be accorded special status, but many disagree with this argument, too. As PP says, many argue that Paul was speaking specifically to the first century developing church.

The gospels—witness writings of Jesus’ sayings—have a much higher status to many Christians.

Regarding shellfish, the original question posed to you concerned other parts of Leviticus, for example, not mixing different types of cloth in your outfit, or trimming your beard. You can google “lists of Leviticus rules.” The passages about “it’s not what goes in your mouth but what comes out of your mouth” are indeed beautiful and revolutionary, and I presume most Christians here are already familiar with them. The problem for a literalist Christian, however, is that Jesus’ abolition of dietary rules didn’t address these other rules.

You accuse other Christians of “picking and choosing,” but if you condemn sodomy based on the OT, yet your DH trims his beard or you wear polyester with cotton on the same day, then you’re doing the same “picking and choosing.”

That's just the thing... sodomy is condemned in the New Testament. It's just that you see that, don't like it, and then claim that the books written by Paul aren't binding Christian doctrine. No better example of picking and choosing could be had.

It looks like you don’t plan to answer the question about beards and mixing fabrics? At least the people who take Paul “seriously but not literally” have mustered various arguments about why (Paul is talking in a specific historical context; his letters are pastoral; he’s not divine). Your picking and choosing among Old Testament rules (no sodomy but groom yourself as you like) seems like more brazen picking and choosing.

I actually gave a rather long answer addressing this. Picking the topic of shellfish was an example. When I originally responded to this line of argument, I mentioned that this is all addressed in various books of the New Testament, among them Acts, Romans, Galatians and especially Hebrews. I am certain you have not actually read the Bible, nor taken the attempt to understand in these books how the new covenant of Christ replaced the old covenant of the law, and how it was always intended by God to be that way. Christ more than once corrected the Pharisees' unscriptural misunderstanding of the law, in more contexts than just shellfish. You are being deliberately obtuse and not bothering to engage with the larger points of Jewish law and the covenant of New Testament grace based on faith, nor on how the Bible explicitly says that much of the Old Testament law is not binding on Gentiles. And then, where the New Testament does touch on things that are considered eternally sinful by the LORD, you say those writings don't count. Your entire line of reasoning boils down to, "Well what about THIS, huh? huh?" You don't believe. That's your prerogative. I'm sure I won't convince you. I write these responses so that anyone reading this who does wish to understand the topic can have something to put some attention toward.

I have read the Bible, and I don’t know where you get off saying you’re “pretty sure” I haven’t. Also, I read your piece and found you unconvincing. It’s not that I don’t “want” to see the purported wisdom of your arguments, it’s just that I not only disagree, but I find some of your arguments illogical and/or hypocritical.

The least of your hypocrisy is your snarky, unChristian voice in your posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

The argument that Paul was “straightforward” and that his letters were included in the Bible by the early church aren’t enough reason for many Christians to take him literally in addition to seriously. Plenty of writers are straightforward, starting with our current and past presidents, but that doesn’t mean we agree with everthing a straightforward writer says. This throws us back on your argument that his writings were included in the New Testament by the early church and therefore should be accorded special status, but many disagree with this argument, too. As PP says, many argue that Paul was speaking specifically to the first century developing church.

The gospels—witness writings of Jesus’ sayings—have a much higher status to many Christians.

Regarding shellfish, the original question posed to you concerned other parts of Leviticus, for example, not mixing different types of cloth in your outfit, or trimming your beard. You can google “lists of Leviticus rules.” The passages about “it’s not what goes in your mouth but what comes out of your mouth” are indeed beautiful and revolutionary, and I presume most Christians here are already familiar with them. The problem for a literalist Christian, however, is that Jesus’ abolition of dietary rules didn’t address these other rules.

You accuse other Christians of “picking and choosing,” but if you condemn sodomy based on the OT, yet your DH trims his beard or you wear polyester with cotton on the same day, then you’re doing the same “picking and choosing.”

That's just the thing... sodomy is condemned in the New Testament. It's just that you see that, don't like it, and then claim that the books written by Paul aren't binding Christian doctrine. No better example of picking and choosing could be had.

It looks like you don’t plan to answer the question about beards and mixing fabrics? At least the people who take Paul “seriously but not literally” have mustered various arguments about why (Paul is talking in a specific historical context; his letters are pastoral; he’s not divine). Your picking and choosing among Old Testament rules (no sodomy but groom yourself as you like) seems like more brazen picking and choosing.

I actually gave a rather long answer addressing this. Picking the topic of shellfish was an example. When I originally responded to this line of argument, I mentioned that this is all addressed in various books of the New Testament, among them Acts, Romans, Galatians and especially Hebrews. I am certain you have not actually read the Bible, nor taken the attempt to understand in these books how the new covenant of Christ replaced the old covenant of the law, and how it was always intended by God to be that way. Christ more than once corrected the Pharisees' unscriptural misunderstanding of the law, in more contexts than just shellfish. You are being deliberately obtuse and not bothering to engage with the larger points of Jewish law and the covenant of New Testament grace based on faith, nor on how the Bible explicitly says that much of the Old Testament law is not binding on Gentiles. And then, where the New Testament does touch on things that are considered eternally sinful by the LORD, you say those writings don't count. Your entire line of reasoning boils down to, "Well what about THIS, huh? huh?" You don't believe. That's your prerogative. I'm sure I won't convince you. I write these responses so that anyone reading this who does wish to understand the topic can have something to put some attention toward.

I have read the Bible, and I don’t know where you get off saying you’re “pretty sure” I haven’t. Also, I read your piece and found you unconvincing. It’s not that I don’t “want” to see the purported wisdom of your arguments, it’s just that I not only disagree, but I find some of your arguments illogical and/or hypocritical.

The least of your hypocrisy is your snarky, unChristian voice in your posts.

DP here, what about the new covenant argument?

During the Eucharist for Epsicopalians, there's always mention of the new covenent. https://www.bcponline.org/HE/he2.html