lutherans elect first transgender bishop

I haven't required of you anything not contained in scripture, have I? Nor have I questioned your salvation status or what you depend upon for it. If anything it is you who are attempting to require of others that they must adopt your views concerning the way the scriptures are to be understood and what they forbid. This whole thread started because of objections raised on the grounds that a recently enthoned bishop in the Lutheran faith had sinfully got (him)self surgically mutilated thus rendering (her)self unnaturally incapable of behaving as a man, naturally, (presumably), should.

If anyone is laying down the law on what is 'thought requisite or necessary to salvation', it seems to be you rather than me. Don't you think?
.

 

I do not lay down the law; I simply point to the Bible and say, "Here it is." It's a plain reading, but you seem to have an extraordinary inability to understand it. It mystifies me why you cannot understand what I and many others are trying to explain to you.

 

Just to be clear, it is not that having it is sinful. But rather, acting on it, acting on schizhophrenia, and especially being enabled to do so by others (eg. Tiffy) is what's sinful. If you'd be considered sinful for enabling a schizophrenic, so the same should apply to you enabling gender dysphoriac, or an LGBT-afflicted person. You're enabling all kinds of mentally disturbed people, giving them power to hurt themselves and those around them.

 

EDIT - deleted. I've gone on at too much length. I'll let this rest for now. We've definitely left the playing field for the parking lot at this point.

 

Baffling isn't it. I am similarly mystified about how my explanations and the scriptural support for them evades your comprehension. God must constantly feel the way we do, concerning the educational opaqueness, obtuseness, nay even, flint hard mental imperviousness, of the entire human race. Even Jesus got annoyed at us at times. Matt.17:17, Mark 9:17-19. Have you come to Jesus yet? That quite often goes some way to solving God's problem with us.

"It mystifies me why you cannot understand what I and many others are trying to explain to you." These were the words of a young , enthusiastic Baptist to a very aged bishop at an after baptism coffee and cakes reception. "Any fool can spend even just an hour in The New Testament to see that you can't baptise babies", said the young Baptist. "Yes I quite agree", said the old bishop. "But I've spent the last 60 years studying the whole of the Bible and have reached a different conclusion".

I wonder if the new Lutheran 'tranny bish' will have such humourous wisdom?

 

I am not sure I like the things in the eyebrows, and in truth I don't know what they are even called, and please don't tell me as I am sure I do not want to know. Aside from that, I am happy for the Lutheran Church of wherever to elect whomsoever they believe God is calling to the ministry or the episcopate, and I imagine they would extend the same courtesy to other ecclesiastical traditions including ours.

 

I had neglected this perspective, and it balances my thoughts well. I'll have to think on my perspective some more, thank-you for your response.

 

I can tolerate the eyebrow things and put it down to the, sometimes alcohol influenced, irrational human urges symptomatic of an innate human need, (implanted by God but sadly misdirected by them), for approval and acceptance by their equally irrational, fashion conscious peers. Would that 'eyebrow things' were restricted only to eyebrows but human irrationality knows no bounds and 'things' apparently are even placed in 1 Cor.12:23, for reasons apparent to those that do the rationalising and the placing. Since most of these people are discrete enough to afford those parts greater honor and rightly treat them with greater modesty, (thank God), we don't get to discover how many male bishops have 'eyebrow things' in 'modesty places'. The mind boggles though at the thought that those who would object to receiving communion or baptism from one of them, would want to adopt the roman Catholic practice of 'the bottomless chair' in order to preserve the Anglican church from inadvertently 'enthroning' one of them. I'm glad that I would not be called upon in any official capacity to 'grope a bish' to perform the duties of 'gatekeeper' to the prospective episcopate even though I would "rather be a doorkeeper in the house of the Lord than to dwell in the tents of the ungodly". Ps.84:10.

Presumably we shall eventually know if the Lutherans have done a foolish or sinful thing or not by studying God's reaction to their innovative initiative. Revelation 2:5
.

 

too much information

 

A typically Augustinian, and also typically male perspective this though. (He definitely had a 'history' and consequential 'hang ups' in that department).

The female of the human species does not seem so inclined to be driven by 'animal impulses' to 'fornicate with everyone & everything in sight if they are allowed', (a trait viewed with regret by most irresponsible men), perhaps because the biological, non-contraceptive, consquences for women can be considerable and long lasting, whereas for men consequences may be inconsquentiallly trivial. (Unless we are also considering any possible spiritual and eternal consequences attached to irresposibly putting ones favourite member and family jewels indiscriminately in anyone and, in particular, in any thing ).

It seems that men are far too irrationally enthusiastic in trying to keep God's first command in the Bible, Gen.1:28, whereas women are suspiciously cautious of the consequences and are consequently laggard and less enthusiastic.
.

 

You seem to enjoy insulting Catholics.
Maybe you look up the etymology of both words to find that they have nothing to to with each other.

 

No need to take it personally.

Insulting the papal system, perhaps. Insulting the laity, not really. Most Roman Catholics today recognize that Francis stinks at his job.

This is an Anglican forum, after all.

 

Maybe, but he's killed less people with his policies than Trump did, probably. Slightly different job though.

 

False equivalence. And false news.

 

The Bad Orange Man is worse than Genghis Khan, Rexlion, haven't you heard? Of course at some point a different Republican will occupy the office of President, and then that person will become Satan's minion, still stinking of brimstone, and Trump will be demoted to a lesser fiend. This is the cycle in American politics now for those on the left, and has been ever since Nixon. The left has to have their Goldstein at all times; Orwell knew the mindset well.

The United States of America now elects Presidents less on ability and platform than on their ability to model whatever the current zeitgeist is. Which explains why our current President is who he is: he's not expected to actually do anything, but just act as a blank screen onto which people can project their own wishes, fears, and desires. To our foreign friends, whether you like our President or hate him, it doesn't matter. It won't change anything. In many ways our President is more of a figurehead than your Prime Ministers or Kings or Queens. Hating the President is like hating bad weather for ruining your day.

I gave up on politics long ago. It's an utter waste of time. That portion of my brain that used to follow politics has now been re-dedicated to Scripture and my church. American politics is a filthy, depressing, pointless sham, and I refuse to engage in it any more. My only king is Christ Jesus; my only home is Heaven.

 

Nothing falase about the numbers though.