Considering the Episcopal Church

[PaladinGirl]

Hi everyone. :wave: I am considering joining a local Episcopal church but I have some questions before I do so. You see, I am a Catholic but I am a liberal Catholic. I don't agree with a number of doctrines they teach and I also don't agree with a number of other things that they do.

That said, my questions are mostly related to ethics. Has the Episcopal church taken an official stand on many ethical issues? What is the stance on abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia? I know that Episcopalians allow women priests and I like this. I also know that they allow married priests which is also something I like. So anyway, if you all could please just help me and guide me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. :)

[TomUK]

I will let someone from within the ECUSA to comment on official positions but generally within Anglicanism we tend to place less emphasis on dogmatism than the RCC does. The motto of this forum and a famous Anglican saying is scripture, traditions and. God has blessed us as beings who are capable of intelligent thought and the ability to reason and it is important to apply our own sense of morality (within the context of church history and scripture of course) to ethical situations. For example, the attitude of the Church of England to abortion is that is always undesirable but occasionly a necessary evil. As such you will find a whole variety of answers here at STR to most ethical issues. Over the next few days the issue of homosexuality is once again going to explode worldwide and there will no doubt be much shouting between us. However in way that's what Anglicanism is about. We are imperfect people who live in an imperfect world and everyday we are trying to mould ourselves and the world in general more and more in image of Christ. All of us in STR and trying to hear and respond to the call of Christ in our lives and often different people interpret that call in a different way. The Church needs to recognise that inherent diversity and embrace for the wonderful that it is. It is certainly not for us or even the Church to declare what is right on all issues under the sun. For that we have to use the great resources that God has given us - holy scripture, church tradition and our reason.

Hmmm, seem to have gone on a bit of ramble there. Not sure why! I don't if it answers your question at all but i'm going to post in anyway - do with it what you will!

[gtsecc]

That said, my questions are mostly related to ethics. Has the Episcopal church taken an official stand on many ethical issues? What is the stance on abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia? I know that Episcopalians allow women priests and I like this. I also know that they allow married priests which is also something I like. So anyway, if you all could please just help me and guide me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
I like all of those things also.
However, I have come to believe that part of being Christian is submitting to the teachings of the Church. So, while people are not excommunicated for some of those beliefs, I think the church teachings are very clear over the last 2,000 years.

[Albion]

I like all of those things also.
However, I have come to believe that part of being Christian is submitting to the teachings of the Church. So, while people are not excommunicated for some of those beliefs, I think the church teachings are very clear over the last 2,000 years.


But to be fair to our inquirer, that doesn't tell her what The Episcopal Church's stand TODAY is on any of those matters. If a recent development such allowing women priests is what the church stands for now, not what was the case for 2000 years previously, should she not similarly be told what the Church has stated about abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality--by one of its recent conventions, for example? When people ask about "official stand," as was the case here, they are not asking if there is a divided opinion among members generally, whether you will be excommunicated for believing this or that, or what the Church believed in the past.

I'm agreeing with TomUK, that the answer most properly should come from a member of The Episcopal Church, so how 'bout it? Help her out.

[gtsecc]

The Episcopal Church dopes not have a stance today on those issues.
I would say they do not have the authority to take a stance differently than what has always been taught anymore than I can take a stand on an issue, and then claim that it is "the" Christian stance on that issue, at least on Dogma. For example, they cannot claim Jesus is a woman or abortion is a sacrament.

[PaladinGirl]

The Episcopal Church dopes not have a stance today on those issues.
I would say they do not have the authority to take a stance differently than what has always been taught anymore than I can take a stand on an issue, and then claim that it is "the" Christian stance on that issue, at least on Dogma. For example, they cannot claim Jesus is a woman or abortion is a sacrament.
Oh okay. Thank you for this. It sounds to me like the Episcopal Church is worth checking out again. I checked it out a few times before but I don't often go because I don't often have the gas to go.

[PaladinGirl]

Well everyone, after some research, I have decided that the Episcopal Church is the right one for me. I do have one more question though. Are there any such things as charismatic Episcopalians? :confused:

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Stance on Euthanasia: The Archbishop of Canterbury has come out and issued a "warning" about the use of Euthanasia as possibly leading towards feeling that resources spent on maintaing the elderly's quality of life are wasted. Translation--I don't think its smiled upon.

Stance on Abortion: As I remember the Episcopal Church was one of the first ones to give support to use of artificial contraceptives. No one honestly "likes" abortion, but some do support a woman's right to choose. Some hold life as sacred from conception to natural death. Its left to individual choice.

Stance on Homosexuality: Its kinda left up to one's personal view. I for example am a raving liberal and fully support all gay rights--including gay marriage, adoption rights--you name it I support it. :P I would recommend a book by Bishop J. Neal Alexander This Far by Grace for one Bishop's view on homosexuality. He came from a very conservative upbringing and for awhile during his adulthood he was still very conservative (and Lutheran--but that's besides the point) but he met a gay priest and eventually that changed his mind. He is the Bishop who confirmed me into the Episcopal Church and his daughter if I'm not mistaken is bisexual. He's a really great man and I would highly recommend that book.

Here is a link with differing opinions.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/infoline_10414_ENG_HTM.htm

Hope this helps..

Mrs.Sidhe

P.S I haven't heard of Charismatic Episcopals, but my hubby Sidhe says he's heard of them but they are mostly in England making them Charismatic Church of England. There might be some Charismatic Episcopal. *shrugs*

[AngCath]

There is the Charismatic Episcopal Church which is another denomination completely and there are Episcopalians whose spirituality could be classified as "charismatic".

[TomUK]

Well everyone, after some research, I have decided that the Episcopal Church is the right one for me. I do have one more question though. Are there any such things as charismatic Episcopalians? :confused:

It's great that you're firm on the episcopal Church. I would give one word of caution though. You seem to have come to the conclusion based on research, and research is all well and good but Anglicanism is all about a faith that is lived and research is always going to give a somewhat incomplete picture of who we are.

There's a famous quote which says something along the lines of "those Anglicans always do their theology to the sound of Church bells." This was actually intended as an insult but i would much rather wear it as a badge of honour. We've never had a catchecism like the RCC. If someone wants to know what Anglicans believe rather than pointing them towards a book we will point them towards our Churches. If you truely want to know what we believe that you have to look at our worship, read our liturgies and pray our prayers. The book of common prayer, the most famous book in all of Anglicanism, is simply a whole host of services. We've never had permanant academics to the same extent as many other denominations because our theology can be found far in the services at Church than in any weight tomes. And that is exactly what the quote is talking about. 'We do our theology to the sound Church bells' is such a glorious statement as it speaks of a Church which is alive with worhsip and ultimately that is what everything comes to do.

Research is most definitely important, and i don't want to paint Anglicanism as unacademic as it most certainly is not. However research can only give you part of the story. To get the whole picture i'm afraid you're going to have to come on in (but the waters lovely! ;) )

[No Swansong]

Well everyone, after some research, I have decided that the Episcopal Church is the right one for me. I do have one more question though. Are there any such things as charismatic Episcopalians? :confused:
My friend;
I hope that you remember I have often come to your defense and I have had you on my daily prayer list for a very long time now. I would caution you against making such statements. I know your struggle and I am afraid that others will see you as less than sincere. (I do not fall into this category) There are many here who would be happy to share with you, teach you, etc. But again for your own reputation please be cautious about such comments as "I have decided".

You remain in my daily prayers.

jtbdad

[gtsecc]

Charismatic Episcopalians?
Oh yeah - we started it, the Charismatic Renewal, at least. Google "9 O'Clock in the Morning" or Dennis Bennett.

[No Swansong]

Charismatic Episcopalians?
Oh yeah - we started it, the Charismatic Renewal, at least. Google "9 O'Clock in the Morning" or Dennis Bennett.
I have been fortunate enough to know many Charismatic Episcopalians.

[Sonfest Rocker]

Well everyone, after some research, I have decided that the Episcopal Church is the right one for me. I do have one more question though. Are there any such things as charismatic Episcopalians? :confused:
come on how long till u change again
untill u decide what church is really for u i suggest that u diosplay thechristian seeker icon and dont say i have decuded just say i am seriously concidering cuz the way u chop and change churches
3 weeks ago u were just going back to the catholic church
u really need to get ur prioritys right
and stick with a church u need more than 3 weeks to decide whats what
i was with the catolic church almost 5 yrs b4 i realise it wasnt for me
i didnt think the anglican church was either but i didnt change right then and there
i stuck with it
but you
u have been catholic wickan and whole lot of other religons
try and stick with one ur relationship with god will grow

[Sonfest Rocker]

she is catholic again
well thats what her icon is

[MandM]

Interesting thread.

On a side note, what do you all think of this?:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp

[Secundulus]

I will be charitable and simply say that I believe Chick is in error. Here is why.

Take this for instance.
http://www.chick.com/tractimages64624/0071/0071_12.gif

Jesus said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood".

We simply believe that what he said was what he meant. Chick on the other hand would say that the Lord Jesus was in error.

Personally, I think it would be presumtuous to tell the Lord he is in error and that I, a mere man, know better than he.

If you would like to discuss any of Chick's other claims about the Catholic Faith, I, or any number of other people on this forum, whould be happy to oblige.

[PaladinValer]

What I would say about Chick, while it would be 100% correct, would not be allowed in open forum.

If you'd really like to know, PM me.

[Secundulus]

I decided not to be charitable anymore. Chick is a moron. Here is another place where he contradicts the scripture he says he believes in.

http://www.chick.com/tractimages64624/0071/0071_13.gif

Here is what the Bible says about sacrifice.

Malachi 1:11

The offering he speaks of is a sacrifice. This is the meaning of the Catholic Eucharist. It is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Lord in gratitude for graces received. This has been recognized by the Church since at least the second century when Ireneaus wrote about it and quoted this Bible verse.

So, once again, the Scriptures themselves testify against the ignorant musings of Chick.

[RadixLecti]

Well everyone, after some research, I have decided that the Episcopal Church is the right one for me. I do have one more question though. Are there any such things as charismatic Episcopalians? :confused:
I would consider myself "charismatic" leaning. I currently attend one of the first charismatic churches in the Episcopal Church (although the church is no longer affiliated with ECUSA). There are still a handful of Charismatic churches in ECUSA/TEC, but the vast majority have left and re-aligned with other Anglican provinces.

[karen freeinchristman]

Interesting thread.

On a side note, what do you all think of this?:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp
I think that is ridiculous.

[norbie]

Well I think the Editor behind Chick Publication must be Satan himself. And I am sure there are some poor, misled people who realy believe this rubish.
At the end of the day, all I can say is that whoever calls him/herself a Christian and persecuted other Christian churches - haven't found God jet.:(

[Phinehas2]

Hmmn, whilst I dont think the chick publications are full of errors, maybe this is an intended distraction away from the problems in the Episcopal church.

[Phinehas2]

Dear PaladinValer,

What I would say about Chick, while it would be 100% correct, would not be allowed in open forum.

If you'd really like to know, PM me. What do you think about this?
Luke 6:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=6&verse=28&version=31&context=verse) " bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."
Romans 12:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=12&verse=14&version=31&context=verse) "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse."
James 3:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=66&chapter=3&verse=6&version=31&context=verse) "The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell "
Colossians 3:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=58&chapter=3&verse=8&version=31&context=verse) "But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips."
Surely of we cant say it publically we shouldnt say it?

[No Swansong]

Well I think the Editor behind Chick Publication must be Satan himself. And I am sure there are some poor, misled people who realy believe this rubish.
At the end of the day, all I can say is that whoever calls him/herself a Christian and persecuted other Christian churches - haven't found God jet.:(
So you are calling Jack Chick the Devil himself?

While I don't agree with much that Chick publishes I think that calling someone the Devil is a little over the top.

[No Swansong]

Besides I have known Scores of people, no hyperbole intended and not an exageration, who have become Christians through the use of Chick Tracts.

Additionally I would not call what Chick does persecution. He may be wrong but he is persecuting no one.

[No Swansong]

Hmmn, whilst I dont think the chick publications are full of errors, maybe this is an intended distraction away from the problems in the Episcopal church.
There hasn't been a good Chick roast on CF/FU for a long time. At one time he was a favorite target, but all in all he has been pretty much ignored on STR.

[Phinehas2]

That is a very interesting response jtbdad.

When I look at these tracts I see some errors and an overall attitude that I find angry rather than loving.
However I also find that in the theology of a lot of people who hold these tracts up as somehow the worst, imagining their theology isnt.

However I have never found anyone using these tracts, so I will bear your comments in mind in future :thumbsup: Many thanks jtbdad.

[No Swansong]

Accidentally posted as Dad.

-Colabomb

[No Swansong]

Accidentally posted as dad.

-Colabomb

[No Swansong]

Accidentally posted as dad, please delete these mods to clean up the thread.

-Colabomb

[Colabomb]

I decided not to be charitable anymore. Chick is a moron. Here is another place where he contradicts the scripture he says he believes in.



Here is what the Bible says about sacrifice.
Malachi 1:11
The offering he speaks of is a sacrifice. This is the meaning of the Catholic Eucharist. It is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Lord in gratitude for graces received. This has been recognized by the Church since at least the second century when Ireneaus wrote about it and quoted this Bible verse.

So, once again, the Scriptures themselves testify against the ignorant musings of Chick.

Why the change of mind about charity? While I disagree with a GREAT number of things that he says, and I do believe he has mental problems, I do not think we should stop showing charity to a Brother.

Just because he is wrong in his theology, does that mean he loses the respect you show for any other Christian, who disagrees with your theology?

[Colabomb]

Well I think the Editor behind Chick Publication must be Satan himself. And I am sure there are some poor, misled people who realy believe this rubish.
At the end of the day, all I can say is that whoever calls him/herself a Christian and persecuted other Christian churches - haven't found God jet.

How dare you speak as if you know the condition of a man's eternal soul. Are you God? We may judge his words as true or false, but let God alone judge his heart.

[No Swansong]

That is a very interesting response jtbdad.

When I look at these tracts I see some errors and an overall attitude that I find angry rather than loving.
However I also find that in the theology of a lot of people who hold these tracts up as somehow the worst, imagining their theology isnt.

However I have never found anyone using these tracts, so I will bear your comments in mind in future :thumbsup: Many thanks jtbdad.



Hi Phineas:wave:
I have known several who use Chick tracts and have at the least introduced many to belief in Christ through their use. One of the problems may be which tracts you have read. Contrary to what many around CF/FU believe, the majority of Chick tracts are Gospel Tracts.

The funny thing is however that as many Chick Roasts as I have read none of them mention any of the Gospel Tracts such as "Holy Joe" or "This was your Life". Nor do I ever read mention of his tracts that are designed to expose the Jehovah's Witness' or the Mormons or Islam.

All they ever mention are the tracts critical of Roman Catholicism.

While I don't agree with Chick on everything; he prints much more than "Why is Mary Crying" and some of the other tracts critical of Roman Catholicism.

What I found extremely hilarious when I was on staff is that previously on CF "Unam Sanctum" was perfectly acceptable (a papal bull that states that one must be under the authority of the Pope in order to attain salvation) but Chick Tracts were off limits.

Additionally it was perfectly acceptable for Roman Catholics to claim that no other Church (other than the Roman Catholic Church) is truly the Church but it was unacceptable to say for example that only the Anglican Church is truly the Church.

BTW welcome to CF.

[Secundulus]

Why the change of mind about charity? While I disagree with a GREAT number of things that he says, and I do believe he has mental problems, I do not think we should stop showing charity to a Brother.

Just because he is wrong in his theology, does that mean he loses the respect you show for any other Christian, who disagrees with your theology?

I disrespect him because he provides the ammunition that enemies of the Church use to attack us.

[No Swansong]

Where specifically in Scripture are we given the discretion to change our minds about being charitable?

[Colabomb]

anyway, even if he is an enemy to the church (in actuality he is a member of the Church) aren't we supposed to bless our enemies?

People criticize me because i criticize the actions of certain episcopal bishops. But people feel free to call Chick the devil, and state he does not know the Lord.

[Secundulus]

anyway, even if he is an enemy to the church (in actuality he is a member of the Church) aren't we supposed to bless our enemies?

People criticize me because i criticize the actions of certain episcopal bishops. But people feel free to call Chick the devil, and state he does not know the Lord.

From looking at his other tracts I would conclude he is a Christian. However, he is still a moron.

[Secundulus]

Why the change of mind about charity? While I disagree with a GREAT number of things that he says, and I do believe he has mental problems, I do not think we should stop showing charity to a Brother.

Just because he is wrong in his theology, does that mean he loses the respect you show for any other Christian, who disagrees with your theology?

You are to love your brother. That has nothing to do with having to respect those who make disparaging remarks about my beliefs, especially when those disparaging remarks are wrong.

So, I love chick as a Christian brother and still think he is an idiot because of the bile he vomits out of his website.

[karen freeinchristman]

Guys, do we really have to keep going on about this? I mean, someone who is not a member of STR comes in and posts a link to the Chick tracts and we all get ourselves worked up into a silly argument about it, compromising our own fellowship. It's not worth it!

[norbie]

How dare you speak as if you know the condition of a man's eternal soul. Are you God? We may judge his words as true or false, but let God alone judge his heart.
Your 'private message' box is full - message could not be send.

[Phinehas2]

Hi Colabomb
anyway, even if he is an enemy to the church (in actuality he is a member of the Church) aren't we supposed to bless our enemies? This is a good point to consider. People can be members of a church (organisation) but not members of the church (the body of Christ) yes we are to bless our enemies, but many people automatically assume everyone in the church is a brother or sister in Christ. I know a brother or sister in Chirst when they agree with the word and spirit, regardless of what church they are members of.

[norbie]

Hi Colabomb
This is a good point to consider. People can be members of a church (organisation) but not members of the church (the body of Christ) yes we are to bless our enemies, but many people automatically assume everyone in the church is a brother or sister in Christ. I know a brother or sister in Chirst when they agree with the word and spirit, regardless of what church they are members of.[/size][/color][/font]

You are so right here. Let's just re-think it: look at Dear Karens URL and you can see it very clear: anybody who attacks a church, ANY church for this matter, is not a Christian and not my brother at all, but guided by Satan who want to destroy a church. No good to have the wrong kind of compassion here.:mad:

[TomUK]

From looking at his other tracts I would conclude he is a Christian. However, he is still a moron.

I don't know whether it's Christ-like to find that funny but i can't stop chuckling about that (and my class are looking at me as if i'm loopy!)

[Fish and Bread]

What I found extremely hilarious when I was on staff is that previously on CF "Unam Sanctum" was perfectly acceptable (a papal bull that states that one must be under the authority of the Pope in order to attain salvation) but Chick Tracts were off limits.

Additionally it was perfectly acceptable for Roman Catholics to claim that no other Church (other than the Roman Catholic Church) is truly the Church but it was unacceptable to say for example that only the Anglican Church is truly the Church.

If I recall correctly, when there was a rule put in place that prevented the Roman Catholics from saying their church was the one true Church, the majority of the forum all put the same quote from one of the Church Fathers in their signatures proclaiming that it was. Several people received bans and moderators kept trying to delete the signatures only to have the members put them right back up. Several moderators also refused to enforce the rules and threatened to resign if they were forced to.

I actually do think the Roman Catholics who protested the policy had a point, because the idea that they are the one true Church is so fundamental to their faith. It's not a side issue. So, muzzling them would have severely curtailed their religious expression and their ability to truly be a Catholic forum in the sense that their church defines the term.

Anglicans, on the other hand, don't really hold that any individual Anglican church, or Anglicanism as a whole, is the one true Christian Church. So, if someone claims it, against what every Archbishop of Canterbury and virtually all of the bishops and all of laity have ever believed, and it is deleted, it is not quite the same level of curtailment of religious expression. Having said that, I don't understand why we ban any of this stuff. If people want to claim they're the one true church, even if they're from like Bob's Reformed New Baptist Methodist Church of the Holy Apostles, Bar, and Grill let 'em. Fine with me. Makes for an interesting discussion. :)

[Albion]

if they're from like Bob's Reformed New Baptist Methodist Church of the Holy Apostles, Bar, and Grill let 'em. Fine with me. Makes for an interesting discussion. :)

I don't know whether it's proper to poke fun at the venerable BRNMBMCHA like that, adding "Bar and Grill" to the respected BRNMNMCHA name. This is the conservative offshoot (hence the word "reformed") from the Bob's New Baptist Methodist Church of the Holy Apostles, as I recall.

BUT, that aside, you and Jtbdad both made a good points about the near-impossibility of there being a coherent policy concerning what a poster can say about the faith or a church.

[No Swansong]

You are so right here. Let's just re-think it: look at Dear Karens URL and you can see it very clear: anybody who attacks a church, ANY church for this matter, is not a Christian and not my brother at all, but guided by Satan who want to destroy a church. No good to have the wrong kind of compassion here.:mad:
This just simply isn't true. People can be sincerely wrong about Theology etc, including about the Roman Catholic Church. I was a Catechist for the Roman Catholic Diocese I live in I can tell you that much of what Chick publishes about the Church is true. Besides he has stated many, many times his goal is to lead folks into the Church, he simply doesn't believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church. I can say the same about Mormons, JW's, and others does that mean I am not a Christian? He doesn't recognize the RCC as the Church, so what?

[No Swansong]

If I recall correctly, when there was a rule put in place that prevented the Roman Catholics from saying their church was the one true Church, the majority of the forum all put the same quote from one of the Church Fathers in their signatures proclaiming that it was. Several people received bans and moderators kept trying to delete the signatures only to have the members put them right back up. Several moderators also refused to enforce the rules and threatened to resign if they were forced to.

I actually do think the Roman Catholics who protested the policy had a point, because the idea that they are the one true Church is so fundamental to their faith. It's not a side issue. So, muzzling them would have severely curtailed their religious expression and their ability to truly be a Catholic forum in the sense that their church defines the term.

Anglicans, on the other hand, don't really hold that any individual Anglican church, or Anglicanism as a whole, is the one true Christian Church. So, if someone claims it, against what every Archbishop of Canterbury and virtually all of the bishops and all of laity have ever believed, and it is deleted, it is not quite the same level of curtailment of religious expression. Having said that, I don't understand why we ban any of this stuff. If people want to claim they're the one true church, even if they're from like Bob's Reformed New Baptist Methodist Church of the Holy Apostles, Bar, and Grill let 'em. Fine with me. Makes for an interesting discussion. :)
However it is pretty fundamental to most Fundamentalists that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Church and yet they could not make the same statement. And you are right the rule was made, for the most part ignored, and then abandoned. Please also remember we had a member here who had a signature that had to be removed during that time that did not mention the Roman Catholic Church at all. He was as far as I know threatened with a ban if he did not comply. None of the Roman Catholics were as far as I know.

There were many Fundamentalists who were banned long term or even permanently for the same type of behavior you point out many Roman Catholics practiced.

[longhair75]

As far as I am concerned, our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters are free to believe they are the "one true Church" if they please. I feel the same about their claims of Papal infalibility. Whatever they put in their signatures is just fine with me.

I am just as free to believe that they are incorrect in these claims.

[Fish and Bread]

However it is pretty fundamental to most Fundamentalists that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Church and yet they could not make the same statement. And you are right the rule was made, for the most part ignored, and then abandoned. Please also remember we had a member here who had a signature that had to be removed during that time that did not mention the Roman Catholic Church at all. He was as far as I know threatened with a ban if he did not comply. None of the Roman Catholics were as far as I know.

There were many Fundamentalists who were banned long term or even permanently for the same type of behavior you point out many Roman Catholics practiced.
I favor all people being able to state the confessional beliefs of their churches in their own congregational forums. That includes the fundamentalists saying they believe certain groups are outside the Church, if that is what they believe, and they keep those comments limited to the fundamentalist forum. I try to be consistent with this stuff as much as I can, which isn't to say that someone might not be able to put out an inconsistency here and there.

Basically, though, I don't think it makes sense to have forums developed to people's faith beliefs and then not allow them to express them. People say it's more ecumenical, but I'm not sure one can achieve unity by ignoring where everyone disagrees completely. Sometimes honest discussions in love bare more fruit than telling people they can't talk about what they believe. People can't come to mutual understandings if they can't express themselves.

[No Swansong]

As far as I am concerned, our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters are free to believe they are the "one true Church" if they please. I feel the same about their claims of Papal infalibility. Whatever they put in their signatures is just fine with me.

I am just as free to believe that they are incorrect in these claims.
I agree completely I just found it extremely ironic (and then found out it wasn't truly ironic) that while the Roman Catholics enjoyed this privilege no one else on CF did.

And then to add to the mix that more than a few Fundamentalists were booted (some permanently) for a Chick Tract quote which was basically the opposite of Unam Sanctum, when Unam Sanctum was freely used not only in their forums but also in Theology was just outrageous.

[norbie]

BUT, that aside, you and Jtbdad both made a good points about the near-impossibility of there being a coherent policy concerning what a poster can say about the faith or a church.

I can't agree with you here, Chicks "artwork" in the URL from Dear Karen is a shame, is scandalious. No true Christian can look at this.
But on the other hand if I say that I do not believe in the book of J. Smith of the Mormon Church - I should not think that CF will moderate on this.
I think you can see what I mean, we can have an opinion on different faith and discuss it in a friendly way - but if someone put an other church in the dirt, I think we should not permit this on CF. There is not even a policy needed for this - it should be our personal moral and selfrespect not to stand by and let someone put a church down. just my thinking.

[karen freeinchristman]

I can't agree with you here, Chicks "artwork" in the URL from Dear Karen is a shame, is scandalious. The original URL link given was from MandM (post no. 16), not me! :)


I agree with your post, by the way, norbie.

[norbie]

The original URL link given was from MandM (post no. 16), not me! :)


I agree with your post, by the way, norbie.

So sorry about the mix-up with the URL:wave:

[Phinehas2]

however the thread is Considering the Episcopal Church not Chicks tracts and in fact I consider some of the stuff going on in the episcopal church scandalous

[No Swansong]

I can't agree with you here, Chicks "artwork" in the URL from Dear Karen is a shame, is scandalious. No true Christian can look at this.

You have got to be kidding. I am assuming that you have looked at it since you are commenting on it, are you a Christian?

If you don't like it don't look at it, but I am not going to support one group of people who say you must belong to their "Church" even if it is ignorantly through the back door, and then vilify another group who says that said group is not Christian.

[Albion]

BUT, that aside, you and Jtbdad both made a good points about the near-impossibility of there being a coherent policy concerning what a poster can say about the faith or a church.

I can't agree with you here, Chicks "artwork" in the URL from Dear Karen is a shame, is scandalious.

What I said is that there is no coherent policy possible. I didn't take a stand for or against Chick's artwork.

Obviously, saying that Chick is impermissible all the while equally defamatory statements are being made by members of some churches against other churches (but without the use of pictures) is inconsistent. Or we could say, 'incoherent." And if anyone denies that we read on these forums what you called "put another church in the dirt," he's just not been paying attention.

[Colabomb]

Your 'private message' box is full - message could not be send.

I emptied my box, but I would like to know why you won't put your answer up to the scrutiny of the board. You claimed a man was satan and did not know Christ, those are some pretty strong statements that i think many here would enjoy hearing an explanation for.

[Colabomb]

You are so right here. Let's just re-think it: look at Dear Karens URL and you can see it very clear: anybody who attacks a church, ANY church for this matter, is not a Christian and not my brother at all, but guided by Satan who want to destroy a church. No good to have the wrong kind of compassion here.:mad:


Again, you are capable of judging another man's standing with the Lord? Is that your Place? I recommend you think about the gravity of what you are saying and pray. This is not becoming a brother.

I have condemned the actions of many brothers here on STR, including Jack Chick, But I would never DARE to speak for their standing with God.