Episcopal diocese of Washington to drop male pronouns for God

[Anonymous]

BBC1

It does not matter what you or I think about Jesus, it is what Jesus said himself: "If you love me, you will obey the commandments."

Accepting homosexuality and other fornications is not obeying, it is disobeying, the commandments by practiciing or condoning sin.

This is why so many churches are failing, why so many want nothing to do with church, because there is no salt in it, just blah "let's all get along and not rock the boat" philosophy. Jesus on many occasions pointed out sin and told people to repent. In liberal churches, you do not see any call to repentance, all you hear is "just be a good person, be nice to everybody, and it will all work itself out in the end because Jesus is down with it, bro."

Calling out the sin of homosexuality is not hateful, it is being true to God's word: reprove the works of darkness. There can be no compromise. The early church kicked out the false teachers, the compromisers, the "get along with the world at all costs" lukewarm, gutless Christians afraid to take a strong stance.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/intolerance.html
The Christian is most often claimed to be "intolerant" when he refuses to accept and speaks out against "alternative lifestyles," such as cohabitation or homosexual behavior. Again, this is an improper use of the word "intolerant." Tolerance does not require acceptance of all ideas as being true, but merely a willingness to hear alternative beliefs. Those who say that Christians should not express their beliefs are actually the ones who are being intolerant, since they are unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression to Christian beliefs.

From Billy Graham:

"Jesus plainly pointed out that there are two roads in life. One is broad, lacking in faith, convictions and morals. It is the easy, popular, careless way. Jesus said, “There are many who go in by it.” But He pointed out that this road, heavily traveled though it is, leads to destruction. And in loving, compassionate intolerance, He says: “Enter by the narrow gate … because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life.”

https://billygraham.org/story/the-sin-of-tolerance/

Jesus’ disciples followed His example of intolerance. The early church did not tolerate the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, they were struck dead (Acts 5:1-11)
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/JesusIntolerantConfrontationalAndExclusionary.htm

There is an abundant history of Christians refusing to accept sins like homosexuality in the church. Again, to ;point out sin and refuse to condone, accept, tolerate, or participate in that sin is not being hateful ( it is hateful to the ungodly who walk in darkness and fear the light of truth), it is standing true to God's word: have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.

What are the fruits of homosexuality? AIDS, gonorrhea in the butthole, molesting of children (Ernst Rohm, Harvey Milk); a propensity to suicide, drug addiction, and alcoholism (and no, this is not caused by society being intolerant, it is the homosexual knowing in his heart he is doing wrong, trying to drown out his conscience with substances). It causes schism in the home when families, who wanted their children to marry and become parents themselves (gay marriage is not marriage, does not count) discover their child has fallen into an undesirable state.

Certainly the church should welcome homosexuals into the church, so that they will learn of their sins and repent, be washed and born again. But to tell the homosexual they can keep on sinning, that God loves everybody (he does) and there is nothing to repent of, you are being dishonest and disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

So you were highly invested in adhering to what you believe is the absolute word of God on sins such as homosexuality. Are you equally invested in calling out other sins, such as adultery or greed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you were highly invested in adhering to what you believe is the absolute word of God on sins such as homosexuality. Are you equally invested in calling out other sins, such as adultery or greed?

Not the PP you were responding to, but the basic answer to your question is that conservative, traditional Christianity is not beset by people trying to make adultery and greed acceptable within Christian doctrine, unlike the movement to normalize homosexuality within the church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you were highly invested in adhering to what you believe is the absolute word of God on sins such as homosexuality. Are you equally invested in calling out other sins, such as adultery or greed?

BBC1

Absolutely I am invested in calling out adultery and greed as sins, and I do not condone them but urge one to repent. And before you go there, I will preempt an anti-Trump screed.

There is no question Trump is an adulterer, and probably greedy. Hillary Clinton (HRC) is greedy as well, per Colin Powell who had to work with her. Whether HRC is an adulterer is unknown.

That being said, voting for a political candidate who represents a political party is not condoning or accepting that person's sin. No Christian expects a politician to be anything other than a person-pleaser to get votes.

As a Christian, when voting in the last election, the choice was to 1) not vote 2) vote democrat 3) vote republican 4) vote independent

Those are the only choices you get. Since only the D or the R have a chance to win, voting Independent is pointless. Not voting is allowing a vote for the other party because you stayed home.

What do the democrats stand for? Abortion. Homosexuality. Legalizing marijuana. Marginalizing and discriminating against white males to give non-whites and women dominance and preeminence in
the culture. Democrats have a dripping sneer every time they say "white male". As a white male, this is hateful to me. This is elements of my own country turning against me simply because of the color of my skin and assuming my family is guilty of slavery --they are not, we were too poor to own slaves. We were farmers like 70% of the other families in America at the time.

So who do I vote for? The man-hating feminists, white-hating black caucus, sexually immoral democratic party? Or do I vote for the republican party that at least makes some effort to rein in abortion, homosexuality, and holding back an explosion that will turn a large portion of Americans into a bunch of stupid potheads?

With Pence on the ticket, an evangelical Christian, the choice was a no-brainer: vote for Trump even though he is an adulterer. To not vote and allow someone like HRC to become the leader, a person who would allow the wicked man-hating feminists, the ghoulish Planned Parenthood Megele-like organization, and the queers to further increase their powers in the judiciary and government is absolutley unacceptable.

Voting for Trump does not make me immoral, because although he has personal failings as a sinner, the party the R party he represents is opposed to sinful behavior like homosexuality, and other things. With Pence on the ticket, there was good prospects of pushing back against the filthy tide of immorality that washed in with Obama.

Both sides are greedy, HRC being more than Trump do to her associations with Wall Street. Few people remember her Catlle Futures exploit where inside information was never proved, but given her nature, extremely likely.

Finally, my politics is irrelevant concerning God's word, My salvation is determined by my standing with Jesus, his finished work on the cross, of being written in the Lamb's book of Life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you were highly invested in adhering to what you believe is the absolute word of God on sins such as homosexuality. Are you equally invested in calling out other sins, such as adultery or greed?

Not the PP you were responding to, but the basic answer to your question is that conservative, traditional Christianity is not beset by people trying to make adultery and greed acceptable within Christian doctrine, unlike the movement to normalize homosexuality within the church.

Well said, monsieur/madame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you were highly invested in adhering to what you believe is the absolute word of God on sins such as homosexuality. Are you equally invested in calling out other sins, such as adultery or greed?

Not the PP you were responding to, but the basic answer to your question is that conservative, traditional Christianity is not beset by people trying to make adultery and greed acceptable within Christian doctrine, unlike the movement to normalize homosexuality within the church.

Well said, monsieur/madame.

The movement to normalize greed in the culture and church has already won. It was subtle, maybe you missed it. We are all guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BBC1

It does not matter what you or I think about Jesus, it is what Jesus said himself: "If you love me, you will obey the commandments."

Accepting homosexuality and other fornications is not obeying, it is disobeying, the commandments by practiciing or condoning sin.

This is why so many churches are failing, why so many want nothing to do with church, because there is no salt in it, just blah "let's all get along and not rock the boat" philosophy. Jesus on many occasions pointed out sin and told people to repent. In liberal churches, you do not see any call to repentance, all you hear is "just be a good person, be nice to everybody, and it will all work itself out in the end because Jesus is down with it, bro."

Calling out the sin of homosexuality is not hateful, it is being true to God's word: reprove the works of darkness. There can be no compromise. The early church kicked out the false teachers, the compromisers, the "get along with the world at all costs" lukewarm, gutless Christians afraid to take a strong stance.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/intolerance.html
The Christian is most often claimed to be "intolerant" when he refuses to accept and speaks out against "alternative lifestyles," such as cohabitation or homosexual behavior. Again, this is an improper use of the word "intolerant." Tolerance does not require acceptance of all ideas as being true, but merely a willingness to hear alternative beliefs. Those who say that Christians should not express their beliefs are actually the ones who are being intolerant, since they are unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression to Christian beliefs.

From Billy Graham:

"Jesus plainly pointed out that there are two roads in life. One is broad, lacking in faith, convictions and morals. It is the easy, popular, careless way. Jesus said, “There are many who go in by it.” But He pointed out that this road, heavily traveled though it is, leads to destruction. And in loving, compassionate intolerance, He says: “Enter by the narrow gate … because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life.”

https://billygraham.org/story/the-sin-of-tolerance/

Jesus’ disciples followed His example of intolerance. The early church did not tolerate the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, they were struck dead (Acts 5:1-11)
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/JesusIntolerantConfrontationalAndExclusionary.htm

There is an abundant history of Christians refusing to accept sins like homosexuality in the church. Again, to ;point out sin and refuse to condone, accept, tolerate, or participate in that sin is not being hateful ( it is hateful to the ungodly who walk in darkness and fear the light of truth), it is standing true to God's word: have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.

What are the fruits of homosexuality? AIDS, gonorrhea in the butthole, molesting of children (Ernst Rohm, Harvey Milk); a propensity to suicide, drug addiction, and alcoholism (and no, this is not caused by society being intolerant, it is the homosexual knowing in his heart he is doing wrong, trying to drown out his conscience with substances). It causes schism in the home when families, who wanted their children to marry and become parents themselves (gay marriage is not marriage, does not count) discover their child has fallen into an undesirable state.

Certainly the church should welcome homosexuals into the church, so that they will learn of their sins and repent, be washed and born again. But to tell the homosexual they can keep on sinning, that God loves everybody (he does) and there is nothing to repent of, you are being dishonest and disingenuous.

The commandments don’t mention homosexuality, so your quote from Jesus doesn’t support your position on homosexuality. I don’t care about Billy Graham’s thoughts about taking the so-called harder road in general—I follow different Christian theologians—and in any case this particular quote doesn’t support your specific points about homosexuality.

Homosexuality has been associated with AIDS and gonorrhea, sure, but so has traditional sex. On the other hand, allowing all of God’s creations to express their love is a positive outcome of gay marriage.

I’m with the minister, who wrote that there’s none of Jesus’ openness, love and compassion in your words. All in all, your post is filled with specious reasoning that evidences your ability to ignore both Jesus and basic logic in pursuit of your prejudices, so I won’t bother following up here. I’m not LGTBQ, fwiw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you were highly invested in adhering to what you believe is the absolute word of God on sins such as homosexuality. Are you equally invested in calling out other sins, such as adultery or greed?

Not the PP you were responding to, but the basic answer to your question is that conservative, traditional Christianity is not beset by people trying to make adultery and greed acceptable within Christian doctrine, unlike the movement to normalize homosexuality within the church.

Evangelicals are more likely to divorce than other religious and non-religions groups: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/february-web-only/are-evangelicals-bad-for-marriage.html

Jesus and Paul were both very much against divorce. Or is that different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you were highly invested in adhering to what you believe is the absolute word of God on sins such as homosexuality. Are you equally invested in calling out other sins, such as adultery or greed?

Not the PP you were responding to, but the basic answer to your question is that conservative, traditional Christianity is not beset by people trying to make adultery and greed acceptable within Christian doctrine, unlike the movement to normalize homosexuality within the church.

Well said, monsieur/madame.

The movement to normalize greed in the culture and church has already won. It was subtle, maybe you missed it. We are all guilty.

I agree that the church has allowed sins such as these to creep in and take more influence. However, there is no church that I know of that AFFIRMS greed and adultery as good or even neutral things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you were highly invested in adhering to what you believe is the absolute word of God on sins such as homosexuality. Are you equally invested in calling out other sins, such as adultery or greed?

Not the PP you were responding to, but the basic answer to your question is that conservative, traditional Christianity is not beset by people trying to make adultery and greed acceptable within Christian doctrine, unlike the movement to normalize homosexuality within the church.

Evangelicals are more likely to divorce than other religious and non-religions groups: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/february-web-only/are-evangelicals-bad-for-marriage.html

Jesus and Paul were both very much against divorce. Or is that different?

Totally different. Everyone knows divorce is Hillary's fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you were highly invested in adhering to what you believe is the absolute word of God on sins such as homosexuality. Are you equally invested in calling out other sins, such as adultery or greed?

Not the PP you were responding to, but the basic answer to your question is that conservative, traditional Christianity is not beset by people trying to make adultery and greed acceptable within Christian doctrine, unlike the movement to normalize homosexuality within the church.

You have to be kidding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you were highly invested in adhering to what you believe is the absolute word of God on sins such as homosexuality. Are you equally invested in calling out other sins, such as adultery or greed?

Not the PP you were responding to, but the basic answer to your question is that conservative, traditional Christianity is not beset by people trying to make adultery and greed acceptable within Christian doctrine, unlike the movement to normalize homosexuality within the church.

Well said, monsieur/madame.

The movement to normalize greed in the culture and church has already won. It was subtle, maybe you missed it. We are all guilty.

I agree that the church has allowed sins such as these to creep in and take more influence. However, there is no church that I know of that AFFIRMS greed and adultery as good or even neutral things.

Are you genuinely unaware of some evangelical leaders’ active efforts to elect politicians who commit adultery or prey or pay hush money to porn stars or pursue teenage girls?

[Anonymous]

The commandments don’t mention homosexuality, so your quote from Jesus doesn’t support your position on homosexuality. I don’t care about Billy Graham’s thoughts about taking the so-called harder road in general—I follow different Christian theologians—and in any case this particular quote doesn’t support your specific points about homosexuality.

Homosexuality has been associated with AIDS and gonorrhea, sure, but so has traditional sex. On the other hand, allowing all of God’s creations to express their love is a positive outcome of gay marriage.

I’m with the minister, who wrote that there’s none of Jesus’ openness, love and compassion in your words. All in all, your post is filled with specious reasoning that evidences your ability to ignore both Jesus and basic logic in pursuit of your prejudices, so I won’t bother following up here. I’m not LGTBQ, fwiw.

BBC1

Instead of being with the minister, you ought to be with God who is the final authority on the matter as laid down in the holy scriptures.

Heterosexual sex is not a tradition, it is the way in which God designed our bodies: male for female. It is based on biological fact, not patriarchal opinion.
Slutty, promiscuous behavior is fornication, as is homosexuality. It is sin.

Again: if you cannot see that homosexuality is an abomination, that it is fornication, that it is immoral conduct, and is contrary to the purpose and design of our bodies, you are completely blind. There is no way you can infer from the bible that homosexuality is a good thing, that it is not sin. You cannot make that case. You cannot! And I am not going to try and be nice and sugar-coat my words to spare your feelings, I am going to straight-up tell you what the bible says about it: homosexuality is a sin. It is unrighteous behavior. In the Old Testament, a person was to be stoned to death for engaging in it, the same as adultery, because it is destructive and sinful. Eating shellfish or trimming your beard did not carry a death sentence. There is a huge difference between the two.

Standing on the weak claim "Jesus did not mention it" is silly. You are grasping at straws to accommodate and approve of homosexuality so that you can be friends with the world and not be shunned by so-called friends who will call you intolerant, which in liberal circles is a mortal sin.

There is no nice way to say this: you are wrong. The bible plainly and clearly teaches everywhere it is mentioned that homosexuality is a sin. You just cannot avoid this, no matter how hard you try.
You are advocating for the Christian church to make sinful behavior normal, no different than if it were adultery or drunkenness.

For me to sit by and say nothing is wrong. Although this is God speaking to Ezekiel, I believe it applies to the Christian as well:

Ezekiel 3:18
When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.

It is my responsibility to say, "Hey, this is wrong. Repent, turn away from the sin."

Jesus sat and dined with sinners, some of whom were no doubt homosexuals. But he did not anywhere approve of their sins but told everyone to repent, and sin no more.

I feel sad for homosexuals because they are caught up in a horrible sin, doing with their bodies what ought not to be done. I also feel bad for alcoholics, for people in jail, for drug addicts, liars, murderers, and all other people caught up in the snares of sin.

I do not hate these people or have no compassion, but here, we are discussing what the bible says about homosexuality, which is why true Christians are fleeing the Episcopal and other liberal denominations in droves because liberal denominations are teaching falsely that homosexuality is not sinful.

The issue is not about whether my words come across as friendly or compassionate which is all you seem to care about instead of the truth, the issue is what God, through the Holy Spirit, has declared concerning the matter. And God has clearly revealed in the Old Testament, and through the writings of the apostles, that homosexuality is sinful. It is only since the homosexuals have organized, and gained some ground in the judiciary, and our people have turned from righteousness that it is being foisted upon the church and Christians are to, even despite thousands of years to the contrary, welcome homosexuals in their midst as normal, and refuse to call their behavior a sin. Give me a break! I can find no compassionate, open way to tell you to "take a hike, and take your false, wicked teachings, no matter that they hide behind the friendly sounding terms of tolerance and diversity, somewhere else".

What the homosexuals do, as do other sinners outside the church do, there is not much I can do.

But within the church, when someone tries to say a sin is not a sin, I take issue with that, and not just me but many other Christians who will stand up against the false teachings of "homosexuality is not a sin so it is okay to do it".

No matter how many times you call us bigots, homophobes, uncompassionate, or any other ad-hominum label you can throw against us when it is shown that what you are saying does not match up with the holy scriptures, we true Christians who love our Lord Jesus and who love his Word will stay true to God, stay on the narrow path instead of the broad path of "diversity and tolerance" which are code words for "do not say what we are doing is sin, just be nice and let us into your churches and accept us. Wolves and sheep really can get along, why don't you let us in and see?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Instead of being with the minister, you ought to be with God who is the final authority on the matter as laid down in the holy scriptures.

Heterosexual sex is not a tradition, it is the way in which God designed our bodies: male for female. It is based on biological fact, not patriarchal opinion.
Slutty, promiscuous behavior is fornication, as is homosexuality. It is sin.

Again: if you cannot see that homosexuality is an abomination, that it is fornication, that it is immoral conduct, and is contrary to the purpose and design of our bodies, you are completely blind. There is no way you can infer from the bible that homosexuality is a good thing, that it is not sin. You cannot make that case. You cannot! And I am not going to try and be nice and sugar-coat my words to spare your feelings, I am going to straight-up tell you what the bible says about it: homosexuality is a sin. It is unrighteous behavior. In the Old Testament, a person was to be stoned to death for engaging in it, the same as adultery, because it is destructive and sinful. Eating shellfish or trimming your beard did not carry a death sentence. There is a huge difference between the two.

Standing on the weak claim "Jesus did not mention it" is silly. You are grasping at straws to accommodate and approve of homosexuality so that you can be friends with the world and not be shunned by so-called friends who will call you intolerant, which in liberal circles is a mortal sin.

There is no nice way to say this: you are wrong. The bible plainly and clearly teaches everywhere it is mentioned that homosexuality is a sin. You just cannot avoid this, no matter how hard you try.
You are advocating for the Christian church to make sinful behavior normal, no different than if it were adultery or drunkenness.

You’re defining “sin according to Jesus” and effectively claiming that you know what Jesus thought about various human activities, and nobody else besides you knows. Can’t you see how very wrong that is?

You clearly underscore your hypocrisy when you cite the 10 commandments and the Old Testament in general, given that you’re brazenly willing to ignore other much more crucial parts of the Old Testament that Jesus didn’t specifically (like shellfish) exempt:
- 6th Commandment banning adultery/divorce (how many in your parish are divorced, and thanks pp for pointing out evangelical support for our adulterous president). Note that you claimed this refers to “fornication” writ large, but I just googled several translations and they talk about adultery and coveting your neighbor’s wife, no mention of homosexuality. That was an oopsie on your part.
- mixing fabrics in Leviticus (you’ve been asked multiple times about this one, but have never responded coherently).

Your arguments that flow from your assumption about Jesus’ attitude to homosexuals make no sense whatsoever. This seems to be a failure of basic logic on your part. The fact that Jesus said “go and sin no more” is irrelevant if you don’t have a basis for claiming he viewed homosexuality as a sin. The fact that you feel compelled to tell us your views doesn’t make your views correct.

I can’t understand if you’re incredibly hypocritical, or just incapable of basic logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Instead of being with the minister, you ought to be with God who is the final authority on the matter as laid down in the holy scriptures.

Heterosexual sex is not a tradition, it is the way in which God designed our bodies: male for female. It is based on biological fact, not patriarchal opinion.
Slutty, promiscuous behavior is fornication, as is homosexuality. It is sin.

Again: if you cannot see that homosexuality is an abomination, that it is fornication, that it is immoral conduct, and is contrary to the purpose and design of our bodies, you are completely blind. There is no way you can infer from the bible that homosexuality is a good thing, that it is not sin. You cannot make that case. You cannot! And I am not going to try and be nice and sugar-coat my words to spare your feelings, I am going to straight-up tell you what the bible says about it: homosexuality is a sin. It is unrighteous behavior. In the Old Testament, a person was to be stoned to death for engaging in it, the same as adultery, because it is destructive and sinful. Eating shellfish or trimming your beard did not carry a death sentence. There is a huge difference between the two.

Standing on the weak claim "Jesus did not mention it" is silly. You are grasping at straws to accommodate and approve of homosexuality so that you can be friends with the world and not be shunned by so-called friends who will call you intolerant, which in liberal circles is a mortal sin.

There is no nice way to say this: you are wrong. The bible plainly and clearly teaches everywhere it is mentioned that homosexuality is a sin. You just cannot avoid this, no matter how hard you try.
You are advocating for the Christian church to make sinful behavior normal, no different than if it were adultery or drunkenness.

You’re defining “sin according to Jesus” and effectively claiming that you know what Jesus thought about various human activities, and nobody else besides you knows. Can’t you see how very wrong that is?

You clearly underscore your hypocrisy when you cite the 10 commandments and the Old Testament in general, given that you’re brazenly willing to ignore other much more crucial parts of the Old Testament that Jesus didn’t specifically (like shellfish) exempt:
- 6th Commandment banning adultery/divorce (how many in your parish are divorced, and thanks pp for pointing out evangelical support for our adulterous president). Note that you claimed this refers to “fornication” writ large, but I just googled several translations and they talk about adultery and coveting your neighbor’s wife, no mention of homosexuality. That was an oopsie on your part.
- mixing fabrics in Leviticus (you’ve been asked multiple times about this one, but have never responded coherently).

Your arguments that flow from your assumption about Jesus’ attitude to homosexuals make no sense whatsoever. This seems to be a failure of basic logic on your part. The fact that Jesus said “go and sin no more” is irrelevant if you don’t have a basis for claiming he viewed homosexuality as a sin. The fact that you feel compelled to tell us your views doesn’t make your views correct.

I can’t understand if you’re incredibly hypocritical, or just incapable of basic logic.

I'd say both -- these are traits that tend to go together.