Episcopal diocese of Washington to drop male pronouns for God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

(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)

Don’t want to get into the weeds of this or homosexuality. But Jesus made new laws and overturned old laws; he wasn’t simply misunderstanding old laws. It’s quite clear from his behavior in other contexts—eating with society’s outcasts, letting the woman with unbound hair wash his feet—that he really was overturning laws and rituals about impurity. Nothing accidental about it. This is why he was so revolutionary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

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.

You’re talking to multiple posters who disagree with you and BBC1. Some are snarky, some not so much, but we seem to share a common frustration with your lack of consistency where homosexuals are involved vs. things like presidential adultery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 thought you didn't like snark.

Should I just have said you lied about what’s in the 10 Commandments? I was trying to sugar coat it.

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.

Why not simply answer the question instead of attacking how it was asked? It appears that several different posters have asked you variations on the theme of, how can you attack homosexuals while ignoring adultery and payoffs to prom stars? You have yet to address this.

[Anonymous]

^^^ porn not prom stars, obviously. Thanks, spellcheck!

[Anonymous]

Our Father, who art in Heaven

God never changes!

Amen!

Alpha and Omega

King of Kings

Lord of Lords

Amen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

And YOU call yourself a Christian and sit in judgment? You have some major anger issues to deal with. And prejudices. Hatred. Bigotry. Self-righteousness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

And YOU call yourself a Christian and sit in judgment? You have some major anger issues to deal with. And prejudices. Hatred. Bigotry. Self-righteousness.

DP. Yikes. And we’re still waiting for you to answer the questions about adultery and mixed fabrics.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why BBC1 feels compelled to keep writing. I would let it go.

BBC1 here,

If I had been in a verbal debate and was confronted with “Jesus did not condemn homosexuality so it is not a sin” and “You are a hypocrite for eating shellfish but condemn homosexuality” I would not have known how to respond.

I would not have an answer, because it is an angle of attack I have not prepared a defense against other than “The bible says it is wrong so it is wrong.” But the bible does say eating shellfish is wrong, it is unclean, abominable food you must avoid, but I eat oyster stew sometimes so... Gotcha!

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


2 Timothy 4:1
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.


I view what I wrote as a study exercise to become a better workman for Christ. I was displeased with myself that I could not answer all of this from my own brain. Sometimes I had to find bible verses by internet searching using phrase fragments from memory, and citing others who had studied before me.

This shows that I need to study more. I could not provide an instant answer, not in any season. I was shown to be deficient, so I was compelled to research, study, and write so as to correct this deficiency on my part.

The statement “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality so it is not sin” is so deviously clever it took a lot of thinking and study to respond. I know that statement is a logical fallacy. I had heard of “argument from silence” before but it escaped my memory and I had never seen it used this way.

It is the same fallacy some Churches of Christ use when they argue that since the bible is silent concerning musical instruments during worship, then musical instruments are prohibited during worship. Rather than argue against the whole denomination which would accomplish nothing, when I moved away I left the Church of Christ for a non-denominational bible church. Their “musical instrument logic” is similar to logic such as “since padded pews are not mentioned in the bible, it is wrong to sit on padded pews in the church so you should sit your butt on the hard wood and suffer. That is the least you can do seeing how much our Lord suffered.”

Jesus made rebutting attacks look real easy: “Show me a penny...whose face is on it?” I do not have that caliber of wisdom so I have to work harder. The challenge to answer a false statement compelled me to write as much as I did because this is going to keep charging in like a rabid dog foaming at the mouth to bite all the Christians it can, so Christians will need to put down the rabid dog shooting it with the word of God.

Homosexuality is not something I give much thought to: it is a sin, the bible says don’t do it. The end. There is nothing more to think about. The bible says it is wrong, it is wrong. End of discussion. The issue is settled. It was settled thousands of years ago.

Non-Christians, I expect them to be “cold” concerning God, do not expect them to say anything but “I do not believe that b.s. bible crap because it was made up ages ago by people afraid of thunder and thought it was some god up there being angry at them for some reason. It is stupid --get the stupid away from me.”

I get that, it is a clear boundary cold against God. I know which side of the fence the non-Christian sits, just as I know which side of the fence the evangelical bible-believing Christian sits. I respect people who make a bold statement where they stand.

But the person who uses the bible, even Jesus’ own words (which is one of the most audacious things I have ever encountered), to affirm an obvious sin like homosexuality is something else indeed. This is an altogether different type of creature, a beast appearing to be sitting on my side of the fence grinning at me. It is a very insidious, dangerous beast that has the potential to lead astray Christians not grounded in the word of God. Christians whose faith is weak or afraid to stand against false teaching like this crafty angle of attack are in danger. It could very well explain how denominations like the Episcopal has disintegrated. It appears many Christians in there were not prepared, their faith too weak to expose the false but feel-good teachings such as homosexuality is not a sin. Nobody, myself included, want to tell people they are sinning against God and will not enter heaven. It is uncomfortable. But just as you have to do the uncomfortable thing and spank your disobedient child (I take no pleasure when I have to do that), so too must we discipline those in our church who embrace false teachings. I expect non-Christians to do sinful things because they do not know any better, or refuse to know better. I do not expect Christians to do that, and we are told in the bible to reprove Christians who sin to bring them back into the fold.

Jesus will never contradict the Holy Spirit. This is one of the proofs you can use to expose false teachings.

If what I have written here can be useful to other Christians to defend against these kinds of nefarious attacks, then all the better.

[Anonymous]

BBC1 is assuming that everyone spanks their children.

Must be something in the bible about that.

[Anonymous]

BBC1 is assuming that everyone spanks their children. Must be something in the bible about that.

Why, indeed there is:

Proverbs 23:12
Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

BBC1 here,

This wisdom from the bible always supersedes any nonsense handed down by psychiatrists who declare you will damage their precious self esteem if you spank them. No you won't. My children are proof that it won't. My children have learned clear boundaries between right and wrong and their self-esteem is fine. People have actually come up to me in public and said, "Your children are so well behaved", leaving unsaid "whereas so many other children are not." I joke and say, "Yeah, they are well behaved because they know they'll be beaten half to death if they act up!"

When a child will not listen to instruction and becomes willfully rebellious, then you must make the child associate pain with disobedience. If you wait until they are teenagers it is too late, especially boys who become largely indifferent to pain.

I never spank my children if they do something wrong unintentionally, or by accident. They get a verbal warning not to do that. 99% of the time that is sufficient. It has been over 4 years since I have had to spank my youngest child for anything. I have spent enough time with my children that they know what is right and wrong for most things. Since they were toddlers I have read the bible to them at night before bed, including the 10 commandments. I am very proud of my children when they come to me and ask first, "Is it okay to do this?" Rather than risk doing something wrong, they ask about any rules so they won't disobey them. I have set them on the right path. Unless they fall into the bad crowd of drug users, I do not see my children growing up to be a Trayvin "No_Limit_*gga" Martin.

Only when the child willfully rebels after being told it is wrong do I spank. It is not a "beat them to within an inch of their life" sort of thing, it is one sharp, swift whack with a belt across the buttocks, leaving no mark or bruise. It is not the pain that shocks the child, it is the realization that they cannot just do whatever they want and get away with it. They learn that good actions receive good consequences (A's on the report card bring a reward) and bad actions receive bad consequences (biting your brother after you were told not to brings swift judgment upon your butt).

Children learn real quick not to do bad things again, sort of like a Pavlov's dog. I see a lot of children (and adults, especially mouthy feminists) these days running around like dogs that have never been trained properly.

Spanking works better than multiple, usually meaningless time-outs where (usually) a mother tries to be democratic as if the child is her
equal, begging and pleading for the child to be good, saying "and Mommy will give you candy if you be nice and don't do it again my sweet precious soon-to-be whiny adult snowflake."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

(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)

Don’t want to get into the weeds of this or homosexuality. But Jesus made new laws and overturned old laws; he wasn’t simply misunderstanding old laws. It’s quite clear from his behavior in other contexts—eating with society’s outcasts, letting the woman with unbound hair wash his feet—that he really was overturning laws and rituals about impurity. Nothing accidental about it. This is why he was so revolutionary.

Jew here.

I was referring to the specific things he said/implied in that particular passage. The contrast between laws against gossip and slander (what comes out of the mouth) vs the laws of ritual cleanliness, strongly suggests a misunderstanding of the latter laws. Or maybe a deliberate misreading. He is not just saying "I am God, I don't care about the ritual laws".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

BBC1 is assuming that everyone spanks their children. Must be something in the bible about that.

Why, indeed there is:

Proverbs 23:12
Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

jew here.

Law does not come from Proverbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

(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)

Don’t want to get into the weeds of this or homosexuality. But Jesus made new laws and overturned old laws; he wasn’t simply misunderstanding old laws. It’s quite clear from his behavior in other contexts—eating with society’s outcasts, letting the woman with unbound hair wash his feet—that he really was overturning laws and rituals about impurity. Nothing accidental about it. This is why he was so revolutionary.

Jew here.

I was referring to the specific things he said/implied in that particular passage. The contrast between laws against gossip and slander (what comes out of the mouth) vs the laws of ritual cleanliness, strongly suggests a misunderstanding of the latter laws. Or maybe a deliberate misreading. He is not just saying "I am God, I don't care about the ritual laws".

Yes, he is saying “I don’t care about ritual dietary laws.” You keep trying to put this in a Jewish ritual context and complain it’s a misunderstanding of that. It’s not. He’s deliberately saying, “don’t engage in gossip, slander, or hateful talk, because these are important, not dietary rituals.” I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that. Speaking of deliberate misreadings, this seems like a deliberate misreading on your part.

[Anonymous]

Playboy Girl of the Year, anybody?

Why won’t BBC1 or the Anglican poster condemn Trump’s adultery even as they condemn homosexuals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BBC1 is assuming that everyone spanks their children. Must be something in the bible about that.

Why, indeed there is:

Proverbs 23:12
Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

jew here.

Law does not come from Proverbs.

BBC1

That is true, the Proverbs are not law, but they are wise sayings profitable for wisdom, and on how to train up your child to be righteous.

They were written by Solomon, one of the wisest people to have ever lived. His God-given wisdom is worth heeding, certainly more than some psychologist like Timothy Leary who advised "turn on, tune in, drop out."

Everyone has an authority when it comes to living. I choose the bible. It has not steered me wrong yet.