Reply to Episcopal diocese of Washington to drop male pronouns for God

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Episcopal diocese of Washington to drop male pronouns for God"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][b][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?[/quote]

[b]Because 1-2 of the frequent posters here were part of the schism a few years ago when some left the Episcopal Church over women’s ordination and gay marriage—they now refer to themselves as Anglicans. As evidenced by recent vitriolic posts on other threads, they’re still hopping mad that the Episcopal Church wouldn’t let them keep the church buildings after they left.[/quote][/b]

I don't think so.  It would be impossible to have a discussion about current affairs in the Catholic Church without a discussion about the Pope's tweets and messages.  Similarly, Schori was head of the Episcopal Church here in the USA and left it bankrupt and in shambles because she initiated all the lawsuits.  One can't really have a discussion about problems within an institution without talking about its heads and their positions[/quote]

The Episcopal Church itself and Schori are totally separable, and you’re not making sense. You can have a low opinion of Schori’s financial management skills and still think the Episcopal Church itself has much to offer.

So to return to pp’s question, why do you show up on every thread to trash the church itself? You’ve made it abundantly clear, on this thread and every related thread, that you don’t like gays and women ministers. So why can’t you let it drop now? Don’t put a rainbow bumper sticker on your car and don’t attend the Episcopal Church. Easy, done. Move on, spend your time worshipping and volunteering with the Anglican Church if that’s your think. However, your obsession with Schori makes me think this really is lasting bitterness over the buildings. [b]I’m not that familiar with her or when she was in charge[/b], but arguably all those lawsuits were just defending the church against the theft of its property and buildings, and the courts apparently agreed. So enough, move along, for your own sake if not ours.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Tactic: can’t answer the question at 7:52 about taking Paul literally, or some other uncomfortable question? Want to keep the thread alive indefinitely so you can keep spewing vitriol about the Episcopal Church?  Dredge up a post from a day or two ago and bully that poster. That’s the 2nd or 3rd time I’ve noticed you doing that on this thread alone. [/quote]
I believe some on here are conflating posters. I am the PP who has been questioned about shellfish, etc., in Leviticus and taking Paul literally. I am not nor have I ever been Episcopalian, and I haven't heaped vitriol on any Episcopalians. I also haven't called anyone stupid, but I did say the question about taking Paul literally was stupid, because I believe it was.

I'm still confounded by the question about taking Paul literally, and I've reached the conclusion that the poster who asked that question doesn't mean "literally" but "seriously." Paul's writings are extremely straightforward. There's no way to give them a metaphorical reading. If there is now some rule that a writer must state at the beginning of his writings, "Please take me literally," then there is no way for us to communicate anymore. So I must believe the question to really be, "Why do I have to pay attention to Paul? Can't I pick and choose what I believe and what I don't, just like some people are doing with the Episcopal Church?" The answer goes back to something I said a few pages ago: This is the essence of unbelief. The letters of Paul are Scripture. They are confirmed as Scripture in Peter's letters. Paul states on occasions too numerous to cite here that He is speaking the express will of the LORD, that he is Christ's mouthpiece. Indeed, the entire book of 2 Corinithians is a defense of his apostolic authority, that what he writes is binding on the church. His writings are part of Scripture, and a Bible-believing Christian accepts that they are part of the entire counsel of God, that they are part of the Word, as it says in John 1:1, who is Christ, who is God. So a Bible-believing Christian takes them both literally AND seriously. No, Paul did not claim to be divine, and I've never heard an orthodox Christian make that claim. Neither did any of the other writers of Scripture. But you either believe that all of Scripture is the word of God or you don't, and that is really the dividing line of belief in a Christian sense.

Regarding shellfish, etc. It seems that posters who fall back on that can't and won't be bothered to read the New Testament Scriptures that address that. God in the Old Testament prefaces His laws with a statement that if you follow His commandments, you will have life. Were there good refrigeration systems back then? Maybe it wasn't a good idea to eat shellfish because it wasn't healthy (i.e, wasn't "clean."). The laws about not being clean if you had a disease were the first quarantine. They kept the population as a whole healthy. (Incidentally, there's a good bit of science for those of you who think the Bible is anti-science). Surely, if you're sophisticated enough to log on to a computer, you should be able to tell a difference between moral laws such as the 10 Commandments and more ceremonial, practical ones. These were given to, yes, the Jews, because it was through the Jews that God revealed Himself to mankind. They were laws to set them apart from everyone else, because it was through them that the Messiah was brought into the world. They were a set-apart people whom God wanted to maintain a distinction with so that He would be fully known by everyone. But what Christ made clear in the Gospels was that the Pharisees, the Jewish religious authorities, had made a strict following of these laws the supreme test of whether someone was righteous before God, without any understanding that a relationship with the LORD is a matter of the heart, of love for God and for others. They had become sanctimonious and self-righteous out of an asceticism that had nothing to do with love for anyone. The Pharisees at one point told Christ that His disciples were sinful because they hadn't washed their hands before dinner. Here was Christ's response:

"Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a 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 unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

Notice the things He does mention. These are all reaffirmed as sin by both Christ and the writers of the New Testament letters. Everyone there knew what he meant by "fornications," and it covered all sexual sin (homosexuality included), which had already been clearly defined.

In Acts, Christ told Peter that all things were acceptable to eat. Christ was the originator of a new covenant, whereby we are made righteous by faith in Him as God and by His death and resurrection. But he did not entirely rewrite the laws of what sin is. Lying is still lying. Theft is still theft. Adultery is still adultery. Murder is still murder. These things separate man from God and man from man. If you want to get hung up on shellfish and mixd fabrics, you're willfully missing the point, because you want to be free to do these other things in some form or another.

So there's your answer. If you don't like it, that's fine, and you can take it up with Christ at the judgment. But your claims that those who see this distinction and understand Scripture are hypocrites is entirely hollow. And you can't defend your position by appealing to Scripture, because the totality of Scripture addresses it all. It makes you the one who's picking and choosing.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics