.

You seem to forget that Jesus never defined “sin” to include homosexuality, and the respect He always accorded women. Peace

The sin of homosexuality, just like the sin of adultery, were clearly defined as sin in the Old Testament. The idea that an abomination like homosexuality would somehow become normal, acceptable behavior contrary to God's purpose and design for our bodies is absurd. If Jesus had never mentioned murder, would that make it not a sin also?

"Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality so it cannot be a sin." That is completely wrong. Jesus did not mention bestiality either so by your logic, bestiality is not a sin.

Paul certainly addressed homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6, and the Old Testament does as well. You cannot remove Jesus from the surrounding context of the Old Testament (which he quoted from often), dismiss all of the disciples and men like Paul led by the Holy Spirit just so you can make a feeble case that "Christianity condones and approves of homosexuality."

The case cannot be made. I am amazed how people do their very best to twist and squirm to make Christianity approve of homosexuality. Such people want to please the world, not God.

Let us be clear: a homosexual willfully engaging in that sinful behavior, just like a murderer, just like an adulterer, will not enter heaven. To engage willfully in those sins shows a heart that has not be regenerated, a person who has not been born again.

“Argument against Jesus Didn’t Condemn Homosexuality” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1627
"Examples of Apostasy in the Christian church" https://carm.org/examples-apostasy-christian-church

What you want to do is skip parts of the bible so that you can aid and abet the sin of homosexuality. True Christians who obey their Lord Jesus will not allow anyone, even a Harvard Divinity school grad with a PhD, to get away with it in their churches. It is the height of self deception to craft Christianity in a form so that you can be evil but call yourself good, having a form of godliness --- "I go to church and call myself a Christian", yet deny the power of God who CLEARLY and without any shade of vagueness CLEARLY declared homosexuality, the same as adultery, to be sin.

In Mark 10:19 Jesus said to the man wanting to be a disciple, "...if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
Where did Jesus get these commandments? He got them from the Old Testament where these commandments were defined.

The man talking to Jesus asked "which commandments?" Jesus said, (1) Thou shalt do no murder, (2)Thou shalt not commit adultery, (3)Thou shalt not steal, (4)Thou shalt not bear false witness, (5)Honor thy father and thy mother: and, (6)Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Wait! That's only 5 commandments, adding "love your neighbor" as another. What about:

---Thou shalt have none other gods before me
---Thou shalt not make thee any graven image...shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them
---Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
---Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.
---Thou shalt not covet (anything of your neighbor)

Woohoo! Jesus never said anything about worshiping Allah or Krishna or Buddha so it's a-okay! Christianity sure is inclusive, we're all going to heaven even the atheists, wheeee!

Logic Fail. That is your logic. There are many things Jesus did not explicitly address. He did not need to address homosexuality because it was clear to everyone it was a sin, an abomination.
It is like today everyone knows you will get dirty getting in the mud. It is not necessary to tell anyone but small children this fact. This is why it is very important parents and the church teach, over and over again to them, that homosexuality is evil and not to be tolerated even if the teacher at school says it is okay or even if the leaders and lawmakers of the nation say it is okay. It is not. The bible trumps all other authority on the matter.

Notice all these problems in the Episcopal church began when they began ordaining women to lead and have authority over men, an action which Paul, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, wrote that it was not to be: women were to sit down, be quiet, not spouting illogical nonsense like "homosexuality is not a sin", and listen. If she's learned something she can assist the pastor, strengthening the church as women certainly did, like Phebe.

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume33/GOT033305.html

For the record, I will never attend any church led by a woman pastor, nor any church that does not take a strong, uncompromising stance against sinful behavior such as homosexuality. There is no tolerance, no getting along, no fellowship unless that person admits their sin and stops doing it. There can be no fellowship with evil.

Anonymous wrote:Jefferts Schori hasn't been Presiding Bishop since 2015, and this thread had nothing to do with her until the PP with an agenda brought her into it.
To that pp--it's clear you have a problem with TEC. Please start your own thread about Jefferts Schori and stop clogging up other threads with your outdated vitriol.

+1. Thank you. Plus, the Anglican schism was at least 10 years ago. PP left the Episcopal Church for a reason, which is fine, although unfortunately those reasons aren’t getting aired here honestly with all the diversions about Schori. These are old issues, so to the Anglican pp, please stop hijacking threads and move on. For your own peace of mind, move on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

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.

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

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. I’m not that familiar with her or when she was in charge, 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.

Sure, just like the Pope and the Catholic church are separable And I'm not whatever PP you think you're talking to. I think there are a number of voices here. I've never said anything about gay ministers.

You didn’t have to say anything about gay ministers. The Anglican Church broke away from the Episcopal Church over the issues of women's ordination and gay marriage. It doesn’t take a huge leap to infer your opposition to gay ministers.

I’ve been watching you Anglicans on DCUM for a few months now. I have to say, you guys are awesomely sleazy when it comes to dubious rhetorical dodges, intentionally bad logic, and admitting your own real views. The “I dislike the Episcopal Church because of Schori’s bad financial management” poster is an excellent case in point.

Jefferts Schori hasn't been Presiding Bishop since 2015, and this thread had nothing to do with her until the PP with an agenda brought her into it.
To that pp--it's clear you have a problem with TEC. Please start your own thread about Jefferts Schori and stop clogging up other threads with your outdated vitriol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

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.

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

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. I’m not that familiar with her or when she was in charge, 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.

Sure, just like the Pope and the Catholic church are separable And I'm not whatever PP you think you're talking to. I think there are a number of voices here. I've never said anything about gay ministers.

You know that both Schori (whoever she is) and the pope aren’t supreme rulers with unlimited powers, right? Both can say what they want (hopefully responsibly) but in the end, both are answerable to larger church bodies that make the big decisions. You don’t make any sense when you try to justify your bitterness by personalizing it onto some supposedly nefarious Schori bogeyman, whoever she is.

By now, we get that you hate the Episcopal Church, and we get that you hate Schori. But you need to own the reasons for your hatred of each (gays, church buildings, whatever) instead of dishonestly trying to blend them into a single bogeyman that should be hated, I dunno, just because... with a wave of your hands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

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.

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

The fact that Scori is a woman bishop—the horror!—must be really galling to pp. no wonder he’s making this so personal about her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

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.

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

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. I’m not that familiar with her or when she was in charge, 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.

Sure, just like the Pope and the Catholic church are separable And I'm not whatever PP you think you're talking to. I think there are a number of voices here. I've never said anything about gay ministers.

Well, the pope and the Catholic Church are seperable. Frances is quite obviously way out in front of the rest of the Vatican. Your analogy falls apart in every direction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

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.

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

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. I’m not that familiar with her or when she was in charge, 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.

Sure, just like the Pope and the Catholic church are separable And I'm not whatever PP you think you're talking to. I think there are a number of voices here. I've never said anything about gay ministers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

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.

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

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. I’m not that familiar with her or when she was in charge, 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

Some of her contraversies are discussed at this link:

http://www.virtueonline.org/episcopal-presiding-bishop-katharine-jefferts-schori-heretical-piñata

The issues I have with her and other Episcopal leaders are doctrinal (denying belief in the Nicene creed is a pretty big one) and being more concerned with making the Earth a better place, than preparing believers for the life hereafter is another.

I'm not saying the later is something to be ignored. The mission of the church is to teach and help people with redemption through the blood of Christ at the cross, good works are secondary to that.

Can you provide some kind of evidence that Schori denies belief in the Nicene creed?

Different poster, but you can start here. She didn't believe in the resurrection, which is in the Nicene creed, etc. https://anglicanecumenicalsociety.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/what-do-people-mean-when-they-say-that-presiding-bishop-schori-has-denied-the-resurrection-or-the-divinity-of-christ/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

Some of her contraversies are discussed at this link:

http://www.virtueonline.org/episcopal-presiding-bishop-katharine-jefferts-schori-heretical-piñata

The issues I have with her and other Episcopal leaders are doctrinal (denying belief in the Nicene creed is a pretty big one) and being more concerned with making the Earth a better place, than preparing believers for the life hereafter is another.

I'm not saying the later is something to be ignored. The mission of the church is to teach and help people with redemption through the blood of Christ at the cross, good works are secondary to that.

Hi. Minster jumping back again. Jesus made it crystal clear what the most important thing is. Love one another. Period. That's the most important thing. Everything else is secondary. 'Don't be a dick to others' is the cornerstone of the Christian faith (and of pretty much every other faith path). What about loving God, you ask? "Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me". You are loving God when you love others.

Redemption has been incorrectly used, abused, bought, and sold for generations. As a Christian, Jesus is my way-shower so of course I believe that we are redeemed through his death. But the message is not in his death. The message is in his willingness to sacrifice everything - his very life- for people who despised him. That's love my friend. Whole, complete, unconditional love. That's where Jesus wants us to get. It's not about the pretty words of the scripture. It's not about the dogma, the rules, the rituals. Those are important for us because they connect us with the divine. But we can't miss the most important part. The love. Love one another, period.

This sounds nice and warm and fuzzy...but is so hilariously inaccurate I don't know where to begin.

To me, it's not a matter of it being inaccurate, it's a matter of it being the minister's own view of things presented as the only bonafide, acceptable view: "Love one another, period." It's a nice view and one I don't take issue with as a way to conduct one's life, but it the the only view of Christianity - and perhaps not even a predominate one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people need a pronoun to feel loved by and included in Christ, they have much bigger issues with their faith. (By this I mean that I think this change is absolutely ridiculous, not that the change is warranted.)

Left ECUSA years ago and have never looked back. Too much throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I say this as a woman who supports gay marriage, ordination of women, etc.

We did too. The Episcopal Church is already dead. http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/home-page-news-and-views/why-is-the-episcopal-church-near-collapse.aspx

Yes, lots of people like you don’t like the ECUSA because it ordains women and gays. I’m proud of it for that reason—this is Jesus’ welcome and tolerance.

You seem to forget and ignore the direction by Christ to go and sin no more.

You seem to forget that He never defined “sin” to include homosexuality, and the respect He always accorded women. Peace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

Some of her contraversies are discussed at this link:

http://www.virtueonline.org/episcopal-presiding-bishop-katharine-jefferts-schori-heretical-piñata

The issues I have with her and other Episcopal leaders are doctrinal (denying belief in the Nicene creed is a pretty big one) and being more concerned with making the Earth a better place, than preparing believers for the life hereafter is another.

I'm not saying the later is something to be ignored. The mission of the church is to teach and help people with redemption through the blood of Christ at the cross, good works are secondary to that.

Can you provide some kind of evidence that Schori denies belief in the Nicene creed?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can't speak to Greek, but Hebrew does not have a gender neutral word for "parent" . Its either av, or im. When discussing parents or ancestors generally, we use the masculine ("avot") may be used. Similarly for gendering of plural pronouns, children ("Bnei Israel" which is translated children of Israel, really means "sons of Israel" but the female "bnot" is used when females only are referred to, when its a mixed group of children or descendants, its "bnei")

But I suppose to Episcopalians the bible is really an English document

Well, modern Christians obviously read the Bible in their native translation. Of course Jesus would most likely have spoken Aramaic, which then was translated into Hebrew, and Greek, and on and on. Sadly, not many people take their study of theology far enough to get to the part where the linguistics and source theories are taught. For me that was in a Catholic college, but my siblings had no exposure to it.

This is an interesting article on the translation of the Lord's Prayer: http://aramaicnt.org/articles/the-lords-prayer-in-galilean-aramaic/ The Q writer (ascribed to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke) seemed to use a word for 'father' more than the very different Gospel of John writers, who refer to Jesus as Logos (the word), and emphasizes the divinity much more. In John, Jesus only directly addresses God as "Father" once.

Er, I think you may be confused. The NT is written in Greek, and presumably Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and his words (other than the phrase eli, eli, lama sabacthani -itself a quotation from psalms) were translated by the gospel writers to Greek. But what part was translated into Hebrew? The Hebrew scriptures were written before the life of Jesus.

You are correct; I did not mean to suggest otherwise.