Anonymous wrote:

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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?

[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.

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:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next step: Drop God

Yep.

That is wher e the Episcopalian "church" is leading.

They are working towards making the Bible a general suggestion and not the Word of God.

Episcopalians haven't taken the Bible literally for centuries -- because they study the human origins of the Bible

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.

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?

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?

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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

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

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next step: Drop God

Yep.

That is wher e the Episcopalian "church" is leading.

They are working towards making the Bible a general suggestion and not the Word of God.

Episcopalians haven't taken the Bible literally for centuries -- because they study the human origins of the Bible

The person you’re replying to is very likely a fundamentalist and therefore not interested in this line of thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next step: Drop God

Yep.

That is wher e the Episcopalian "church" is leading.

They are working towards making the Bible a general suggestion and not the Word of God.

Episcopalians haven't taken the Bible literally for centuries -- because they study the human origins of the Bible

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:.

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.