The Anglican Counter Reformation Began This Week

[Bruce S]

This is CHURCH politics, not a sexual issues thread:


Diocese Votes To Ignore Episcopal Decisions
(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) One of the most conservative Episcopal diocese in America Saturday voted to ignore Church policy when it differed with its own. It is the most serious challenge to the church in America yet over the election of a gay bishop and the sanctioning of same-sex blessings.
The Diocese of Pittsburgh approved an amendment saying that the diocese is above the Episcopal Church "in cases where the provisions of the constitution and canons of the Church of the Diocese of Pittsburgh speak to the contrary" or where resolutions of the Episcopal Church USA are found "to be contrary to the historic faith and order of the one holy catholic and apostolic church."

In essence, it means that the diocese will choose what it will accept and not accept from the Church hierarchy, and follows a decision to declare "null and void" the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire.

Other conservative diocese across the country are expected to follow Pittsburgh in openly challenging Robinson's legitimacy, and in doing so, that of the House of Bishops. Conservative bishops in the US want the Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the denomination, to create a separate branch of the Episcopal church for them.This is a CLEAN BREAK with the mainstream, National Episcopal denomination, essentially, they are starting a new denomination here, they have STARTED the Anglican/CounterREFORMATION.

Good for them!

[FreeinChrist]

:clap:

Glad to see them finally stepping up!

[Bruce S]

http://www.pgh.anglican.org/clientImages/25239/adoptedresolutionone.pdf

[Bruce S]

Minister dismissed for NOT supporting Robinson. Now they are FIRING those who do not support "The Agenda"....


Elsewhere in the state, about half the members of the Episcopal parish in Rochester walked out of Sunday services to protest the dismissal of their interim minister, who opposes Robinson's appointment.

Bishop Douglas Theuner of the Diocese of New Hampshire removed the Rev. Donald Wilson on Friday for insubordination when Wilson refused to come to Concord to meet with Theuner on the matter.

Robinson will automatically succeed Theuner when the bishop retires next year.

Lisa Ball, a member of the group that left, said the protest has nothing to do with homophobia, and "it has nothing to do with gay bashing."

Theuner "decided to take our priest away from us and didn't even ask us," Ball said.

David Tyler, the junior warden of the church and one of those who remained inside, said the parish "has a disagreement. We are trying to work this out."
I guess if you are Anglican and don't agree, you get canned in that Diocese.

Shows how TOLERANT the militants really ARE, they ask for love and compassion, they dish out punishment if you don't give it to THEM....

Source: AP

[Bruce S]

Dr. John MacArthur is pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, a best-selling author, and host of the worldwide radio program "Grace to You (http://www.gty.org/)." Regarding the recent steps taken by the Episcopal Church, MacArthur minces no words, saying the church is not the Church of Jesus Christ but "the church of Anti-Christ. The denomination, he says, should be shunned because of its unbiblical actions.

"This is not the true Church. Their theology is aberrant, their conduct is aberrant, and they engage themselves in things that are utterly ungodly and unbiblical," MacArthur says. "I think you have to see it as the church of Anti-Christ -- and why would a believer want to be a part of the church of Anti-Christ?"

MacArthur admits he was not surprised to see the Episcopal Church consecrate an openly homosexual bishop. He says for years the denomination has reinvented the gospel.

"Their view of Christ is apostate, therefore their view of everything else is warped and twisted. So this is no stretch for them; this is normal conduct for an organization that is opposed to Jesus Christ and the Word of God," he says. "If anybody in it [the Episcopal Church] is a true believer, they need to get out."



I guess you could NOT find stronger statements about this than that. I agree, by the way, but who cares, I "got OUT" of a denominaton I personally found to be not Biblical, and others have too, but that is for each one to decide, that is the right of FREEDOM and individual concience:

Link to full story: >> http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/11/72003f.asp

[Icystwolf]

Back in my Anglican Church, we were told, it's now safe not to call Gene Robertson and his fellow henchmen as non-Christians.

I wonder if they're still welcomed if they return and still reject the gay bishop.

I'm hoping the next step in that church WON'T allowing divorce from reasons other than adultery. Considering he has divorced....first he allowed a sinful nature to be approved, next he'll make himself perfect in his own mind, by getting divorce off his list of sins, and who knows...

[dignitized]

light has no fellowship with darkness. nuff said.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Tempest in a teapot here. The forces of reaction had the same sort of temper tantrum over the ordination of women too a couple of decades back, just making themselves look ridiculous and irrelevant.

[dignitized]

zorilla: they were wrong then and are wrong now too. :) Nothing has changed.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

zorilla: they were wrong then and are wrong now too. :) Nothing has changed.
I disagree. Churches that ordain women are doing the right thing. You are of course free to belong to one which doesn't; but don't whine when you face collective disapproval for an atavistic stance like that.

[kiwimac]

Typical conservative stupidity!


Kiwimac

[Foundthelight]

I have posted this personal statement of faith before on this board.


2000 years ago our Lord walked the earth as a man. There were many who walked with Him and wrote down His Gospel. Paul received the Gospel directly by revelation from the Lord. This revelation was accepted as true by those who witnessed it and the other Apostles. The Gospel has been handed down to us in the New Testament.

Am I to listen to those who walked and talked with the Lord, or those today that would bend the Gospel to fit their own perception of how the world should work?

Sin against God is still sin against God. Our freedom is from the Mosaic law, in Christ. It is not a freedom to sin.

Unrepentent sinners are not fit to serve in leadership positions in a Christian Church.

Many today say that the Bible is not truly the inspired word of God, that we are free to re-interpret it in light of today's society and what we feel "comfortable" with. Who decides what should be changed? What do we ignore? Where do we draw the line?

I do not say that we should be Legalists. Indeed, Paul's letters leave much room for differences in individual and church practice. His letters do not leave room for Sin against God.

[notto]

Unrepentent sinners are not fit to serve in leadership positions in a Christian Church.
Robinson is a repentent sinner so I guess there is no problem there. Your issue is with definitions and listings of sin, not one of repentence.

In the eyes of someone, we are all unrepentent sinners. We all commit sins that are by our definition not sinful but by someone elses definition and interpretation are sins.

[Foundthelight]

In the eyes of someone, we are all unrepentent sinners. We all commit sins that are by our definition not sinful but by someone elses definition and interpretation are sins.
We are all unrepentent sinners until we come to God through Christ. At that time all our past sins are not just forgiven, but forgotten. If we then continue in unrepentent sin, i.e. we flaunt it and do not truly try correct it and seek forgivness, we are in grave danger. I would question whether such a person ever did come to God through Christ.

This is different than someone who is trapped in addictive sinful behavior, or who inadervertantly sins, and needs our help, love, and correction. If I should sin and not realize it my fellow Christians have an obligation to bring it to my attention. Paul devoted quite a bit of time telling us how to address this issue.

Mr. Robinson's domestic partner handed him his Miter during the consecration ceremony with the full approval of the attending bishops! Talk about unrepentent sinners flaunting it!!

[notto]

Mr. Robinson's domestic partner handed him his Miter during the consecration ceremony with the full approval of the attending bishops! Talk about unrepentent sinners flaunting it!! In you eyes, he is an unrepentent sinner. In the eyes of others, he is a man called to lead the church by God and his relationship is not a sin. I'm sure everyone does something that by another would be considered a sin that they don't repent for. Calling Robinson an unrepentent sinner is calling us all unrepentent sinners (and in most cases, we probably are).

[Reader Nilus]

I would hope that the dioceses in the EPUSA that have problems with what happened do break communion with the EPUSA. The Episcopal Church has lost almost 1.5 million members in the last 35 years when it began its course of self-destruction. It is very sad.
Jeff the Finn, a former Episcopalian

[Foundthelight]

Robinson is a repentent sinner so I guess there is no problem there. Your issue is with definitions and listings of sin, not one of repentence.


On what basis are you saying that Robinson is repentent?

If anyone says that something that is called a sin in both the Old and New Testaments is not a sin he or she is in error and definitely unrepentent.

If someone disagrees with that, fine. They should just think of the eternal consequences if they are wrong.

[kiwimac]

Actually the OT & NT references are mostly to Temple prostitution and to pederasty. Entirely different topics actually.

Kiwimac

[kiwimac]

The Mosaic code, and its applicability today:

The Torah is composed of the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). It contains numerous laws which make up the Mosaic code. Rabbi Simlai wrote in the Talmud (Jewish traditional commentary about the Hebrew Scriptures) that God gave 613 commandments to Moses. One list finds 3 commandments in Genesis, 111 in Exodus, 247 in Leviticus, 52 in Numbers and 200 in Deuteronomy.

These included 365 prohibitions -- a number equal to the nominal number of days in the year. Also included 248 positive commandments which Rabbi Simlai said corresponded "to the number of organs and limbs in the human body." Hundreds of these dealt with animal sacrifices and other topics that are not currently practiced. That leaves about 300 commandments that can be practiced today.
The Holiness Code in the Torah permits:

slavery (Leviticus 25:44)

The code requires:

a child to be killed if he/she curses their parent (Leviticus 20:9)
all persons guilty of adultery to be killed (20:10)
the daughter of a priest who engages in prostitution to be burned alive until dead (21:9)
the bride of a priest to be a virgin (21:13)
ritual killing of animals, using cattle, sheep and goats (22:19)
observation of 7 feasts: Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Firstfruits, Feast of Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles (23)
a person who takes the Lord's name in vain is to be killed (24:16)
The code prohibits:

heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19), harvesting the corners of a field (19:9),
eating fruit from a young tree (19:23),
cross-breeding livestock (19:19),
sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19),
shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27),
tattoos (19:28),
even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18),
charging of interest on a loan (25:37),
collecting firewood on Saturday to prevent your family from freezing,
wearing of clothes made from a blend of textile materials; today this might be cotton and polyester, and
eating of non-kosher foods (e.g. shrimp).
Of the 613 laws, most Christian denominations regard very few as binding on Christians today. Conservative Christians often discuss:

the Ten Commandments found in three places -- one of them being Exodus 20:3-17.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 which relate to homosexuality.

They also accept laws which prohibit:

sexual contact between individuals who are too closely related,
out-of-species sexual contact,
adultery, and
laws regarding the execution of properly convicted murderers.
Christians are free to wear tattoos, eat shrimp, pork or rare meat, wear polyester-cotton blends, seed their lawns with a grass mixture, and get their hair cut. But homosexuality is somehow taboo. We have been unable to find any logical explanation that would justify conservative Christians concentrating so much on these two laws against homosexuality while abandoning most of the rest.

The meaning of To'ebah (often translated abomination)

The Hebrew word "to'ebah" (or a form of the word) appears over 100 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):

Twenty-six times in the Torah:
Twice in Genesis,
Once in Exodus,
Six times in Leviticus,
Seventeen times in Deuteronomy.

It is in the Major Prophets 58 times. Five times in 1 & 2 Kings,
Three times in Isaiah,
Eight times in Jeremiah,
Once in Malachi,
Forty one times in Ezekiel.

In the Writings, it is found:
Once in Psalms,
Twenty five in Proverbs.
Scattered throughout Ezra and II Chronicles.


It was not used by the Minor Twelve Prophets, or in Numbers.

It is often translated as "abomination" or "detestable" in English. It can refer to the breaking of either a moral or ritual law. 1 Examples of ritual codes involving "to'ebah" in the NKJ translation are:

Genesis 43:32" "...because the Egyptians could not eat food with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians." So, the President of Egypt meeting the Prime Minister of Israel sitting down to a meal together would be committing an abomination.

Leviticus 11:10" "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." Eating a lobster is an abomination.

Leviticus 11:41" "And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination. It shall not be eaten." We have been told that rattlesnake tastes just like chicken.

Deuteronomy 17:1" "You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God a bull or sheep which has any blemish or defect, for that is an abomination to the LORD your God." When engaging in ritual animal sacrifice, it is an abomination if the animal is not perfect.

Deuteronomy 22:5" "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God." Presumably this would include a woman wearing jeans or slacks.

Deuteronomy 24:4" "then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD." This relates to a woman who has been divorced by two husbands. If she decides to be loyal once more to her original marriage vows and returns to her first husband, then she commits an abomination.

When "to'ebah" refers to the breaking of a ritual law it might be better translated "ritually improper," or "involves foreign religious cult practice." Some of the "to'ebah" passages are considered without significance to Christians today. Many activities which were "to'ebah" transgressions to the ancient Israelites simply do not apply to modern cultures.

Reb Gershon Caudill, "A Heterosexual Jewish Rebbe's View on the (Supposedly) Homosexual Texts in the Hebrew Bible," at: http://www.affirmation.org/ecokosher.htm

Rabbi Gershon Caudill wrote that "Jews do not obligate any other religion to the observance of the Torah laws, which were given specifically to the Jewish people and their descendants, including converts. This is with the possible exception of the seven Noahide Laws, and there is dispute among the halakhic authorities as to which seven laws non-Jews need observe IF they are indeed required to observe any Torah laws at all." 2

Reference:

Inge Anderson, "What is an abomination to God?" at: http://glow.cc/isa/whatisan.htm

Rabbi Gershon Caudill, "A Heterosexual Jewish Rebbe's View on the (Supposedly) Homosexual Texts in the Hebrew Bible," at: http://www.affirmation.org/ecokosher.htm
Kiwimac

[kiwimac]

Sodom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sodom was the chief town of a group of five towns on the plain of the Jordan River in an area that constituted the southern limit of the lands of the Canaanites (Genesis 10:19). Lot, a nephew of Abram (Abraham) chose to live in the city. According to the Bible, both Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God for their sins. Opinions differ as to what the sin actually was.

Table of contents

1 The Biblical text

2 The view of Josephus

3 Jewish views

3.1 Talmud on Sodom

3.2 Midrash on Sodom

4 Current usage of the term "sodomy"

5 Modern historical approach

6 Reformist Torah Approach with Hebrew translations

The Biblical text

In Genesis 19, the final episode in the story of Sodom is described as the angels visit Lot to warn him to flee: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men [angels] which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (KJV)

Lot refused to give the angels staying in his house to the men of Sodom and instead offered them his two daughters. The men refused to accept this compromise, and Lot was only saved from assault by the angels. Lot and his family were then instructed to leave the city, and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with fire and brimstone by God.

Based on this incident it is often postulated that the sin was homosexuality and rape. However, it should be noted that the events that form the basis of this claim only occur in the narrative after God has already passed sentence on the cities -- God could not have been condemning Sodom for its treatment of Lot's guests themselves.

In contrast, the biblical book of Ezekiel holds that the crimes were economic, and not sexual. As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom; She and her daughters had pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. Ezekiel 16:46-50

The view of Josephus

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote that "The Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance." (Josephus, Antiquities I: 194-5)

Jewish views

Classical Jewish texts hold that God did not destroy Sodom and Gemorrah because their inhabitants were homosexual. Rather, they were destroyed because the inhabitants were generally depraved and uncompromisingly greedy. Rabbinic writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and to outsiders.

A Jewish tradition, described in the Mishnah, postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: they believed that "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" (Abot), which is interpreted as a lack of compassion. It should be noted that the statements in the Mishnah and in the midrash literature are not always based on the literal meaning of the text, and often are considered to have little historical basis. However, they do provide us with information on what Jews of that era believed.

One tradition is that these five wealthy cities violated the Law of Hospitality: there is a series of legends regarding Sodom's hospitality, but these are apparently borrowed from Greek mythology. One example is the story of the "bed" that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up. This is an adaptation of the Greek myth of Procrustes.

Talmud on Sodom

The Babylonian Talmud (in tractate Sanhedrin 109a) provides a number of examples of what the rabbis felt the crimes of Sodom were. Their sins had to do with cruelty and greed. Two of the examples are:

The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them...They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land.

There were four judges in Sodom named Shakrai (Liar), Shakurai (Awful Liar), Zayyafi (Forger), and Mazle Dina (Perverter of Justice). Now if a man assaulted his neighbour's wife and bruised her, they would say to the husband, Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee. If one cut off the ear of his neighbour's ***, they would order, Give it to him until it grows again.

In modern terms, the Talmud suggests that the Sodomites were condemned for restricting immigration and for institutionalizing the law of "might makes right".

Midrash on Sodom

The midrash compilation "Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer" offers a number of reasons why the Sodomites were considered evil, but again there is no mention of homosexuality. One of the texts states:

Rabbi Ze'era said: The men of Sodom were the wealthy men of prosperity, on account of the good and fruitful land whereon they dwelt...

Rabbi Nathaniel said: The men of Sodom had no consideration for the honour of their Owner by not distributing food to the wayfarer and stranger, but they even fenced in all the trees on top above their fruit so that so that they should not be seized; not even by the bird of heaven...

Rabbi Joshua... said: They appointed over themselves judges who were lying judges, and they oppressed every wayfarer and stranger who entered Sodom by their perverse judgment, and they sent them forth naked...
Again in modern terms, this story suggests that they were condemned for enclosure of the commons, and for perversion of justice.

Current usage of the term "sodomy"

For whatever reason, the classical Jewish views on Sodom are unknown, and Christian Bible readers focus (Jews might say excessively) on homosexuality. Thus the story of Sodom has given the several languages, including English, the word "sodomy", meaning supposedly "unnatural" acts such as anal sex, and also the word "sodomite", meaning one who practises such acts. [1] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=sodomy)

The account of Sodom is part of the basis for many Christian denominations' condemnation of homosexuality.

Modern historical approach

Most biblical scholars believe that a sin was attached to the story of Sodom to justify the destruction of the cities, which may be based on an authentic account of a natural cataclysm, possibly an earthquake in the region. It is known that the towns are described as lying along a major fault, the Afro-Syrian Rift valley. It is also possible that the sin of the inhabitants appearing in the original text was edited out and lost.

The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists, with some believing they never existed, some believing they are now under the Dead Sea, and others claiming that they have been found (under other names) in the region to the southeast of the Dead Sea. Evidence has been found of towns in the region being ravaged by earthquakes, and some scholars have suggested that the abundance of sulphur in the region could account for the description of fire and brimstone raining down.

Reformist Torah Approach with Hebrew translations

"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house"

The traditional interpretation of this story largely stems from the unfortunate translation of the word enoshe (#582) in Genesis 19:4. Most versions say "men", which is incorrect. The Hebrew word enoshe is not gender specific but indicates mortals or people. The word esh would have been used to mean "man" or eshal to mean "woman" if gender specific terminology was meant.

This mistranslation gives the impression that just the men of the city had surrounded Lot's house and the further impression that they were all homosexuals out to have sex with the angels. The word enoshe is used in Genesis 17:23 with the word zechar meaning "male" demonstrates this point.
There is no Old Testament text in which yadha refers to homosexual coitus (intercourse), with the single exception of this disputed Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. The less ambiguous word shakhabh, however, is used for homosexual, heterosexual, and bestial intercourse. Shakhabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. As it is, we have no grounds to assume that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the visitors. We just know that there intentions were unfriendly

Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words. When the mob cries out "Where are the men who came in to you tonight?", the Hebrew word translated men is again 'enowsh which, literally translated, means "mortal". This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were. The Hebrew word for "man" (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different. One has to ask: Why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were?

Note that these women that Lot offered were virgins. Note also that the Sodomites were pagans. Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice Sodom. Therefore, it can be concluded in another way that Lot was offering his daughters as a virgin sacrifice to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors.

By 50 AD we find the first time the sin of Sodom is associated with homosexual "acts" in general. In the Quaest. et Salut. in Genesis IV.31-37, Philo interpreted the Genesis word yadha as "servile, lawless and unseemly pederasty."
Therefore "Sodomite" is incorrect entirely as a term for Homosexuals.

See also: Religion and homosexuality, Vine of Sodom

Retrieved from "http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Sodom"

This page was last modified 13:17, 20 Oct 2003. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.



Kiwimac

[Foundthelight]

You wrote:

We have been unable to find any logical explanation that would justify conservative Christians concentrating so much on these two laws against homosexuality while abandoning most of the rest.


This is a common misconception propogated by many who wish to twist the argument.

This is not a case of homosexuality alone being a sin, but rather all sexual sin being sin. When you separate homosexuality from all other sexual sin you then make it sound like we are saying that homosexuals are bad people and that we are singling them out. This could not be farther from the truth.


Read what Paul said.
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

1Co 6:10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Co 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Sexual Immorality

1Co 6:12 "Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

1Co 6:13 "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

1Co 6:14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

1Co 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!

1Co 6:16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

1Co 6:17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

1Co 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

1Co 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

1Co 6:20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

To say that this only applies to sex with temple prostitutes denies the whole context of Paul's preaching against sexual sin.

[Icystwolf]

Ah geez, I thought the main issue in here is that Gene is divorced with two daughters. You can't have a divorced man who can't hold a family together, let alone hold a church together, become bishop.

So in his marriage, he has broken a vow to God the "..death do us part.." and gone off into a sinful relationship which yes, it is unrepenting, because he still practises it.

Jesus calls it "Adultery", so does the whole Bible. If he were to be bishop again, he should at least return to his wife.

[Bruce S]

In you eyes, he is an unrepentent sinner. In the eyes of others, he is a man called to lead the church by God and his relationship is not a sin. I'm sure everyone does something that by another would be considered a sin that they don't repent for. Calling Robinson an unrepentent sinner is calling us all unrepentent sinners (and in most cases, we probably are).
I am a sinner. I know that, I AM NOT THEREFORE, qualified to lead a church, my SINS disqualify me, they are of "that nature."

So are Robinson's ... of a disqualifying nature. Only HE, thinks HE is a SAVIOUR, sent forth as a beacon of light, to lead his church to a NEW UNDERSTANING....

Eve thought the same thing too, and over the intervening milleniums, that has been the MAIN sin of man, thinking we KNOW better, we are able to INTERPRET the instruction book in a new, more understanding way.

We all know where Eve took us....

[Icystwolf]

I disagree. Churches that ordain women are doing the right thing. You are of course free to belong to one which doesn't; but don't whine when you face collective disapproval for an atavistic stance like that.Oh Zorilla, you seriously hate men. It's so evident in all the posts you've made. You hate every fundamental yet you still call yourself a Christian...

And I can see your not anglican either, so all this insults should be left else where because they're just not constructive.

[Icystwolf]

Robinson is a repentent sinner so I guess there is no problem there. Your issue is with definitions and listings of sin, not one of repentence.

In the eyes of someone, we are all unrepentent sinners. We all commit sins that are by our definition not sinful but by someone elses definition and interpretation are sins.
No no, Robinson is making "homosexuality" that is a sin, into not a sin. It contradicts the doctrines and hence he's practise of "homosexuality" which he thinks is not a sin actually is a sin, hence he's not repenting the sin of "homosexuality" because he dosen't think it is, but in actual fact it is a sin.

Thus makes him an unrepentent sinner.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I have posted this personal statement of faith before on this board.


2000 years ago our Lord walked the earth as a man. There were many who walked with Him and wrote down His Gospel. Paul received the Gospel directly by revelation from the Lord. This revelation was accepted as true by those who witnessed it and the other Apostles. The Gospel has been handed down to us in the New Testament.

Am I to listen to those who walked and talked with the Lord, or those today that would bend the Gospel to fit their own perception of how the world should work?

Sin against God is still sin against God. Our freedom is from the Mosaic law, in Christ. It is not a freedom to sin.

Unrepentent sinners are not fit to serve in leadership positions in a Christian Church.

Many today say that the Bible is not truly the inspired word of God, that we are free to re-interpret it in light of today's society and what we feel "comfortable" with. Who decides what should be changed? What do we ignore? Where do we draw the line?

I do not say that we should be Legalists. Indeed, Paul's letters leave much room for differences in individual and church practice. His letters do not leave room for Sin against God.
This is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

In you eyes, he is an unrepentent sinner. In the eyes of others, he is a man called to lead the church by God and his relationship is not a sin. I'm sure everyone does something that by another would be considered a sin that they don't repent for. Calling Robinson an unrepentent sinner is calling us all unrepentent sinners (and in most cases, we probably are).
Notto: excellent posts. Your logical and loving perspective is most welcome.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

You wrote:




This is a common misconception propogated by many who wish to twist the argument.
Whenever a fundamentalist accuses someone else of "twisting" you can bet a weak and ineffectual argument will follow. Apparently that verb is in the dog-eared copy of the playbook in a central place and its use reveals that one might as well disregard what follows because there will be no logic or reason to it and yours was no exception.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I am a sinner. I know that, I AM NOT THEREFORE, qualified to lead a church, my SINS disqualify me, they are of "that nature."

So are Robinson's ... of a disqualifying nature.
This is your opinion, based on your own prejudices and misconceptions.

Only HE, thinks HE is a SAVIOUR, sent forth as a beacon of light, to lead his church to a NEW UNDERSTANING....
I doubt he has used that term, so this is your interpretation but you have no way of knowing what is in his heart.

Eve thought the same thing too, and over the intervening milleniums, that has been the MAIN sin of man, thinking we KNOW better, we are able to INTERPRET the instruction book in a new, more understanding way.

We all know where Eve took us....
In the Eden myth Eve was a patsy of Snake Dude and blamed by the wimpy Adam for his own shortcoming. She was hardly presented as an arrogant pretender to the throne. If there is an Old testament metaphor to Robinson's situation he is closer to David smiting a fundamentalist Goliath than to Eve.

[FreeinChrist]

Whenever a fundamentalist accuses someone else of "twisting" you can bet a weak and ineffectual argument will follow. Apparently that verb is in the dog-eared copy of the playbook in a central place and its use reveals that one might as well disregard what follows because there will be no logic or reason to it and yours was no exception.
Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"

1) You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself. This includes implied accusations that another member is not a Christian.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

No no, Robinson is making "homosexuality" that is a sin, into not a sin. It contradicts the doctrines and hence he's practise of "homosexuality" which he thinks is not a sin actually is a sin, hence he's not repenting the sin of "homosexuality" because he dosen't think it is, but in actual fact it is a sin.

Thus makes him an unrepentent sinner.Your attempt at showing a logical progression might have done the Inquisition proud (Not to accuse you of being an Inquisitor of course and certainly in this instance you aren't acting as such at all). This is exactly the type of logic they employed to justify their atrocities.


The fact is we as human beings have no authority over another human being given to us by God to serve as his "deputy". Robinson's humility and patience is truly inspiring.

[Icystwolf]

Your attempt at showing a logical progression might have done the Inquisition proud (Not to accuse you of being an Inquisitor of course and certainly in this instance you aren't acting as such at all). This is exactly the type of logic they employed to justify their atrocities.


The fact is we as human beings have no authority over another human being given to us by God to serve as his "deputy". Robinson's humility and patience in the face of this sort of arrogance is truly inspiring.
Logic, hmm...lets see, being an engineer I can tell you without logic the internet wouldn't exist. It's a protocol that is based on logic so that it's functional in society. I used logic just then to prove that Robinson is unrepenting.

If logic was not employed in this world, would it not crumble? Listen Zorilla, you know jack about logic, theres people here who are more "Logical" than you, to realise that in Logics, theres only one logic standard. Theres no different type of logics...I've been using maths and logic to prove heaps of systems and circuits and believe me, if there were different types of logic I'd be overwhelmed.

I can see where you've gone wrong, we can't judge another person nor can we do any physical harm, but we can give them influences in what we think is right provided we have a good proof which is what we've seen in this forum....unlike your proof which is no proof except critisms that everyone that does not follow you is arrogant.

If your logic serves me correctly, then it's not wrong for me to send a sniper over to whereever you are and assasinate you, without myself committing a sin, because I don't think it's a sin. And that you have no authority over me, so it shouldn't matter...

Thats sounds "Christian" dosen't it...

[Icystwolf]

[noflame]

[twex]

I disagree. Churches that ordain women are doing the right thing. You are of course free to belong to one which doesn't; but don't whine when you face collective disapproval for an atavistic stance like that.
Which collective disapproval are you speaking of? The overwhelming majority of Christians don't allow women's ordination. Or were you bringing unbelievers into the equation?

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Insult counter from Zorilla :



Keep them coming Zorilla...they're all your words. It's amazing how you got so much blessings, and you haven't been banned yet.....
Sorry you feel that way. Sounds like you're a little emotional over disagreements on this issue. To point out errors and prejudices is hardly an insult.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Logic, hmm...lets see, being an engineer I can tell you without logic the internet wouldn't exist. It's a protocol that is based on logic so that it's functional in society. I used logic just then to prove that Robinson is unrepenting.

If logic was not employed in this world, would it not crumble? Listen Zorilla, you know jack about logic, theres people here who are more "Logical" than you, to realise that in Logics, theres only one logic standard. Theres no different type of logics...I've been using maths and logic to prove heaps of systems and circuits and believe me, if there were different types of logic I'd be overwhelmed.

I can see where you've gone wrong, we can't judge another person nor can we do any physical harm, but we can give them influences in what we think is right provided we have a good proof which is what we've seen in this forum....unlike your proof which is no proof except critisms that everyone that does not follow you is arrogant.

If your logic serves me correctly, then it's not wrong for me to send a sniper over to whereever you are and assasinate you, without myself committing a sin, because I don't think it's a sin. And that you have no authority over me, so it shouldn't matter...

Thats sounds "Christian" dosen't it...
The difference is contract murder violates another.

[Foundthelight]

As I have said elswhere:

2000 years ago a group of men and women walked with and received the Good News from our Lord. Saul of Tarsus received the Good News by way of a Revelation from the Lord. Those who walked with the Lord accepted the fact of this Revelation to the one re-named Paul.

Are we to listen to those who would say, "times have changed, we have modern science, we understand things better today, He couldn't really have meant that, abortion and divorce are O.K., sexual preference is not a choice"?

Or are we to listen to those who walked with the Lord?

This statement of faith was mocked in a earlier post. So be it. I stand by it and my Lord.

Can you who mocks find scripture to support your position? Or, will you continue to use humanistic arguments?

This is what the Lord had to say through Paul:

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

Gal 5:23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Gal 5:24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires

Gal 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.

Perhaps I have not been gentle enough.

Eph 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.

Eph 4:19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

Eph 4:20 You, however, did not come to know Christ that way.

[VigoMedic]

This is CHURCH politics, not a sexual issues thread:


This is a CLEAN BREAK with the mainstream, National Episcopal denomination, essentially, they are starting a new denomination here, they have STARTED the Anglican/CounterREFORMATION.

Good for them!First off, it seems to me that this has gone beyond a "church politics" thread and into a thread for Zorilla and Icystwolf to bicker.


I would hope that the dioceses in the EPUSA that have problems with what happened do break communion with the EPUSA. The Episcopal Church has lost almost 1.5 million members in the last 35 years when it began its course of self-destruction. It is very sad.
Jeff the Finn, a former Episcopalian
Let those who disagree with the ECUSA split from the church. It is their choice, and while I think the main body of the church should do what they can to reach out to the "alienated" conservatives, they should realize it's the conservative's ulitmate decision to split, and they can do what they want.

Just because a church has lost "almost 1.5 million members" (by the way, I would like to know the source on that number) doesn't necessarily make it "wrong." Cynthia McFarland and Brian Reid accurately capture my thoughts on that subject:


Often we intrinsically assume that the definition of success in the ecclesiastical world is the number of [people] in the pews. This gives us pause. Having more members makes a church more viable as a social institution, but cannot possibly make it nearer to Truth, Goodness, and Beauty or necessarily more capable of advancing the kingdom of heaven. The balance between consensus and truth is a tricky one, since ordinary mortals can never be certain of Truth. Consensus is a tool to help people determine if they are more or less likely to be headed in the general direction of Truth. There is a disturbingly fine line between democracy and mob rule; an angry mob comprising three quarters of the population of a village has no more right or truth on its side than a thug with a gun, but the latter historically has been easier to police.

Why this is all so worrisome is rooted in Andrew Brown's observation that inclusive and tolerant churches are less successful than exclusive and rigid churches. In other words, in order for a church to 'succeed', it must find someone to exclude, someone to call sinful, someone to rail against. It's almost as though it's been said in the context of a Powerpoint presentation: 'Modern marketing studies have determined that for your church to be successful, you must find something or someone to condemn, because inclusive churches don't attract big numbers'. It's a formula for Hollywood movies, dividing the world into 'good guys' and 'bad guys', but is it a formula for a faithful Christian life? Surely not. Alas, the inability to tell real life from the movies seems to be a growing social problem in western culture.


We've always paid special attention to 1 Corinthians 10:17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=1+corinthians+10%3A17&x=0&y=0) and its message of unity. But there is an enormous difference between unity and homogeneity. We can be one with you while not being identical to you. We adhere to the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, and that makes us one body. But large numbers in any part of that body do not make it more or less Christ-like. The Truth was found in one person and carried out to the world by a few bedraggled followers. 'The logical end of cross-carrying is crucifixion', Dorothy Sayers once wrote. That will never bring in the numbers.


Peace.

[Foundthelight]

Thank you Vigo. I am sorry that I got carried away.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Which collective disapproval are you speaking of? The overwhelming majority of Christians don't allow women's ordination. Or were you bringing unbelievers into the equation?
I'm not exactly sure what is threshhold for something to be 'overwhelming' but I would imagine an 'overwhelming' majority on an issue would be something like 90 percent to 10 percent. The number of churches, both by church and by membership that refuse to ordain women is certainly not of that magnitude. Moreover, as the number of female clergy in churches that do ordain them has increased exponentially. Women are going into the ministry in droves and it is becoming rare for any member of the clergy to have not attended a meeting of his local Ministerial Alliance where he did not have at least one female colleague. The issue is hardly uncomplicated as you might imagine. Increasing numbers of married couples are jointly pastoring in the style of Mom and Pop small businesses.

Concerning resistance to this phenomenon, as long as the Catholics hold out, and they will certainly be among the last to, there will remain significant opposition to female ordination. Southern Baptists as a body have taken a stance against it which is non-binding on the individual churches though in some cases they've used other tactics against their more liberal congregations. Of course it cannot be all characterized as male sexism as a good number of women describe themselves as being against having a female pastor for themselves though they might not object if other churches do. That will certainly change; a couple of generations ago a majority of women and men would've said "I'd feel more comfortable with a man as my doctor than a woman" (or lawyer, college dean, mayor, etc.) but today gender is hardly a factor in people's impressions of professional competence, if not in some cases where people rightly note a female doctor etc. just might ought to inspire MORE confidence than a male, as it's obvious she had to work harder and smarter to get where she is in the face of institutional sexism.

Obviously I don't know the percentages favoring or disfavoring female clergy either within Christendom or in the general society. Perhaps there is a Barna Poll someone could post. But just as we need clergy of all races and ethnic groups to reach those individuals--just as we have cowboy churches and biker churches and military chaplains and truck stop chaplains--we need female clergy just as badly. To ignore that in favor of institutional discrimination is not a service to Christ and his people.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Are we to listen to those who would say, "times have changed, we have modern science, we understand things better today, He couldn't really have meant that, abortion and divorce are O.K., sexual preference is not a choice"?
You're right on one of your three examples, divorce. However, Christ addresses neither abortion nor sexual orientation.

And then you have the phenomenon of preachers in conservative churches decrying the Robinson imbroligio and being cheered and "Amen!"-ed by parishioners in the front rows who have been divorced and remarried, insome cases having been to the altar promising to stay together till death with three or more spouses. The irony is staggering.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Let those who disagree with the ECUSA split from the church. It is their choice, and while I think the main body of the church should do what they can to reach out to the "alienated" conservatives, they should realize it's the conservative's ulitmate decision to split, and they can do what they want.

Just because a church has lost "almost 1.5 million members" (by the way, I would like to know the source on that number) doesn't necessarily make it "wrong." Cynthia McFarland and Brian Reid accurately capture my thoughts on that subject:


Often we intrinsically assume that the definition of success in the ecclesiastical world is the number of [people] in the pews. This gives us pause. Having more members makes a church more viable as a social institution, but cannot possibly make it nearer to Truth, Goodness, and Beauty or necessarily more capable of advancing the kingdom of heaven. The balance between consensus and truth is a tricky one, since ordinary mortals can never be certain of Truth. Consensus is a tool to help people determine if they are more or less likely to be headed in the general direction of Truth. There is a disturbingly fine line between democracy and mob rule; an angry mob comprising three quarters of the population of a village has no more right or truth on its side than a thug with a gun, but the latter historically has been easier to police.

Why this is all so worrisome is rooted in Andrew Brown's observation that inclusive and tolerant churches are less successful than exclusive and rigid churches. In other words, in order for a church to 'succeed', it must find someone to exclude, someone to call sinful, someone to rail against. It's almost as though it's been said in the context of a Powerpoint presentation: 'Modern marketing studies have determined that for your church to be successful, you must find something or someone to condemn, because inclusive churches don't attract big numbers'. It's a formula for Hollywood movies, dividing the world into 'good guys' and 'bad guys', but is it a formula for a faithful Christian life? Surely not. Alas, the inability to tell real life from the movies seems to be a growing social problem in western culture.


We've always paid special attention to 1 Corinthians 10:17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=1+corinthians+10%3A17&x=0&y=0) and its message of unity. But there is an enormous difference between unity and homogeneity. We can be one with you while not being identical to you. We adhere to the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, and that makes us one body. But large numbers in any part of that body do not make it more or less Christ-like. The Truth was found in one person and carried out to the world by a few bedraggled followers. 'The logical end of cross-carrying is crucifixion', Dorothy Sayers once wrote. That will never bring in the numbers.




Peace.
That is truly outstanding. Thank you for this post. Would you happen to have the citation or a link for the full article?

[FreeinChrist]

As I have said elswhere:

2000 years ago a group of men and women walked with and received the Good News from our Lord. Saul of Tarsus received the Good News by way of a Revelation from the Lord. Those who walked with the Lord accepted the fact of this Revelation to the one re-named Paul.

Are we to listen to those who would say, "times have changed, we have modern science, we understand things better today, He couldn't really have meant that, abortion and divorce are O.K., sexual preference is not a choice"?

Or are we to listen to those who walked with the Lord?


You make a good point! Divorce was directly addressed by Jesus, and homosexuality directly addressed by God (via Moses) in the OT, and is referred to by Paul in the NT. As for abortion, was it in anyway common then? Babies frequently died at birth. Murder is addressed, though.
God doesn't change. If homosexuality was an abomination to Him in the OT, it is an abomination to Him today.

[FreeinChrist]

The balance between consensus and truth is a tricky one, since ordinary mortals can never be certain of Truth. Consensus is a tool to help people determine if they are more or less likely to be headed in the general direction of Truth. There is a disturbingly fine line between democracy and mob rule; an angry mob comprising three quarters of the population of a village has no more right or truth on its side than a thug with a gun, but the latter historically has been easier to police.

The full quote was interesting, but this part raised a flag with me.

Ordinary mortals CAN be certain of Truth - specifically, those who are born again, spirit-filled Christians who read scripture. God does not lead a democracy and has already determined what is sin and what is not sin.
Our role as believing Christians is to do God's will, not try to change what God has already decided. It is not our job to redefine sin, to decide as a group that something is really okay after all. Some churches, or some folks in churches, have lost sight of this.

[VigoMedic]

The full quote was interesting, but this part raised a flag with me.

Ordinary mortals CAN be certain of Truth - specifically, those who are born again, spirit-filled Christians who read scripture. God does not lead a democracy and has already determined what is sin and what is not sin.
Our role as believing Christians is to do God's will, not try to change what God has already decided. It is not our job to redefine sin, to decide as a group that something is really okay after all. Some churches, or some folks in churches, have lost sight of this.
Thank you for your reply... and I appreciate your point of view. I do not disagree with you, per se. However, I believe that two spirit-filled Christians can read scripture and arrive at two different "truths" (within reason, of course). It happens quite often. (I will not name specific passages because I do not want to debate those matters in this thread.) So, in that case, who is right?

My main frustration with some of my fellow Christians is that they believe "their way" is right and there can be no other way, period. How do they know that the truth that someone else has discovered through much prayer and with the unmistakable guidance of the Holy Spirit is any less accurate than your conclusion? There really are times when it is okay for us to admit that we don't know everything.

As always, peace be unto you.

[FreeinChrist]

Thank you for your reply... and I appreciate your point of view. I do not disagree with you, per se. However, I believe that two spirit-filled Christians can read scripture and arrive at two different "truths" (within reason, of course). It happens quite often. (I will not name specific passages because I do not want to debate those matters in this thread.) So, in that case, who is right?
My main frustration with some of my fellow Christians is that they believe "their way" is right and there can be no other way, period. How do they know that the truth that someone else has discovered through much prayer and with the unmistakable guidance of the Holy Spirit is any less accurate than your conclusion? There really are times when it is okay for us to admit that we don't know everything.

As always, peace be unto you.

There are some rather clearly stated 'truths' in the Bible in regards to Jesus as Saviour, that God is soverign, God wins, man falls short, etc. The Law was given as a tutor, to show us our sin. Some of the laws was ceremonial, as a picture of what God would do. Some of the law were civil laws, teaching government, working together. And there was moral law. That God sees homosexuality as an abomination is quite clear.

Robinson not only divorced a wife with whom he had children, but is in a sexual relationship with another man, while claiming to be a Christian, leading a church group, and promoting acceptance of homosexuality in doing this. Unless he repents and turns from sin, he will be one who who one day says, "But Lord, didn't I do _____and ____in your name? And Jesus will say, "I never knew you."

[VigoMedic]

There are some rather clearly stated 'truths' in the Bible in regards to Jesus as Saviour, that God is soverign, God wins, man falls short, etc. The Law was given as a tutor, to show us our sin. Some of the laws was ceremonial, as a picture of what God would do. Some of the law were civil laws, teaching government, working together. And there was moral law. That God sees homosexuality as an abomination is quite clear.

Robinson not only divorced a wife with whom he had children, but is in a sexual relationship with another man, while claiming to be a Christian, leading a church group, and promoting acceptance of homosexuality in doing this. Unless he repents and turns from sin, he will be one who who one day says, "But Lord, didn't I do _____and ____in your name? And Jesus will say, "I never knew you."
As I said in my post, I am not necessarily making reference to any certain scriptures. This is not the thread to debate a certain scripture. I just wanted to pose to you the question of what your feelings were on two spirit-filled, prayerful Christians coming up with two different "truths" from the same set of scriptures. I am interested in hearing what you think about my original question.

I agree that there are cerain scriptures and "laws" that the Lord makes perfectly clear - regardless of the translation; the way to attain salvation being one of them, in my opinion. However, there are those that aren't so clear to us humans, and "the church" would say that the truth is evident to a spirit-filled Christian reading the scripture (your words), therefore I pose to you my above question.

Thanks again, and peace.

[Jacob4Jesus]

There are some rather clearly stated 'truths' in the Bible in regards to Jesus as Saviour, that God is soverign, God wins, man falls short, etc. The Law was given as a tutor, to show us our sin. Some of the laws was ceremonial, as a picture of what God would do. Some of the law were civil laws, teaching government, working together. And there was moral law. That God sees homosexuality as an abomination is quite clear.

Robinson not only divorced a wife with whom he had children, but is in a sexual relationship with another man, while claiming to be a Christian, leading a church group, and promoting acceptance of homosexuality in doing this. Unless he repents and turns from sin, he will be one who who one day says, "But Lord, didn't I do _____and ____in your name? And Jesus will say, "I never knew you."
This is a very odd view of Jesus. I guess I can't see him in such a petty and unloving light. I prefer to see him as loving, forgiving and understanding.
As far as the episcopal church splitting, that's pretty much what churches have been doing forever. The Anglicans did it, the lutheras did it, the puritans did it... this has been going on forever, and you know why? Because the splitting parties did not agree with what the church as a whole was doing or believing in. All that we are seeing now is the exact same thing. I attend an Episcopalian church and I can honestly say the split doesn't make me happy. But it's a part of history, and things happen.
I know a lot of people with disagree, but I don't think Jesus is going to love anyone involved any less.
Prayers,
Jacob

[FreeinChrist]

This is a very odd view of Jesus. I guess I can't see him in such a petty and unloving light. I prefer to see him as loving, forgiving and understanding.

Jesus is loving, forgiving, and understanding. He loved us enough to die for us while we were yet sinners. We recieve not only forgiveness, but grace and mercy thanks to Jesus. And He can understand our temptations and trials.

However, He never denied the certainty of judgment or the need to do God's will. And what I wrote was taken from the words of Christ Himself:

Mat 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn {bushes} nor figs from thistles, are they?
Mat 7:17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Mat 7:19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}
Mat 7:22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

[FreeinChrist]

As I said in my post, I am not necessarily making reference to any certain scriptures. This is not the thread to debate a certain scripture. I just wanted to pose to you the question of what your feelings were on two spirit-filled, prayerful Christians coming up with two different "truths" from the same set of scriptures. I am interested in hearing what you think about my original question.

I agree that there are cerain scriptures and "laws" that the Lord makes perfectly clear - regardless of the translation; the way to attain salvation being one of them, in my opinion. However, there are those that aren't so clear to us humans, and "the church" would say that the truth is evident to a spirit-filled Christian reading the scripture (your words), therefore I pose to you my above question.

Thanks again, and peace.Well, the thread is in regards to the Anglican split. I commented on your quote and what my concern with it was, thinking in terms of the reason behind the split.

Two can disagree on the same scripture. They can both be wrong if they are ignoring context, and not looking at the whole scripture, or the whole of the individual book, or the whole of the particular passage. Other folks work very hard to justify scripture to say what they want, because they have already preset views they were told by another, or a lifestyle they want to maintain. They may even change scripture, like the Jehovah Witnesses did. If they are listening to dogma and fitting scripture to dogma - there is a problem. The fault of course is with humans, not scripture.

Now the situation with the Anglican church is a good example. Some are buying into the idea that condoning active homosexuals is okay and christian, that it is a necessary change of church. They are listening to opinions of nonChristians and American culture over scripture. A group of 'gay christians' even have a new Bible out that makes the sin of Sodom one of 'inhospitality' rather sexual misbehaviour. They read the Bible in terms of their desired dogma. They want scripture to say what they want it to say, rather than what it does say. But God hasn't changed. That there are those within the international Anglicans willing to disagree with this group is admirable.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

They want scripture to say what they want it to say, rather than what it does say.
A perfect description of those who use scripture to foment hatred.

[kiwimac]

So,

Was it easy to ignore the posts which indicated that according to both Scripture and the Talmud the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah was economic?

Of course, that would mean that we couldn't feel that +Gene Robinson was a terrible sinner and thus feel smug in our own, "you-don't know what I've done ", righteousness!

Kiwimac

[Jacob4Jesus]

Jesus is loving, forgiving, and understanding. He loved us enough to die for us while we were yet sinners. We recieve not only forgiveness, but grace and mercy thanks to Jesus. And He can understand our temptations and trials.

However, He never denied the certainty of judgment or the need to do God's will. And what I wrote was taken from the words of Christ Himself:

Mat 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn {bushes} nor figs from thistles, are they?
Mat 7:17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Mat 7:19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}
Mat 7:22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
What I meant was, he is not going to just overlook the rules you break in Leviticus everyday (which EVERYONE does) and says he knows you, and then deny someone else. Jesus loves us all the same. I would think this refers a lot more to people who knowingly do bad things (Such as those who who use Jesus to preach hatred and prejudice) and hide behind the name of Jesus to defend it.

[Jacob4Jesus]

A perfect description of those who use scripture to foment hatred.

AMEN SISTER!

[Foundthelight]

So,

Was it easy to ignore the posts which indicated that according to both Scripture and the Talmud the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah was economic?

Of course, that would mean that we couldn't feel that +Gene Robinson was a terrible sinner and thus feel smug in our own, "you-don't know what I've done ", righteousness!

Kiwimac

The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are not really pertinent to this discussion. That is why I did not respond.

1Ti 3:2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Is Mr. Robinson the husband of but one wife?

Mt 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
Mt 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Is Mr. Robinson living in an adulterous relationship? Is he above reproach?

By the standards that Paul set forth for Timothy and the Church, Mr. Robinson should not be in a leadership position. It does not matter if his lover is male or female. It would not matter if he re-married. He does not appear to meet this test.

[Foundthelight]

So,

Was it easy to ignore the posts which indicated that according to both Scripture and the Talmud the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah was economic?

Of course, that would mean that we couldn't feel that +Gene Robinson was a terrible sinner and thus feel smug in our own, "you-don't know what I've done ", righteousness!

Kiwimac
My mind is feeble, can you please remind me where else in the Bible God took such strong action where the sin was purely economic?

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Is Mr. Robinson living in an adulterous relationship? Is he above reproach?

By the standards that Paul set forth for Timothy and the Church, Mr. Robinson should not be in a leadership position. It does not matter if his lover is male or female. It would not matter if he re-married. He does not appear to meet this test.
As happens often, supporters of oppression often reveal in their comments justifying same how things others are unaware of will facilitate oppression, and you came through for everyone here with flying colors. Your comments reveal in an excellent manner how attempts to judge others are so misguided. It is common when preachers get on the stump about this they'll get "Amen!"-ed by the divorced and remarried. All this shows is how irrelevant discussion of forms of social organization employed by Paul's followers are to the entire discussion. We have far too few options as it is. I don't know if Robinson and partner have had a Holy Union Ceremony but I suspect they have. And the misguided prejudicial protestations indicate a need for legal marriage or civil union to be available for such as them.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

My mind is feeble, can you please remind me where else in the Bible God took such strong action where the sin was purely economic?
Of course, nothing is ever "purely" anything. But the sin for which Israel and Judah suffered the Babylonian Exile was primarily oppression of the poor. The Book of Amos has much to say on this.

Also see Deuteronomy 15:8.

Your mind might not be so feeble if you choose to open it up a little bit. As the slogan goes "minds only function when open". Try it!

[FreeinChrist]

I wrote: They want scripture to say what they want it to say, rather than what it does say.

A perfect description of those who use scripture to foment hatred.It is a way for some to "foment" complacency to sin, or to 'foment' apostasy within the church.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I wrote: They want scripture to say what they want it to say, rather than what it does say.

It is a way for some to "foment" complacency to sin, or to 'foment' apostasy within the church.
Don't really get your meaning. Apostasy has nothing to do with doctrinal differences, and no one is advocating 'complacency' toward sin.

[FreeinChrist]

So,

Was it easy to ignore the posts which indicated that according to both Scripture and the Talmud the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah was economic?


Economic? Not hardly.
In Genesis 18, we learn that Sodom is filled with the "wicked", so much that not even 10 righteous men are found. The nature of this wickedness is not economic but sexual:
Genesis 19:4 "Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."
6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof."

And that this is a sexual sin is verified in the New Testament:
Jude 7 - "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Of course, that would mean that we couldn't feel that +Gene Robinson was a terrible sinner and thus feel smug in our own, "you-don't know what I've done ", righteousness!


There sure is a problem of flaming of posters in this thread. Making a false accusation of self-righteousness or smugness doesn't give your position any support. Believing in a Biblical concept of righteousness is not being self-righteous, but is being a follower of Christ. You cannot show me in scripture that Sodom's sin was economic, or that God approves of homosexuality, unless you change the scripture to fit your wants. And a person can believe that Robinson is an unrepentant sinner, and feel sorrow for him, without self-righteousness. That Robinson is in a leadership position within a Christian church, as if his life style is alright with God is sad for his sake.

[FreeinChrist]

What I meant was, he is not going to just overlook the rules you break in Leviticus everyday (which EVERYONE does) and says he knows you, and then deny someone else. I wish people like you would get off your high horse. Jesus loves us all the same. I would think this refers a lot more to people who knowingly do bad things (Such as those who who use Jesus to preach hatred and prejudice) and hide behind the name of Jesus to defend it.Yep - more flaming. Seems those who are angry at me are making false accusations of a number of things.

What your post is ignoring is repentence. Turning from sin. Yes, Jesus loves the world. But that doesn't mean that all will come to repentance and salvation.
I John offers what, in English, appears to be conflicting statements.
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1Jo 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Studying the Greek words in these two verses, the first verses deals with the fact that we all commit sins, though we are in Christ. But the second verse is about a lifestyle of sin and those who practice a lifestyle of sin is not saved, regardless of a claim of being Christian. To put it bluntly, Christians committ sins, but are brought to repentence and turn from the sin, even if they fall to the same sin later. But the one who lives in sin without repentance, and who defends that sinful lifestyle as okay, is not "born of God."

[FreeinChrist]

Of course, nothing is ever "purely" anything. But the sin for which Israel and Judah suffered the Babylonian Exile was primarily oppression of the poor. The Book of Amos has much to say on this.

Also see Deuteronomy 15:8.

Your mind might not be so feeble if you choose to open it up a little bit. As the slogan goes "minds only function when open". Try it!That is not exactly right.
Judah went into captivity for not obeying God's Law of giving the land it's Sabbath rest (every 7th year). See II Chronicles 36:21 "to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete. "
The northern kingdom went into captivity sooner for idol worship.

[Jacob4Jesus]

Yep - more flaming. Seems those who are angry at me are making false accusations of a number of things.

What your post is ignoring is repentence. Turning from sin. Yes, Jesus loves the world. But that doesn't mean that all will come to repentance and salvation.
I John offers what, in English, appears to be conflicting statements.
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1Jo 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Studying the Greek words in these two verses, the first verses deals with the fact that we all commit sins, though we are in Christ. But the second verse is about a lifestyle of sin and those who practice a lifestyle of sin is not saved, regardless of a claim of being Christian. To put it bluntly, Christians committ sins, but are brought to repentence and turn from the sin, even if they fall to the same sin later. But the one who lives in sin without repentance, and who defends that sinful lifestyle as okay, is not "born of God."

For the life of me, I can't see how you figure what I said was a flame. I made no comment and no reference to anyone on this sight. I definitely was not referring to you when I said the prejudice and hate thing. I would NEVER make such a comment like that on this forum, because it is not nice and everyone has a valid point of view whether you believe it or not. And you are missing the point that I made, so please don't attack everyone else for missing your points. And trust me, I am not angry at you for any reason. I have no reason to be. I simply disagree with the point of view of anyone who thinks they can tell people whether Jesus will accept them or not. You're not Jesus. No one is and if Jesus tells me I am wrong after I die, I will accept that. But you don't have any right to tell anyone what Jesus will or will not say regardless of what the Bible says. The lord will speak for himself.

[eldermike]

Posters: If someone dosn't agree with you that's ok. If they flame you, that's not ok. If you have a problem relating to someone then ignor them. If we would do that one simple thing how much better would this forum be?

[VigoMedic]

For the life of me, I can't see how you figure what I said was a flame. I made no comment and no reference to anyone on this sight. I definitely was not referring to you when I said the prejudice and hate thing. I would NEVER make such a comment like that on this forum, because it is not nice and everyone has a valid point of view whether you believe it or not. And you are missing the point that I made, so please don't attack everyone else for missing your points. And trust me, I am not angry at you for any reason. I have no reason to be. I simply disagree with the point of view of anyone who thinks they can tell people whether Jesus will accept them or not. You're not Jesus. No one is and if Jesus tells me I am wrong after I die, I will accept that. But you don't have any right to tell anyone what Jesus will or will not say regardless of what the Bible says. The lord will speak for himself.
I can't see how anything in Jacob's post was a flame...

[FreeinChrist]

For the life of me, I can't see how you figure what I said was a flame. I made no comment and no reference to anyone on this sight.
This comment - I wish people like you would get off your high horse. - seemed like a direct comment to me.

I definitely was not referring to you when I said the prejudice and hate thing. I would NEVER make such a comment like that on this forum, because it is not nice and everyone has a valid point of view whether you believe it or not.
I appreciate your clarification.
And you are missing the point that I made, so please don't attack everyone else for missing your points.
I don't believe I am. It apeared to me that, between several posters, I was being accused of "fomenting hatred", being smug and self-righteous, and being on a high horse - all for holding a Biblical view.

If people would bring up a scriptural reason for disagreeing with me, addressing the points and why they disagree without that 'you' word, -well, that would not have bothered me.

And trust me, I am not angry at you for any reason. I have no reason to be. I simply disagree with the point of view of anyone who thinks they can tell people whether Jesus will accept them or not. You're not Jesus. No one is and if Jesus tells me I am wrong after I die, I will accept that. But you don't have any right to tell anyone what Jesus will or will not say regardless of what the Bible says. The lord will speak for himself.Jesus is the Judge. But what I have posted is scriptural, from the word of God. And I haven't seen a scriptural response to my post. Just opinion.

[kimber1]

Posters: If someone dosn't agree with you that's ok. If they flame you, that's not ok. If you have a problem relating to someone then ignor them. If we would do that one simple thing how much better would this forum be?:amen:

[La Bonita Zorilla]

That is not exactly right.
Judah went into captivity for not obeying God's Law of giving the land it's Sabbath rest (every 7th year). See II Chronicles 36:21 "to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete. "
The northern kingdom went into captivity sooner for idol worship.


Well, then: you proved your own point regarding Judah, because that is indeed a purely economic sin (in the sense misuse of the environment is an economic activity). As for the second point, like every historical analysis (and in this case one in which it's assumed God worked directly) there are multiple causes for events and some analysts feel one dominated, others favor another. Amos is of another opinion, but no big deal.

[FreeinChrist]

Well, then: you proved your own point regarding Judah, because that is indeed a purely economic sin (in the sense misuse of the environment is an economic activity). As for the second point, like every historical analysis (and in this case one in which it's assumed God worked directly) there are multiple causes for events and some analysts feel one dominated, others favor another. Amos is of another opinion, but no big deal.Actually, I was disagreeing that it was for the oppresion of the poor, but it was not economic, either. That they didn't observe the Sabbath rest every 7th year was a violation of the Law, and Israel was to keep the commandments of God. And they didn't keep it, because they had turned to idol worship.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

they didn't observe the Sabbath rest every 7th year
An economic occurance referring to land use policy!