Anglicans try to reconnect

When the Anglican Church decides to take the "high road" with the Holy Scriptures as its traveling guide rather than reaching down to the lowest common denominator of cultural correctness, than it will survive. When will it ever ask why those who resist the current disgusting decisions are from the "have not" nations where Christ is truly a way of life and leading them out of a difficult life. The wealthy American Church knows nothing about Christ and his ministry, is comprised of filthy rich liberals who enjoy playing politically correct games. American Churches are havens for cliques who band together to play power games not even realizing that the average person could care less about their little titles. Some theologians are saying we are entering the beginning of the "end of the church age." The Anglicans are prime evidence. The sooner the better so that those who are Spirit led by the Lord Jesus Christ can do ministry unecumbered by little people in stupid robes and funky symbols. If the gay agenda is so God driven, than why are God fearing people leaving the gay frioendly churches in droves. Stand by - the Methodists are next.

Last time I checked, God was not a politician. I am so sick of people spouting their political agendas in the name of the church. Jim, you speak of "Spirit of the Lord" in the same sentance as "stupid robes and funky symbols" to discuss people that do not share your exact belief. Jesus walked among prostitutes and leapers... attempting to save even what was considered the filthiest of people, but you put yourself above them. This is the real reason people are leaving the Christian faith in droves, not that the message in the Bible is not pure, it is the little minded biggots that speak of love and acceptance in church all the while spouting filth out of your mouths in public.

Jim wrote:

When the Anglican Church decides to take the "high road" with the Holy Scriptures as its traveling guide rather than reaching down to the lowest common denominator of cultural correctness, than it will survive. When will it ever ask why those who resist the current disgusting decisions are from the "have not" nations where Christ is truly a way of life and leading them out of a difficult life. The wealthy American Church knows nothing about Christ and his ministry, is comprised of filthy rich liberals who enjoy playing politically correct games. American Churches are havens for cliques who band together to play power games not even realizing that the average person could care less about their little titles. Some theologians are saying we are entering the beginning of the "end of the church age." The Anglicans are prime evidence. The sooner the better so that those who are Spirit led by the Lord Jesus Christ can do ministry unecumbered by little people in stupid robes and funky symbols. If the gay agenda is so God driven, than why are God fearing people leaving the gay frioendly churches in droves. Stand by - the Methodists are next.

You must be speaking of the fine Christians such as Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, Jim Baker, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard etc.

Yes, I'm sure Jesus is proud to have such 'wise' people to guide his flock....

You can believe anything you want at Alice's Anglican Restaurant.
Looks like Jim put his finger right on the sore spot.

Ken - former Anglican wrote:

You can believe anything you want at Alice's Anglican Restaurant.
Looks like Jim put his finger right on the sore spot.

Episcopal, dear, not Anglican.

Romans have such a hard time with this concept...

The general consensus about ‘gays’ is that they are genetically made that way. Gays are wired gay from birth.(It seems to be in their DNA). Many gay people say they knew they were different from the age of 5, i.e., well before puberty.
http://www.topix.com/news/gay/2008/07/ready-o...
I sometimes wonder if many religionists are ‘wired for religion’? A Jesuit said “give me a boy under 7 and I’ll give you a Catholic for life”. Apart from the shocking nature of such indoctrination, it should be noted that he knew what he was talking about. This suggests religionism is environmental rather than genetic. As usual, I suppose it is a bit of both.

God is against equality for gays and women in the Church? I have read the Bible and it says man is made in god's likeness. It doesn't actually say he isn't gay. If we cannot be 100% sure that god is not gay or Asexual, it seems a bit dogmatic to argue one way or the other.

Anna wrote:

(...) Jesus walked among prostitutes and leapers... attempting to save even what was considered the filthiest of people, but you put yourself above them. This is the real reason people are leaving the Christian faith in droves, not that the message in the Bible is not pure, it is the little minded biggots that speak of love and acceptance in church all the while spouting filth out of your mouths in public.

You are right - thank you

Anna wrote:

... Jesus walked among prostitutes and leapers... attempting to save even what was considered the filthiest of people

If Jesus tried this today w/gays, they would accuse Him of a hate crime.

MiddleWay wrote:

Episcopal, dear, not Anglican.
Romans have such a hard time with this concept...

Episcopalian, dear, not Episcopal; Romans aren't the only ones having a hard time w/this concept.

Middle Way, "dear", I'm not Roman, and I did mean Anglican, all the way from GAFCON to Canterburyto the Continuers and everything in between...high church, low church, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical; some pray the Rosary, others consider it anathema. To some, it's transubstantiation, others view it as a memorial. Some believe in baptismal regeneration, others poo poo that idea...and on and on. Then there's the dear old C of E, the Mother Church which has gone apostate in such a charming English way....ah the Anglicans, suffering from identity crisis for nearly 500 years.

Ken- former Anglican wrote:

Middle Way, "dear", I'm not Roman, and I did mean Anglican, all the way from GAFCON to Canterburyto the Continuers and everything in between...high church, low church, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical; some pray the Rosary, others consider it anathema. To some, it's transubstantiation, others view it as a memorial. Some believe in baptismal regeneration, others poo poo that idea...and on and on. Then there's the dear old C of E, the Mother Church which has gone apostate in such a charming English way....ah the Anglicans, suffering from identity crisis for nearly 500 years.

Ah, the old you have no dogma and doctrine set in stone that is added to Jesus' teaching having nothing to do with Him. God is living!

KUDOS TEC!
(The EPISCOPAL Church)

Since Jesus did not have anything he said about homosexuality quoted in the New Testament, assuming he said anything at all about it, TEC is in a quandary about how they should proceed. TEC uses scripture, especially the words of Jesus, as its ultimate guide.

The attendees at the Lambeth Conference are just going to have to bite the bullet and admit that they are going to have to make up their minds as if they have the freedom to lead the Way. One thing stands out as a guide for their decision-making. Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me." Therefore, if children know they are gay, long before they become sexually mature, the Lord Himself has already chosen to accept them.

We have no logical, scriptural or dogmatic foundation to reject these people in any way. It will not be an easy thing for the strict interpreters of scripture to accept. They prefer to depend on various quotes taken from the Old Testament and from the followers of Jesus, including St. Paul in the New Testament. But, when one pares scripture back to the translated sayings and words of Jesus only, the direction to go becomes plainly evident.

KGC

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
If Jesus tried this today w/gays, they would accuse Him of a hate crime.

Lie. Jesus didn't hate anyone, and didn't commit crimes. Contrary to what the bigots say, hate crimes are NOT about what you think, or say, but are violent attacks against people.
And Jesus would not think, or say, anything hateful towards gays. Those who DO say hateful things towards gay people are NOT acting in Christ's way. They call themselves Christian, but it's not how Christ would act at all.

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
If Jesus tried this today w/gays, they would accuse Him of a hate crime.

Joe,

You assume that Jesus would regard gay people as sinners in need of salvation because of their homosexuality. I don't think you can assume that.

Some would deny that there are any valid scriptural passages that are anti-homosexual behavior. But, there clearly are passages that show a bias against homosexuality. The question is whether or not they bear any true weight in the argument. Some think so. Some think not.

But, your point is understood. That's what this whole shebang is all about. I believe that Jesus would find fault with hedonistic and sexually promiscuous behavior, both heterosexual and homosexual. But, I think he would approve of committed relationships that serve the wellbeing of a partnered couple.

If so, and believing that it is our prerogative to create the blessing of such relationships, then acceptance is the only logical and practical way to go.

KGC

MiddleWay wrote:

<quoted text>
Episcopal, dear, not Anglican.
Romans have such a hard time with this concept...

The Episcopal Church is a part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. If you are an Episcopalian then you are an Anglican.(However it does not follow that if you are an Anglican you are an Epsicopalian.)

kgc wrote:

Since Jesus did not have anything he said about homosexuality quoted in the New Testament, assuming he said anything at all about it, TEC is in a quandary about how they should proceed. TEC uses scripture, especially the words of Jesus, as its ultimate guide.
The attendees at the Lambeth Conference are just going to have to bite the bullet and admit that they are going to have to make up their minds as if they have the freedom to lead the Way. One thing stands out as a guide for their decision-making. Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me." Therefore, if children know they are gay, long before they become sexually mature, the Lord Himself has already chosen to accept them.
We have no logical, scriptural or dogmatic foundation to reject these people in any way. It will not be an easy thing for the strict interpreters of scripture to accept. They prefer to depend on various quotes taken from the Old Testament and from the followers of Jesus, including St. Paul in the New Testament. But, when one pares scripture back to the translated sayings and words of Jesus only, the direction to go becomes plainly evident.
KGC

It is amazing that in one fell swoop, you discount every book of the Bible other than the synoptic gospels and John, assuming you still approve of John’s Gospel as necessary with all of those troubling “I am” statements.

To completely ignore what the “followers” of Jesus had to say on this matter is illogical since Jesus himself promised the disciples that he would send a helper (Holy Spirit) to guide them.

Your assumption that since Jesus never mentioned “homosexuality” that it must be ok is a reach. Omission does not equal permission. He didn’t have to mention it. The Jews already knew it was wrong and a sin (abomination). Jesus does reaffirm marriage between one man and one woman and discusses divorce in Matthew 19. He goes on to discuss eunuchs and how if they cannot accept this word it is better for them not to marry.

Whether you interpret scripture using the text alone or hermeneutically, you would get the same conclusion that it is a sin.

Jim wrote:

I sometimes wonder if many religionists are ‘wired for religion’? A Jesuit said “give me a boy under 7 and I’ll give you a Catholic for life”.

Hmmmm.....remember the Hitler Youth movement? Seems religionists and he had a lot in common. Seems like a good reason to stay away from religion altogether.

Ralph wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmmm.....remember the Hitler Youth movement? Seems religionists and he had a lot in common. Seems like a good reason to stay away from religion altogether.

Thanks for the reply Ralph and I agree about the ‘best stay away from religion’ bit. Religion is harmful and the last bastion of superstition. IMO, we need to move beyond it. I look for views that challenge my own on ALL subjects. I am always ready to admit I am wrong on anything, where my error is clearly identified. Religion is no different for me. However, there is no good evidence that religion is anything more than superstition. Even Christian clerics generally admit it requires faith, not reason, in order to believe. So why believe??

Some people seem to find it impossible to let religion go. They seem to have a need for it, but what need? Religion is so divisive. Religion has nothing to do with morality and religionists are certainly not ‘better‘ than people of no religious beliefs. The dangers in such superstitions are enormous, as evidenced by suicide attacks. Of course atheists (for instance) make good soldiers and they can act fanatically or suicidally for a cause in which they believe. However, their extremes are invariably motivated by ideology or mental illness! One does not hear today of atheist suicide bombers. They are all religionists. One can reason with anyone until it comes to religion, but some seem to regard their religion as off-limits, or not subject to the same reasoning as anything else postulated in life. What interests me is why?

Religionists are not obviously less intelligent than non-religionists. They are not necessarily less moral or less educated.

Generally, people wouldn’t believe in transubstantiation or Christ rising from the dead if they were told they happened in New Jersey,(or Liverpool town centre) last Thursday. Is it the fact of them being written by men 2,000 years ago that makes them more believable? It is the mumbo-jumbo that gets me.

It is this line of thinking that made me wonder if it isn’t something genetic that makes people less questioning of religion. This ‘boy under 7’ business- it is noted that if a boy has not been exposed to the use of human language by age 7, his brain’s language facility is complete by then and he NEVER LEARNS TO SPEAK! Hypothesis: what if you indoctrinate him successfully by then? What if he accepts that religion is not subject to the same scrutiny as any other belief? What if he never makes the connection that it should be? I was taught to be prepared to challenge all my beliefs every day. I do this sympathetically, using only my objectivity, reasoning and (Such as it is) intelligence. I think sympathetic listening is important. One has to try and ‘look oneself’ into the other person’s shoes to understand why they think what they do.

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/language.php

Some religionists seem competitive, as in “my religion is more right than yours”.

Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the reply Ralph and I agree about the ‘best stay away from religion’ bit.

Jim, I agree with you on religion. I am o.k. with it for others, as long as they do not try to rule my life, or the lives of others who do not believe as they do. Otherwise, I am fine with them believing as they will.

By the way, Jim. Thatnks for the link. It made interesting reading.