Episcopal Church Approves Gay Couples' Same-Sex Blessings

[RadixLecti]

the bible writers got it wrong when talkig about creation, about eunuchs, about women, about lots of things. Jesus is the living word not the bible. we can see in the bible a evolution of religious thought paticualry if we use the eunuchs for example.

this is the prob with so many Christians, biblical literalism when the bible cannot be taken in such as way. It is possible for the bible to get it wrong sometimes you know.

That's kind of my point. Assuming that we have discovered that the Bible is "wrong" on all these things, the most rational thing to believe is that the places where the Bible got it "right" are just coincidences. A religion cannot be wrong in so many places and still claim to be a source of divine revelation.

People who believe this would have so much more integrity if they just aknowledged that they believed there either was no literal God or that we cannot be certain of the mind of God. After all, church leaders seem to change what they believe about God every couple generations.

It would make so much more sense to just say "we don't know" when it comes to God and embrace a form of secular humanism. When church leaders tell people that God's will is one thing one generation and another the next, they are basically saying that God's will is whatever "we" (the leadership) believe now. On some level its as though they are saying that they are God (but not literally of course).

Honestly, many of the conservatives in the Anglican Communion are no better when it comes to this issue either. The hypocrisy is pretty obvious when you think about how they have condemned the ordination of gays because they are compelled to do so by the historic interpretation of the Bible. However when it comes to the ordination of women or the acceptance of divorce and other issues, suddenly they say "it's ok because our culture has changed." If it's acceptable to depart from the historic understanding of Scripture in one area, then the whole of Scripture should at least be up for reinterpretation.

 

[RadixLecti]

I dunno, haven't seen anyone kick em out yet. and they've been pushing the envelope for well over a decade now. I recoken the communion will just sit pretty and watch it play out

A decade? More like since the 1970s. As long as they have money to contribute to the Communion they won't be getting kicked out.

If attitudes in the rest of the Communion stay the same but TEC runs out of money, then they're gone.

 

[SharonL]

This just shows how church and man made legalism has taken God's Will out of the church. The man-made rules can make church say anything it wants - that does not mean it is from God.

 

[BrisbaneAnglican]

This just shows how church and man made legalism has taken God's Will out of the church. The man-made rules can make church say anything it wants - that does not mean it is from God.

and the bible with all it's Scientific and moral errors is from God?

Its a witness to God, not the word of God.

 

[Albion]

I doubt TEC will stay in the Anglican Communion for long.

They're capable and prepared if it comes to that, but why would they? Seriously.

 

[Albion]

I don't know, moves such as this usually see some big old splits developing. We'll see how it plays out.

Nope. Almost all the conservatives and moderates have already left. That's why I said that this decision--entirely expected--is only the beginning. There's hardly anyone left to oppose almost any proposed change that's in the pipeline. Nor is the church in any mood to compromise. Membership losses are currently running at about 1,000 a week, but so long as TEC can keep the property of departing parishes, the church is not only not about to compromise in order to stop the losses but is actively attempting to expel any clergy who are considered not to be completely on board with the changes.

 

[RadixLecti]

and the bible with all it's Scientific and moral errors is from God?

Its a witness to God, not the word of God.

Then how do we know there is a God? (I'm not just making a rhetorical statement. I actually asking.) If we don't really have anything that we know for sure is from God, why should we assume that a literal God exists?

 

[BrisbaneAnglican]

I don't really know what you those who disapprove of homosexuality think is going to happen.

do you think that somehow you can turn people heterosexuals? do you think your going to find a cure? are you hoping we all just disappear and you won't have to deal with us and bruise your egos? none of this is going to happen.

by pushing homosexuals away what you do as alienate people from the body of christ, gay and lesbian men and women, and their entire families, cause lets face it parents are not going to abandon their kids cause of some out dated source of morality that contradicts science.

and may I also say since nobody knows when christ will return Its unlikely (though not impossible) that he is going to return any time soon. If your expecting him to pour fire and brimstone down on gay people to get rid of them for ya then your also mistaken.

I really don't know what you seek to do by stopping progress. nothing is going to happen except the body of christ will become smaller and smaller. and Good people (gay and straight) will be alienated from her. I find that sad.

 

[mark46]

Yes, let's come out of the closet. You seem to be a closet literalist.

You say,

It is possible for the bible to get it wrong sometimes you know.
​

Not on faith and morals
==========================================

The Church hasn't taken this view on slavery, contraception, adultery, the role of women in the family and the workplace, the ordination of women, divorce, charging of interest, and many other moral issues.

In other issues, not affecting faith and morals, the Church simply ignores NT prohibitions, for example against women wearing gold and men having long hair.

Faith issues have also changed (in addition to the above) on forgiveness of Christians, on baptism and on other issues. Certainly the understanding of faith issues was not clear for the early Church. Hence the early Council pronouncements, including the Creeds. Is the second coming a faith issue? I think so! Early Christians thought that Jesus would come again in their lifetimes and had to change this view to console those whose relatives had died.
============

Let's be honest!!! It is dishonest to say that the Church's acceptance of the pronouncements of Scripture in the case of faith and morals has not changed.

=============================================

Just so we understand each others' viewpoint a bit better I'll come out of the theological closet.

 

[BrisbaneAnglican]

Then how do we know there is a God? (I'm not just making a rhetorical statement. I actually asking.) If we don't really have anything that we know for sure is from God, why should we assume that a literal God exists?

Faith.

 

[Albion]

I don't really know what you those who disapprove of homosexuality think is going to happen.

Homosexuality wasn't the issue in this General Convention. That battle was fought years ago.

 

[BrisbaneAnglican]

Homosexuality wasn't the issue in this General Convention. That battle was fought years ago.

to that

 

[mark46]

TEC has taken a reasonable view to bless the lifelong commitments of its members to each other. Of course, TEC already accepts many of these folks as being civily married. The Church does not reject civil marriages, or those of other Churches which marry same-sex couples.

In the end, the issue is indeed the Christian definition of sex and of marriage. Both are evolving, and have been evolving for centuries. For centuries, marriage was NOT a religious event. Few were married in the Church. Sex was for the purpose of having children, and only for that purpose. Hence the debates regarding contraception.

 

[Obzocky]

Nope. Almost all the conservatives and moderates have already left. That's why I said that this decision--entirely expected--is only the beginning. There's hardly anyone left to oppose almost any proposed change that's in the pipeline. Nor is the church in any mood to compromise. Membership losses are currently running at about 1,000 a week, but so long as TEC can keep the property of departing parishes, the church is not only not about to compromise in order to stop the losses but is actively attempting to expel any clergy who are considered not to be completely on board with the changes.

Really? I really need to catch up on my understanding of international Anglican affairs. Anglican affairs in general really, i'm stuck in the past.

 

[Cjwinnit]

oh of course not...cause we don't really believe slavery was a moral issue now do we? or rather God didn't.

Slavery isn't exactly loved by God, or He wouldn't have mentioned saving his people from it in the First Commandment. Condoning or tolerating something for a limited time isn't the same as promoting it or saying it's OK. God condoned slavery in extreme circumstances - like divorce. Doesn't mean He doesn't hate it - it means his judgement on it is delayed.

 

[BondiHarry]

"Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice" (Ephesians 4:31)

Who's living in open rebellion?

"A man shall not lay with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination."

Who indeed?

 

[Cjwinnit]

Really? I really need to catch up on my understanding of international Anglican affairs. Anglican affairs in general really, i'm stuck in the past.

This is true for North American christianity, not necessarily of the communion as a whole. Your average Anglican churchgoer is 17-year old Nigerian woman.

 

[BrisbaneAnglican]

Slavery isn't exactly loved by God, or He wouldn't have mentioned saving his people from it in the First Commandment. Condoning or tolerating something for a limited time isn't the same as promoting it or saying it's OK. God condoned slavery in extreme circumstances - like divorce. Doesn't mean He doesn't hate it - it means his judgement on it is delayed.

lol I love it how God who is so changeless and unchangeable suddenly finds times for 'buts' and 'if's' when it suits the fancy of the Hebrew writers. lol

things like:
Ex 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

Ex.22:2-3
If a thief ... have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Lev.19:20
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

Col.3:22
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

...think the lord would have taken a stronger stand against the morality of slavery. but then again I don't believe him to be the author of this nonsence.

 

[mark46]

This deserves another thread.

Is your faith truly in the Bible? Is the Bible truly your source of Truth? I mean no offense, but IMHO Christianity is about much more, and is much "simpler".

Our faith is in Jesus, his birth, his life, his death, his resurrection, and his promise to come again in glory.

We are NOT literalists. We know this from viewing the OT. We should be just as careful with the NT.

The bible was written by men embedded in a culture trying their best to use their language to tell their brothers and sisters (and us) about the living God. We are NOT Muslims. We do NOT believe that God dictated Scripture word for word, or even edited the words.

Jesus is the Truth, the Way and the Life. He gave us two commands, lest we be literal about the rest of the rules. He gave us examples of how to live. He (and then the early Church) gave us the Great Commission.

The literal words of the Bible are NOT the Truth, the Way and the Life. Sscriptural verses can be used to support our own views, as has been the case in the past.

This controversy shall pass, as it has for divorce, contraception, woman's place in the family and society, and for slavery.

Then how do we know there is a God? (I'm not just making a rhetorical statement. I actually asking.) If we don't really have anything that we know for sure is from God, why should we assume that a literal God exists?

 

[Cjwinnit]

...think the lord would have taken a stronger stand against the morality of slavery.

He does - ask the Egyptians