Episcopal diocese of Washington to drop male pronouns for God
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
So you’re actually a “Christian.” You think Jesus would be completely supportive of your views and that anything is okay except for “homosexuality.” Just like the Sermon on the Mount, really.
The Anglican Church is a refuge for certain people. Good luck. |
Anonymous
I thought you didn't like snark. |
Anonymous
The church is complicit in the greed that infects the Body and says nothing about adultery. Do you think because no church "affirms" adultery and greed publicly (like on their website? in their creed?), these things simply "take more influence?" No, They destroy relationships and keep people from knowing God. Yet you don't write pages on DCUM against pride, greed, gluttony, murder, harming CHILDREN, but you choose to make homosexuals your scapegoat. I suppose it frees your conscience to do so, that way you don't have to see beyond the clearly unstated AFFIRMation of the church in the sins that harm our culture and the children of God far more than any homosexual ever could. |
Anonymous
Should I just have said you lied about what’s in the 10 Commandments? I was trying to sugar coat it. |
Anonymous
Anyone who is okay with heterosexual adultry and payoffs to porn stars but has so much trouble with homosexuality that he or she writes diatribes like this is struggling with something. I will stop posting and try to offer love and compassion, as Jesus would have. |
Anonymous
Actually, I think you and that poster—and I—are on the same page. All three of us are saying that adultery is harmful yet certain evangelical churches support our adulterous legislators and president while scapegoating homosexuals. |
Anonymous
Right, because you've been sugar-coating everything you've said. So you're a hypocrite twice over. One, for calling people hypocrites when you don't live up to your own standards, and two, for pretending you're not being one. |
Anonymous
|
^^^^
By the way, I'm not the poster you think you're referring to. Just noticing you calling out supposed snark from people while you're being that way yourself. I had nothing to do with the long posts from BBC1. |
Anonymous
BBC1 And YOU are defining "not sin according to Jesus", trying to make the case that despite the bible proclaiming homosexuality to be sin, that somehow it is not sin anymore because Jesus did not specifically mention it. You are the person who is putting words in Jesus's mouth that he is declaring homosexuality to be not sin, whereas the Old Testament clearly says that it is, and the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, explicitly declared it to be a sin. Do you really think Jesus would say, "Homosexuality is good! God created us guy for guy, gal for gal, man for dog, or anything you like...?" Do you really think Jesus would declare homosexuality to be normal whereas before it carried a death sentence, like adultery? That is not logical in any way. Sin does not cease being sin just because someone does not directly mention it, just like poison does not cease being poison just because someone doesn’t mention it in a list of poisons, or someone sneaking in and peeling the warning label off the bottle. Furthermore, you are in a tiny minority of so-called Christians who want to make the case that homosexuality is not a sin, when the majority of Christendom and the holy scriptures attest that it is. For centuries this has been so, and now suddenly it is not true anymore because emboldened feminists and outraged homosexuals are angry and want the church to change its tune? Sorry, not buying it. Really, It is absurd to think that something that has been known for centuries to be evil, like in Sodom, to be suddenly good, is taking Jesus waaaaayy out of the context of the bible, Jewish culture, and the commands in the bible and putting him into a vacuum. This is what you have to do to make it look like Jesus approves of homosexuality. I say again: the case cannot be made except by those who twist the bible into a pretzel to make it say something it does not. But do go on in to your unbiblical liberal denomination, have your ears tickled all you want. That is your choice, but do not be surprised when many Christians leave your denomination in disgust, no different than if a pastor started passing out marijuana to the congregation telling everybody, "Get high for Jesus! He never said marijuana was bad, never said anything about it. In fact, he probably told his disciples 'as often as ye get high, light up a big fatty in remembrance of me'. " While you are approving of homosexuality, why don't you go ahead and amend the bible with the Gospel of Cheech & Chong? That is the ridiculous position you take when you try to make Jesus affirm homosexuality as being normal and not a sin. |
Anonymous
BBC1 here But I do have a basis for claiming Jesus viewed homosexuality as a sin: the holy scriptures. This is the crux of your argument, your last refuge in the gray area: "Jesus did not directly say homosexuality is a sin so it cannot be sin". My position is that taken by the Holy Bible: homosexuality is a sin. Jesus would not contradict the moral law in the scriptures so it is logical to assume that Jesus, just as he condemned sexual immorality like adultery, would condemn homosexuality as well. If Jesus told the adulterer to sin no more, he would have told the homosexual to sin no more also. These views are logically consistent with scripture. Furthermore, it agrees with and is in accordance with the apostle Paul. If Jesus accepts homosexuality then the apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit are lying. The Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity, and the Holy Spirit through Paul (and others) condemn homosexuality. To say that Jesus, who is part of the Trinity, would disagree with the Holy Spirit and disagree with God on the matter makes no logical sense. It is not logically consistent that 2 parts of the Trinity, God and the Holy Spirit, would condemn homosexuality but Jesus, the 3rd part, would disagree with them both on the moral law. It is a colossal failure of logic to think that because Jesus nowhere condemns homosexuality then that means he approves of it. It is a logical fallacy called "Argumentum ex Silentio (Argument from Silence)" This is why I said "Logic Fail" earlier. This was not adolescent name-calling or me trying to be snarky, it is pointing out the truth that you have made an error in logic. You confirm my experience with liberals that logic is not their strong point. You cannot get liberals to admit truth when they want to believe otherwise, any more than you can nail jello to a wall: they squish and slime and dodge and ooze all over the place avoiding the hard nail of truth: Jesus DOES NOT approve of homosexuality. But go ahead, don't take the various passages in the bible that clearly say it is wrong. Tune all that out and go find you a liberal theologian to tickle your ears, even a reprobate in the pulpit to really make it cool, so as to confirm what you want to believe instead of what God says. Go live your life the way you please, according to your brand of unbiblical Christianity. Join the Christian Club of Liberal Denominations who have a form of godliness but deny the power therein. That is your choice. I leave you to it, just as I have made a choice: "as for me and my household, we will follow the Lord instead of liberal-progressive dogma”. |
Anonymous
BBC1 --wow, you sure have inspired me to write a lot. Never had I thought to go so far with this, but okay. Fornication? No "oopsie" on my part. http://defendproclaimthefaith.org/blog/what-jesus-christ-said-about-homosexuality/ Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. "The Book of Jude ties together homosexuality with the word fornication. The homosexuality of Sodom and Gomorrha was identified as fornication. The Bible warns that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha was an example to those who would practice this same fornication." The Bible defines fornication as any sexual activity outside of marriage. The definition of fornication includes: heterosexual relations before marriage, homosexual relations at any time, incest, bestiality, prostitution and pornography. All sex outside of marriage is considered fornication by God. But oh, that's right, you do not accept the book of Jude because it undermines your case that homosexuality is not a sin and the men of Sodom were just fine, dandy guys just a little bit inhospitable, and God frowned on THAT, not their homosexuality which was okay, despite Leviticus. Here is what Jesus said about fornication, that it is a sin just like adultery: Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the 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 unwashen hands defileth not a man Continuing from my source (so I do not have to re-invent the wheel saying these things): http://defendproclaimthefaith.org/blog/what-jesus-christ-said-about-homosexuality/ "Those that practice homosexuality are called the children of disobedience, and they will not inherit the kingdom of God. This is all clear and straight forward. A person does not need a doctorate in theology to understand that homosexuality is a sin that will block a person from the kingdom of God. If it is so clear and easy to understand, why then is homosexuality being presented as wholesome and loving? The answer lies in that the homosexuals and their advocates have rejected the authority of the Bible. " Mixed Fabrics: a “ridiculous by association” argument Here is the gray area you are trying to hide in: "Old testament laws concerning shellfish and mixed fabrics are not observed anymore, neither is sacrificing animals for sins either; therefore, homosexuality is not a sin anymore because Jesus did not mention it. You are a hypocrite if you say homosexuality is a sin but eating shellfish is not." Here is more detail on it: https://carm.org/leviticus-homosexuality-old-testament-law Lev. 19:18, "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord." "Are we to dismiss Leviticus along with the idea of being holy, of loving our neighbor, and that God will walk among us in the person of Jesus? Of course not. To do so by saying we are not under the Law displays deep theological ignorance and exegetical prejudice. There are certainly aspects of Leviticus which are no longer applicable to us today (civil and ceremonial), but there are other parts that still are, as is stated above in the moral aspect of the Law" And here: https://www.theaquilareport.com/the-bible-homosexuality-and-shellfish-by-matthew-everhard/ Says the liberal: “Yes, the Bible forbids the practice of homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22, but also forbids eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-11), and commands the stoning of blasphemers (Leviticus 24:16). Since the latter two are ridiculous, so is the former.” It is ironic that those arguing such a progressive position would choose these three elements of Levitical law as examples of their “ridiculous by association,” argument. "The moral law...is the timeless law of God revealed in the Sinai covenant for which mankind is still responsible. These are the inviolable moral laws written indelibly on the consciences of all mankind (Romans 2:15), and the standards by which human kind will be judged. Murder, lying, idolatry, and theft will always be sinful no matter where or when they are committed. As homosexuality is a violation of the creation order in general (Genesis 2:18-24), and the seventh commandment in particular (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18), the fact that this practice transgresses God’s standards of purity is beyond dispute. This is why the New Testament agrees with and reinforces the Old Testament’s prohibitions of this practice (Romans 1:26-27; Colossians 3:5; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10)." People who do not want to "be ye holy, as I am holy" will gravitate to liberal denominations so that they can live and believe what they want to based upon what they feel is right, not what God said is right. Those who want to live by the truth will flee the liberal denominations or any church that does not stand on the scriptures, because the scriptures are the final authority on the matter. When people abandon God's word as authority and replace it with psychiatrists, scientists, and liberal theologians as authority, those people will fall into error and fall away from the truth. We see this happening now with the liberal Episcopal church going fading and falling away right before our eyes. We are absolutely not going to come to an agreement on this matter so further argument is not really necessary. If you will not accept clear biblical teachings on the matter, ignoring the apostles and everything else, we are as far as east is from west from each other. We are not going to come to any agreement. What kind of Christian church throws the bible away as an authority? The bible is the rudder which steers the church. Without it, the church is like a boat without a rudder and will crash upon the rocks. The enemies of the church know this, hence the strident attempts to discredit and remove it from the church. I have made my choice, and you have made yours. You can never convince me that homosexuality is not a sin because the bible says otherwise. The majority of Christians agree with me and likewise stand upon scriptures, scriptures that you want to ignore. For me, the bible is the absolute final authority on the matter, over that of any other authority on the planet, certainly more than that of liberal-progressives clamoring that I drop my religious beliefs so as to tolerate their sins because they get uncomfy being judged and it kills their buzz. Likewise, I can never convince you that homosexuality is a sin because you reject the bible, at least the parts you do not agree with that condemn homosexuals. Your authority are the liberal theologians (even with a PhD they are ignorant!) and all their muddled opinions floundering in multiple fallacies. I have asked myself why is there such a hard push to discredit the bible, to try and force churches either by shaming them into submission or by installing pro-homosexual priests in the pulpit to sway people to their way of thinking? And since this does not appear to be working, why are local governments poking their noses into the church to root out so-called “hate”, to force them to desist in teaching that homosexuality is a sin? Why is this? My thinking is that the evil people in this country, the totalitarian left, as they consolidate their power in the judiciary and legislative branches, do not want to shed blood because it is messy and costly, so if they can get Christians to drop their beliefs by being afraid of persecution, it won’t be necessary to imprison so many of them which impacts the economy negatively, or kill them openly which would bring negative publicity and make martyrs and would strengthen their remnant into a more determined resistance as it has always done throughout the centuries. I really am perplexed as to this full-bore assault on the church, why it is happening now. If they succeed in this attack on a local church, it’s only a matter of time before they try to outlaw even the verbal expression of the truth that a person’s sexual identity can change. https://barbwire.com/2018/02/14/michigan-wants-investigate-church-ministering/ I do not quite see the end-game of all this. The church has always taught homosexuality is a sin. All cultures for thousands of years have rightfully frowned upon it for the immoral, undesirable behavior that it is. Why now is there such a huge push to make it normal? Perhaps we really are in the End Times. Excuse me while I go put in that order for half a ton of canned meat and enough beans to last years ---just joking, I am not into that survival stuff. |
Anonymous
|
The poster who keeps harping on shellfish and mixed fabrics is not a believer. He is the swine who the Lord Jesus Christ told us not to cast our pearls before. Not worthy of engaging in a discussion about. He has been told repeatedly about why his objections are covered in Christian theology, but he can't let it go. I don't know why BBC1 feels compelled to keep writing. I would let it go.
We are all sinners in need of forgiveness and redemption, which Christ offers now without condition. Homosexuality is not some special sin, but it is a sin. But even heterosexuals still need a savior. No matter who you have sex with, you still need forgiveness for your sins. |
Anonymous
where does jesus allow shellfish? Mark 7? The entire discussion is about ritual cleanliness related to handwashing. There is no mention of clean or unclean animals. The pharisees had stricter rules about ritual cleanliness then the sadduccees did, which is why there is specific reference to them. The rules on unclean animals were held by ALL the Jewish groups, not just the pharisees, so referencing them in particular would make no sense if that is what this is about. The relaxation of jewish law on kosher animals is Pauline. (BTW, Jesus here misunderstands the Pharisaic position - the decision to not follow the laws of ritual cleanliness itself comes FROM THE HEART. Someone who violates the law accidentally, though they may be impure for ritual purposes, has not committed a sin. Many sources of impurity (like menstruation) are completely involuntary, and do not imply a depraved heart or sinfulness. As long as someone follows the law, and purifies as appropriate) |
Anonymous
There are two people (at least) discussing shellfish and other laws from V"yikra (leviticus to you guys). I am not a liberal Christian. I am a (very imperfectly) observant Jew. As far as I can tell the modern evangelical position on the holiness code makes no sense at all (pre modern christian opposition to homosexualty was based, AFAICT, on a widespread understanding of homosexuality as depraved, more than on the text of Leviticus). (note well there are bases for a more liberal approach to homosexuality that are still consistent with NOT eating shellfish, but I don't expect you are interested in debates about the rabbinic intepretation of "lie with a woman". ) |
Anonymous
No, G-d only says that lying with a man as you lie with a woman is sinful. In other contexts of Jewish law there was later a need to distinguish what lying with a woman meant - is oral sex lying with a woman? Some important authorities consider that it is not. And there is no reference to female homosexuality as sinful. And its only leviticus that matters. We do not derive law from the prophets (that is why its "the law AND the prophets") |