Transgender Episcopal Priest...need I say more?

Right that is our point.
God is love, he is forgivness. You have to repent and turn away from sins. No run off and become a transgender priest, setting an exemple for the church that God's order is wrong, that sin is ok.
I do see the whole do not Cherry Pick. Ignoring Sin, Judgement, Hell. That is cherry picking

 

There is a difference in ignoring sin and classification of it. there is the knee jerk reaction specially in the US of "well i don't WANT to engage in theological debate when my position is questioned, I need to team up and deal with the "threat" rather then actual engagement on WHY some view it this way and why they feel that strongly to. Or to accuse those others of hetrodoxy or aposticism or heresy which for all you that identify with tradition should also remember what such charges usually brought.

So far I've seen a lot of knee jerking and frankly disturbing responses to those we are called to love, those that were made in god's image and those we are called to serve.

So the cherry picking issue is not just one way here.

 

Yeah the example God gave is of fornicators burning in hell. Do you dispute this?


Or this,
“Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor men who lay with other men, shall possess the kingdom of God.”
--1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Do you dispute this?


“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.”
--Deuteronomy 22:5

Do you dispute this?

 

Yes I do. Cherry picking again still....also, not to be "anti-scriptoral". But to deal with how theology and reason has progressed since that time of Paul. As for Dueteronomy. Do you follow those dietary laws that are outlined in there, or practise slavery or sell daughters into slavery?

Again, reason is part of the tradition in the Anglican church and also that type of setiment in this day and age is usually seen at soldier's funerals in the US waving placards and ignoring actual context or actual morals.

 

You're a new poster, how about you let some more experienced members discuss these issues, before rushing to try to stick your views in everyone's face?

You seem to understand as cherry picking, using the Bible in any way at all, for guidance of human lives! you are not a Christian

Pray tell how have could theology and reason "progress" since St Paul's time. And was he wrong on anything?

pathetic. The hatred of gods holy word by progressives is heretical. I don't follow the dietary laws only because Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial part of the Law. Were I living in the Old Testament I would gladly follow God's holy word on all these issues to the letter. No part of God's word is bad or incomplete

 

There is difference classes of laws. We as christians do not follow civil or purity laws, but the moral laws still apply.
So if the bible is not a guide post for you, than what is. From all I hear out of you is that there is something higher than scripture to apply to, which for you is modern man. Also the other thing I here from you is insulting us. Which is not even how to debate an idea.

 

No the question should be was paul right on anything

 

LOL circle the wagons defend our position - yes we do follow the teachings of Jesus and love our brothers, sisters and our enemies... but that person over there who is a transgender Priest.... this is not Christianity is dualistic thinking and quite sad really... and I must say predictable I have seen so much of it in here, in my Parish and other forums I have been involved with over the years.

I suppose I need to learn patience and not over-react when I see this happening.

We have the re-incarnation of Charlie Ray without the pages and pages of cut and paste. He always reminded me of one of those 'fire and brimstone preachers' you would see in the old western movies... highlighting the sins of everyone else but themselves.

 

LOL classic I love it when others think they have any idea what is in the heart of another and dare to tell them how wrong they are... and then pull out the 'your not a real Christian' response....

 

Gordon with all due respect it is in the lack of repentence for there sins. That is what this is about. I know it is easy to frame in it that well your a sinner too argument. That is true, but I repent. I do not live in sin.
I just feel like a lot of the liberal impact is just not seeing sin as sin. So what is sin? Is it the exemples of the Bible or is it what you think it is. I really do not like being argumentive. I am suprised how fiesty this forum is.

 

Sex is wrong when it it becomes something that is abused or is a vice. This is what you seem to either ignore or choose not to hear. because of a text that is takien at face value without context of timeframe or theological analysis. Do I think sex can be abused? You are darn right I do. promiscuity,abuse,paedofilia,domestic violence,pronography,abortions simply cause the ability to have them exists all are ways that sex can be immoral. BUT that applies to man and women as it does anyone else.

It does not apply to those that are monogamous, wishing to remain so, in full awareness of what is loose and seemly and contradictory to the moral truth found in Scripture.

And we ALL....everyone of us, live in sin. That is the human experience. We can emulate Jesus but we are frail and we make mistakes, which is what sin is. I'm not exempt from that nor are you. We all will struggle. That is why Jesus came to save us, to redeem us though we are unworthy of it. That's why the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a Sacrament.


The mistake is seeing the liberal outlook as "redefining what morals mean" It's not. It's about seeing and responding, like we have done as the Christian church to the world,casting out and going against what is wrong. And showing that the Great Commandment still has sway and showing it by taking measures to show the world "This is the living body of Christ's church...you can see it in it's people, in it's missions, in it's mandates and in it's actions.

 

So christian morals for the better part of 2000 years is wrong? That christian morals is based off of scripture? So Scripture is wrong?

 

Please read the previous post again. Did I not say moral truth found in Scripture is still there? however, there is a difference in literalism and theological awareness.

If you insist on 100% literal interpretations of Scripture then you break a law of God's everytime you don't follow the dietary laws in Leviticus, or you believe that the earth is only thousands of years old when literal evidence exists to point out that it's billions of years old. Or we burn heretics and Jews and anyone that has a "non-christian" thought at the stake or draw and quarter them. Or stone them to death. Do we still believe that witches float?

If you say you accept those things, then why is an equally and cultural taboo from 2,000 years ago or more if you wish to refer to the Old Testament held to the ideal that it's a LITERAL meaning and that it's spirit can not still be followed but taboos and ancient of looking at taboos are prone to the same kind of re-evaluation?

Again....how is this sin when the spirit of Scripture is followed when the definitions that defined the original moral teaching may have undergone a reevaluation?

 

7s you can feel free to ignore my points when they are too hard for you to rebut, but that doesn't mean that I will stop making them.

Your hatred of traditional Christianity is astounding. There is nothing in Christianity that teaches about witches floating.

But there is a lot in Christianity about those who engage in sodomy being condemned to hell forever. Why don't you address the particular issue at hand instead of helplessly resorting to red herrings to try to rescue your sinking case.

 

Sphere....the fact you've called me un-christian negates debating with you....there is no point when you have no actual reason to want to listen nor understand. You wish to force your interpretation and condemn anything that runs counter to your own opinions. Which is a lot more un-christian then running in different theological and ideological circles with the others here.If I wanted that...I'd deal with Westboro.

Sorry, but at least the others are trying to debate their opinions and feelings without jumping to Pope style heretical judgements.

I recommend the Sacrament of Reconciliation for you. And when you wish to debate like the others are, who are as Christian as I am...even if we differ theologically then I will welcome it.

 

Sorry Rev but it you who continue to argue... My point all along is that is none of your business to judge what others do or do not do, that is between them and our Lord, unless you or I, or Sperelink, or 7s manage to wake up one day and find we are without sin.

Actually Rev your nickname leads me to assume that you hold Holy Orders, if that is the case what do you believe sin is?

 

@7sacraments, sounds to me like you've no interest in arguments that may make your position invalid. You're similarly uninterested in divine revelation which may condemns choices made by humans today. Yet you still want to retain to yourself (for unknown reasons) the title of a Christian, i.e. someone who adheres to the doctrine that abjuring natural human conjugal relations is bad, or that people who engaged in it in Sodom were killed and executed by God, or that they're condemned by the very Holy Spirit of God to a perpetual lake of fire. Wouldn't Unitarians be a nicer, more comfortable home for your beliefs?

Since you believe in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, I recommend roman catholicism for you. We have no sacrament of reconciliation in Anglicanism, and we don't have 7 sacraments (a medieval fiction imposed in the middle ages). And we don't have a progressive revelation. You want 7 sacraments, 'Reconciliation,' progressive revelation, non-judgmentalism... sounds like Pope Francis to me.

 

Actually we do have the sacrament of Reconciliation in the Anglican Church and have had for nearly 2000 years... even the authors of the 39 Articles of Religion include it as one of the secondary sacraments, where Baptism and the Eurcharist are the Gospel Sacraments.

Actually Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air, and hopefully will bring our RC brothers and sisters to a realization that Christian worship is not about looking down it is about looking up.

 

"even the authors of the 39 Articles of Religion include it as one of the secondary sacraments"

secondary sacraments...? Please educate me.

 

the article (26) states that they are not to be considered sacraments of the gospel....? I am confused as well.