Episcopal diocese of Washington to drop male pronouns for God

[Anonymous]

Sin is sin. We are all sinners.

The unpardonable sin is attributing God’s creation and works to Satan.

None of us can be perfect like God; he realizes that. And for that reason he sent His Beloved Son to die on the cross and redeem us, lest we forever be separated from Him.

The Bible illustrates that even God’s chosen were sinners.

King David had his best friend murdered so he could have his wife as his Queen. But God still loved and used David. God forgave David.

The whole argument about sin is ridiculous. Sin is sin.

Repent and invite God into your heart and life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

he is saying ritual cleanliness is not important - but not "because I am God, and I say so" but because it does not come from the heart. Again, a misreading, deliberate or not, of what the ritual laws are about.

His words are clear on their face. He’s saying: drop the ritual dietary laws. This is exactly how Christians, starting with Paul just a few decades later, have interpreted these passages for two millennia. Jesus was an expert in wordplay and you’re missing what he’s doing here. Trying repeatedly to yank this back into your own Jewish context and waving your hands and saying ”Jesus was stoopid” doesn’t reflect well on your own intelligence or motives.

This Christian interprets it the same way the Jewish poster above does. Not a deliberate misreading but one that reflects the spirit of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

he is saying ritual cleanliness is not important - but not "because I am God, and I say so" but because it does not come from the heart. Again, a misreading, deliberate or not, of what the ritual laws are about.

His words are clear on their face. He’s saying: drop the ritual dietary laws. This is exactly how Christians, starting with Paul just a few decades later, have interpreted these passages for two millennia. Jesus was an expert in wordplay and you’re missing what he’s doing here. Trying repeatedly to yank this back into your own Jewish context and waving your hands and saying ”Jesus was stoopid” doesn’t reflect well on your own intelligence or motives.

This Christian interprets it the same way the Jewish poster above does. Not a deliberate misreading but one that reflects the spirit of the law.

The difference is that the Jewish poster claims Jesus got there because he misunderstood the law and apparently wasn’t all that bright.

The Christian poster says Jesus was expert in wordplay and his choice of words, and their meaning, was very deliberate.

Jesus was indeed great at wordplay. The New Testament is chock full of incidents where the Pharisees and others tested him on the law, looking for ways to discredit him or lock him up, and he managed to address their questions while subtly undermining older law. This happens many times in the New Testament.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next step: Drop God

Yes because obviously if God can't be masculine then he's not really God and not worth having.

Well, the Bible actually says God is our Father.

Jesus refers to God as his Father in the Bible as well.

Not genderless being. Not mother. Father. God the Father.

And don't Episcopalians pray the Our Father like all Christian religions? That prayer is universal in Christianity.

Don't Episcopalians baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? This is also universal in much of Christianity.

If Episcopalian leadership really wants to deviate so far from Biblical teachings, then they should just bite the bullet and separate entirely from Christianity and the Bible.

They can announce that they are no longer Christian and create some sort of fellowship with UUs.

If the Bible is simply a suggestion and the teachings and words of Christ are irrelevant in their leadership's mind then it is really a joke for them to call themselves Christian.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next step: Drop God

Yes because obviously if God can't be masculine then he's not really God and not worth having.

Well, the Bible actually says God is our Father.

Jesus refers to God as his Father in the Bible as well.

Not genderless being. Not mother. Father. God the Father.

And don't Episcopalians pray the Our Father like all Christian religions? That prayer is universal in Christianity.

Don't Episcopalians baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? This is also universal in much of Christianity.

If Episcopalian leadership really wants to deviate so far from Biblical teachings, then they should just bite the bullet and separate entirely from Christianity and the Bible.

They can announce that they are no longer Christian and create some sort of fellowship with UUs.

If the Bible is simply a suggestion and the teachings and words of Christ are irrelevant in their leadership's mind then it is really a joke for them to call themselves Christian.

+1

+2. Since ECUSA is at the end of its 3 year suspension and a task force was put in place to help bring it back within the worldwide Anglican communion, I interpret this announcement as a "F.U." to returning to the 80 million worldwide church, ergo it will be on its own from now on. It doesn't have the money to survive. Witness the yoga classes in National Cathedral.

[Anonymous]

1. What the nature of G-d is, is a mystery. G-d is radically other. To say G-d does or does not learn is to presume to know more about G-d than man can.

BBC1
G-d, who is omnipotent, knows everything already so there is nothing for him to learn. This is not presumption, it is acknowledging a fact because that is the definition of G-d: all knowing, all seeing, all powerful.


Psalm 94:8 (somewhat paraphrased)
You fools, when will you become wise?
He that made the ear, does he not hear? he that formed the eye, does he not see all things?
He that teaches man knowledge, does he not know everything?
The Lord knows the vain thoughts of man (he can read every mind, billions or even trillions of them, all at the same time effortlessly)

G-d formed they eye and connected the optic nerve to the brain, along with the nervous system to carry the signals to various parts of the body. The eye did not evolve from some light-sensitive blob of cells, despite a consensus from scientists who insist that it probably did. The bible, when it declares things such as the order of creation, completely outclasses and supersedes anything said by any human or group of humans working under the umbrella of science, or any other branch of knowledge.

2. When I said following G-d, I did not mean imitating G-d. I meant doing what G-d wishes us to do. Following his will. I believe his will is for us to learn about the will.

Your search is over. No more do yout need to go on a goose chase or Easter egg hunt to learn God’s will, it has already been declared:

John 6:35
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst…
For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

I fully believe Jesus is telling the truth so I have believed and become a Christian which is God’s will. Signing a paper becoming a member of a denomination, being baptized as a baby, acknowledging some saint or prophet, or giving faithless intellectual assent or lip service, none of these make you a Christian. It is believing in Jesus, believing 100% having total faith that Jesus is who he said he was, that he “takes away the sins of the world”. That is what makes you a Christian who should enter the kingdom of heaven.

3. I would suggest your belief in vaccines, contrasted with your belief that Darwin was a dwarf, suggests a lack of familiarity with the nature of scientific understanding of bacteria, viruses, the immune system etc. The theory of evolution is at the heart of scientific biology and medecine, and Darwin as to his science (I do not speak of his theology) was a giant indeed.

I understand clearly that living things can evolve and adapt to an environment. This evolution is observed science which is as indisputable as photosynthesis. What is not science is the proposition that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. This “Evolution” is swept under a rug called science to appear as science. It is an hypothesis proposed by Darwin, a person who I am convinced was an opium addict (how else could a mind so addled come up with such nonsense?). “Common Descent” is not science, it is conjecture and speculation not supported by evidence. Peer-reviewed opinions interpreting old bones and comparing bits and pieces of the genome (humans share 60% of the same DNA as lemons) is not evidence. Furthermore, “Common Descent” contradicts the bible, therefore it is false. Unbelievers seized upon Darwin to rationalize away the clear evidence that humans were designed and created. They do this so as to embrace a fairy tale that it is was a series of fortuitous accidents and mutations over millions of years that resulted in the existence of humans.

How Useful Is Evolutionary Theory?

https://crev.info/2018/02/how-useful-is-evolutionary-theory-3/

But if you want to believe in "Common Descent over millions of years", be my guest. It is not critical to salvation concerning how life began on the planet, but someone who rejects the book of Genesis, you have to wonder what else that person will reject.

[Anonymous]

Male and female could not have evolved separately, they would have had to have been created together within each other's fertile period within their lifespan.

They did not evolve separately. I am not sure what you mean. Micro organisms exchanged (and do exchange) genetic material. They were not gendered nor did they have "fertile periods" It is from that that sex and gender evolved. If you do not wish to sound like a fool you would do well to actually study microbiology and evolutionary biology.

Humans are not micro-organisms so genetic drift does not apply, neither did humans evolve in stages from micro-organisms, a.k.a. "Common Descent". And gender did not evolve, God created it.
All the textbooks claiming "Common Descent Evolution" begin with the premise “1+1=3”. If you skip the false premise (which they eagerly hope you do to fall into their trap of stupidity) and are asked to “check the math”, all the equations are correct and add up as long as you accept the premise “1+1=3”. But that premise –humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, is completely false. It contradicts the truth "1+1=2" which is "In the beginning, God created..."

People with the equivalent of a PhD once believed the earth was flat, but the bible says it is round (Isaiah 40:22 –circle of the earth). I will stick with the bible, thank you. Call me ignorant all you want, a fool, or whatever, I do not care. Part of the confusion concerning gender today is because people have left the truth of the bible and are embracing “gender theory” and other hypocrapical nonsense.

Look, I do not want to get into a creation-evolution argument for there is no ending to it. There is no evidence that humans evolved from lower life forms (although I’m sure you insist there is), only opinions based upon groupings of genetic similarities of design throughout the creation.

Furthermore, the bible clearly states man and woman were created together in a short period of time, not millions of years. For me, the case is closed. End of the story. My mind is made up. If you want to argue further, I am sure that somewhere you can find a brick wall: present your “evidence” before that brick wall. You will get the same result arguing with me.

I took courses in anthropology, biology, and botany in college. I was not convinced of Rip Van Darwinkle patter then, although I answered the evolution questions “correctly”, and I am certainly not convinced now, especially as I have grown older and my faith stronger. The bible’s statement “In the beginning” trumps any PhD who blathers on like an air-headed fool about Common Descent which is what the bible calls “science so-called”. It is not science, but speculation interpreting fossils and other things through the flimsy filter of evolution.

The bible is my final authority, superseding all university publications on the planet or any government decree on the matter. Case closed.

[Anonymous]

he media would be charging to his rescue like they did with Bill Clinton, explaining everything away, saying "oral sex is not sex...technically" and other such things.

the media did not mostly say that - the NYT in particular turned on him. Democrats denounced his conduct, and called for him to be censored. Is dishonesty consistent with Christianity?

BBC1

I remember this clearly, and is one of the reasons I will never vote Democrat:

"I'd be happy to give him a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," boasted former Time magazine White House correspondent Nina Burleigh about Bill Clinton.

This is the media saying this, or in this case, a representative of the media. And I recall the media vigorously attacking “the bimbos” who brought their accusations.

I never said there was a media blackout, or none of the media said anything negative. But I do remember that there was a lot of people in the media coming to his defense because Clinton was sympathetic to the liberal-progressive-feminist agenda.

From Gloria Steinem:

If all the sexual allegations now swirling around the White House turn out to be true, President Clinton may be a candidate for sex addiction therapy. But feminists will still have been right to resist pressure by the right wing and the news media to call for his resignation.

So you are correct the media was attacking him too, even calling for his resignation. I don’t remember the media calling for his resignation, so I must have missed the news cycle. It may be because around that time I transitioned from college to a job and moved out of state and became too busy to keep up with it all.

But I do clearly remember there were a lot of people in the media charging to his rescue, especially feminists who ought to have been the first to condemn him. Feminists have no credibility any more, as far as I’m concerned.

So no, I was not being dishonest. It cannot be denied that the media, and big liberal democrats like Steinem, came to Bill Clinton’s defense. I may not have all my facts straight because it was long ago, and if so, I admit my mind is not clear on everything, but I was not being dishonest because I did not intentionally try to lie. My recollection of that time is “the media” swarming to Bill Clinton’s defense, dismissing his accusers as lying bimbos, and equating Ken Starr as some type of gestapo inquisitor or something. That is my impression of the time.

My news source back then was almost exclusively Rush Limbaugh which I would listen to intermittently to catch the news. There was no broadband back then so I never attempted to live-stream news I might have missed through a 56k baud modem tying up the phone line for hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Male and female could not have evolved separately, they would have had to have been created together within each other's fertile period within their lifespan.

They did not evolve separately. I am not sure what you mean. Micro organisms exchanged (and do exchange) genetic material. They were not gendered nor did they have "fertile periods" It is from that that sex and gender evolved. If you do not wish to sound like a fool you would do well to actually study microbiology and evolutionary biology.

Humans are not micro-organisms so genetic drift does not apply, neither did humans evolve in stages from micro-organisms, a.k.a. "Common Descent". And gender did not evolve, God created it.

sex evolved long before humans. It evolved from the exchange of genetic material (which is NOT genetic drift) in single cell organisms to simple multiple cell organisms.

Multicelled organisms certainly evolved from single celled organisms.

"God created " does not exclude evolution. God created the world. The world, once created, made evolution inevitable. Ergo, God (may his glorious name be praised) created evolution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"I'd be happy to give him a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," boasted former Time magazine White House correspondent Nina Burleigh about Bill Clinton.

This is the media saying this, or in this case, a representative of the media. And I recall the media vigorously attacking “the bimbos” who brought their accusations.

That is one reporter (ex reporter at the time?) speaking on her own behalf, not as a representative of Time, let alone "of the media".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"I'd be happy to give him a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," boasted former Time magazine White House correspondent Nina Burleigh about Bill Clinton.

This is the media saying this, or in this case, a representative of the media. And I recall the media vigorously attacking “the bimbos” who brought their accusations.

That is one reporter (ex reporter at the time?) speaking on her own behalf, not as a representative of Time, let alone "of the media".

I was wondering if anyone actually read all those words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Next step: Drop God

Wouldn't be surprised.

It's all about intersectionality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next step: Drop God

Wouldn't be surprised.

It's all about intersectionality.

That doesn’t make sense. Christians should be supporting racial, women’s and other issues, not dismissing them with snark.