Are you the Anglican poster who just a few pages ago was asked whether you follow Old Testament/Leviticus rules about clothing, etc, and you responded that you didn’t need to because Jesus got rid of those OT rules? Either Jesus got rid of that OT stuff, or he didn’t. I hate to emulate your use of tween language like “logic fail,” but unfortunately it applies here. If that wasn’t you, DO you follow all those rules in Leviticus? Because if you don’t, then again, “logic fail.” P.S. Many Christians see Paul as writing pastoral letters to new communities. Many of them are beautiful, but Paul didn’t ask to be taken literally, so why are you taking him literally? |
| What does this even mean that Paul didn't ask to be taken literally? Paul's letters are all extremely straightforward theological arguments, followed by practices for Christian living. What would it even mean to not take them literally. This is really just a stupid thing to say. |
Calling people “stupid” is hardly a good recommendation for your particular brand of Christianity. Anyway, your reasoning is illogical. If Paul was divine it would make sense to take him literally. Yet he never claimed to be divine. Do you take literally everything your Congressional rep, mayor or county counselor says? Of course not. You clearly didn’t take take literally everything the Episcopal Church said—which is why you left—although they have more of a claim to “speak for God.” Same thing. |
The person you’re replying to is very likely a fundamentalist and therefore not interested in this line of thinking. |
Whoever it is, Anglican or other Protestant fundamentalist, the snide and snarky tone is a horrible advertisement for what might be genuine belief. FWIW, the Anglican Church in Canterbury, England, also eschews the literalist view. |
Sure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IxG96wpx60 She denies that Jesus coming to earth was the way for salvation. She says the other Abarhamic faiths offer other pathways to salvation. Note this is in conflict with Jesus saying, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 Also in conflict with Romans 10:9 Asked about the literal story of Easter and the Resurrection, Jefferts Schori said, "I think Easter is most profoundly about meaning, not mechanism." In particular, she is referring more to a "spiritual body" and not a "physical body". When asked about the divinity of Christ (and God), she redefines it into something else entirely as being "a great figure" rather than what one would expect of "divinity". You can read an essay on that in the second section of this paper: https://anglicanecumenicalsociety.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/pb_christology.pdf |
This is typical thinking among Episcopal clergy - and many of the people i the pews as well. It's nothing new -- it just gets attention when a Bishop says it. Their sources of authority are scripture tradition and reason. https://www.episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/authority-sources-anglicanism |
Pp did not call people stupid. Pp said it was a stupid thing to say. Progressive Christians ( e.g., Episcopal, presbyterian USA, UCC) speak in terms of taking the Bible "seriously, not literally." Meaning (I think) that they value the Bible without trying to use it as a point-by-point guide book for life -- which is hard to do given how long ago it was written and the various translations and interpretations there have been. |
+1. They do find authority in scripture, whether you agree with their reasoning or not. I don’t think anybody here wants to dog you through discussions of these varied and difficult issues, but the rationales are out there if you’re interested. Some non-Episcopalians believe similar things—see, for example, works by Crossan and Borg. I guess it boils down to, if you don’t agree, then don’t attend the Episcopal Church. But dogging every thread, even unrelated threads, to trash the Episcopal Church is annoying to others here (I see others besides me on this thread have complained) because you derail everything, not to mention, it doesn’t seem like a good use of your time. Shed all that unproductive anger and go volunteer with the church of your choice. |
| When you're sure you're right and that others are wrong, it may be hard to be quiet about it -- thinking that speaking up and changing minds could help keep people out of hell. |
No, it doesn't and it has asked The Episcopal Church to leave the Anglican Communion. From wiki: The Primates' Meeting voted to request the two churches to withdraw their delegates from the 2005 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council. Canada and the United States decided to attend the meeting but without exercising their right to vote. They have not been expelled or suspended, since there is no mechanism in this voluntary association to suspend or expel an independent province of the communion. Since membership is based on a province's communion with Canterbury, expulsion would require the Archbishop of Canterbury's refusal to be in communion with the affected jurisdictions. In line with the suggestion of the Windsor Report, Rowan Williams (the previous Archbishop of Canterbury) established a working group to examine the feasibility of an Anglican covenant which would articulate the conditions for communion in some fashion. |
There are women in the Anglican clergy, and they are called priests. |
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. |
Schori-ignorant pp here. I’m not Episcopalian or Anglican but I want to learn more from unbiased and reasonable sources. Seriously, you think non-Episcopalians can’t participate or have opinions? By telling me to leave, you’re just proving the point made by others, that your apparent goal here is to derail every thread about the ECUSA without revealing your actual motives: simply, it appears that that you left the ECUSA on doctrinal grounds, you’re po’d they wouldn’t let you keep the church buildings, and ten years later you’re still filled with bitterness. Why don’t you answer some of the questions about taking Paul literally that have been asked of you at 7:52? Elsewhere, you were asked whether you take all of Leviticus literally instead of just the OT stuff on sodomy—why not answer that? Pp showed you were wrong about Anglican women priests. If you can’t participate constructively and honestly, better that you pack up your lingering hatred and leave, for everybody else’s sake not to mention your own. |