How can any true Christian accept an Appointing of a gay bishop ?

[Rainbow Mage]

I think many protestants dont realize that their bible doesnt have the same books as the older catholic bible. So whos bible is holy scripture inspired by God? Even the old testament of the protestant bible doesnt contain all the books that are in the Jewish scriptures. So who was inspired by God to say "hey, these books arent actually inspired by God! We need to take them out and use only these!"

Dread not all Protestants. Anglicans know well.

 

[DreadFish]

Dread not all Protestants. Anglicans know well.

Yes, Im mainly speaking from my experience with bible belt Christians.

 

[rusra02]

That's quite naive. "The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so" is circular logic. Further, "inspired by" and "word of" are completely different things. Writing under inspiration only means that one's POV is in the same ballpark with God's POV, not exactly the same thoughts and words. In the end, God uses us as we are, which means that the Bible is a human document, written from a human POV.

The Bible is the Word of God because it is, and the evidence of divine authorship is available to those willing to examine it. As to the Bible's being man's thoughts, a writer of several books of the Bible wrote this about his teachings "Indeed, that is why we also thank God incessantly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in you believers." (1 Thessalonians 1:13) Other Bible writers similarly acknowledged that what they wrote were God's words, not theirs.

 

[rusra02]

There absolutely was diversity in the first-century church. Read your history (as well as the Bible). Paul talks about it a lot. The ostracism of uncircumcised Xians wasn't a "false teaching???"

Adjusting our thinking is not the same thing as being an automaton.

No, the first century Christians accepted the authority of the apostles and older men to resolve questions of doctrine and practice that arose, including the question of circumcision. The apostles and older men considered this matter, rendered their decision, and this decision was accepted by faithful Christians. (Acts 15:22-28) Unrepentant false teachers were dealt with and removed from the Christian fellowship. (2 Timothy 2:17,18) Thus the early Christians enjoyed remarkable unity through an accurate knowledge of the truth and the love they showed for one another.

 

[rusra02]

Do you see any problem with this argument:
"We know the Bible is the word of God because it claims to be?"
Any problem at all?
(hint

)

Actually, that passage doesn't even claim to be the word of God, does it? It merely claims that scripture (not the Bible, but scripture) is inspired of God. Surely you can see those are two very different things.

The point I was making is the Bible claims to be the Word of God, not man. The evidence that the Bible is indeed the Word of God is available for all willing to examine it. On the other hand, as Psalms 10:4 states "The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search;All his ideas are: “There is no God.”

 

[DarkSun]

The point I was making is the Bible claims to be the Word of God, not man. The evidence that the Bible is indeed the Word of God is available for all willing to examine it. On the other hand, as Psalms 10:4 states "The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search;All his ideas are: “There is no God.”

He knows your point...
You've simply missed his.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled, while many Christians swear that homosexuality is sinful, there is much controversy.

IMO the biblical evidence is feeble at best, and pragmatic reality makes it very clear that being homosexual is not at harmful to society.

Have you considered the possibility that this Bishop (and his church) simply don't see anything particularly wrong with homosexuality? That would make their interpretation of Sin different from yours, but not necessarily sinners or hypocrites.

Of course, if to you homosexuality is and must always be considered a sin by Christians, then there is no way for you to be at peace with that Bishop. A shame, really, but certainly your right.

Your opinion does not matter. God considers it a sin, so it is. The Biblical evidence is not feeble. It lists homosexuality in the same passage as incest and beastiality as a sin.

That is actually the case. My experience is however that as much as people like to think they have been bamboozled into thinking that sin is ok deep down in their hearts they know the truth. God will not excuse them for there supposed ignorance. I know a person with a criminal minset. As far as he is concerned his crimesare ok. Somehow society doesn't agree. Shame on society. People should be able to do any wicked thing they wish shouldn't they?

That depends on what you mean by peace. The Bible does not support a crusading spirit (let's burn him at the stake). However Christians have obligations to sinners to try to persuade them to leave their wicked ways. It is God's business to punish sinners. It is the government that stands as an arm of God to keep God's law which explains why there is a heated political battle going on in this country. Righteousness exalts a nation but wickdness leads to its downfall. Chuch law is responsible for cleaning its own house which means that a church can be exalted or in decline as well. I suppose you could say that Christians are not at peace with the Bishop or his congregation because we are not in fellowship with them, however a lack of intercourse is a peace of its own kind. After all, once we have finished trying to persuade a person there is nothing left to say.

If homosexuality were not harmful God would not consider it a sin. This is where Buddhism claims it does something but without the guidance of God miserably fails.

 

[Muffled]

See, that is the crucial point. No one can speak for God, particularly when attempting to justify rejection of people in the name of the Christian God (which, from what I understand, is supposed to be remarkably inclusive).

I don't particularly believe in Sin as a concept, but unless that community is remarkably blessed, there are certainly things much more deserving of moral worry there than a simple private relationship that just happens to involve two people of the same sex. It is not like such a relationship is at all morally wrong, after all. At the end of the day, it is just two people aiming to be happy together. It is no more wrong than any other couple, in and of itself.

That is a crucial point, however you are under a misapprehension. Christians do not speak for God (as though their own opinion ought to be God's opinion) but as God living within them. You are hearing God speak through me.

This isn't exactly true. As a Buddhist you do not believe in doing harm. That is your definition of sin. What you mean is that you personnally get to decide what is harmful and what is not which is far different from the Christian who has God define that.

This is never a question of priorities. Preachers spend more time exhorting their flocks not to gossip than they do to vote against gay marriage. However there is never a movement within any denomination to accept the sin of gossiping as an acceptable activity. Nor is it likley that a church leader would be elected if he thought gossiping was ok.

This is your opinion and one that God does not share with you.

 

[Michigan Atheist]

I wish all the time and energy that is spent on condemning homosexuals was spent on, oh I don't know feeding starving children in Africa or something else far more worthwhile to humanity.

This my friend is EXACTLY my feelings about religion today. I have written volumes on the topic of money spent against homosexuals, ie the fight against gay marriage, and how it could have been spent on the homeless, the children, and other social issues. Thank you for pointing that out.:yes:

 

[Muffled]

This exemplifies the essential hypocrisy of the right-wing Christian position. As long as you lie, you can shtup whom you please. Ted Haggard is a good Christian (lying whore and adulterer) while Mel White is a sinner (who lives a life of faith and integrity.)

Obviously you don't know the meaning of the word hypocrisy. I never once heard Ted Haggard say that his sin was ok. The hypocrite is the bishop who says he is a Christian but then claims that sin is ok.

This is never true and I didn't say it was. The wages of sin is death. No doubt Rev Haggard has paid a price for his sin and will continue to do so. However his sin is forgiven by God and the chances are that the sins of Mel White (whoever that is) are not.

If this is true he stands a good chance of going to Hell while Ted inherits eternal life.

 

[LuisDantas]

Muffled, you are commiting a few serious mistakes.

1) Making claims about my beliefs solely out of my adherence to Buddhism. I want to point out that being a Buddhist does not make me some sort of standard model.

2) Stating God´s will as if you actually knew what it was. Even worse, you´re claiming to know when others are sinning despite a complete lack of evidence. How can you tell that homosexuals or their supporters are sinning or abbhorrent to God? You can´t, that is the plain, pure truth.

3) Forgetting that you are no better entitled to claim to voice God´s will than anyone else, up to and including atheists and even "career" blasphemers. By Christian doctrine we were ALL created by God at His image. All of us, not only Bible literalist Christians.

 

[Autodidact]

The Bible is the Word of God because it is,

Is this your idea of an argument? Really? Really?

and the evidence of divine authorship is available to those willing to examine it.

Great! Lay it on us! I can't wait to see it.

As to the Bible's being man's thoughts, a writer of several books of the Bible wrote this about his teachings "Indeed, that is why we also thank God incessantly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in you believers." (1 Thessalonians 1:13) Other Bible writers similarly acknowledged that what they wrote were God's words, not theirs.

And we know it's true, because it's in the Bible, and the Bible is God's word!

 

[Autodidact]

The point I was making is the Bible claims to be the Word of God, not man. The evidence that the Bible is indeed the Word of God is available for all willing to examine it. On the other hand, as Psalms 10:4 states "The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search;All his ideas are: “There is no God.”

I'm willing! I'm willing! Please show it to me. Because so far all I have is the classic circular logic, and surely even you must know that doesn't work.

 

[Autodidact]

You are hearing God speak through me.

Wow. I've met some arrogant Christians in my day, but you take the cake.

O.K., let's talk about it. Is it possible that someone (not you of course) might falsely claim that God is speaking through them, or could believe this to be the case when it is not? [think Joseph Smith, Syung Yung Moon, Jim Jones, Warren Jeffs.)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That is a crucial point, however you are under a misapprehension. Christians do not speak for God (as though their own opinion ought to be God's opinion) but as God living within them. You are hearing God speak through me.

This isn't exactly true. As a Buddhist you do not believe in doing harm. That is your definition of sin. What you mean is that you personnally get to decide what is harmful and what is not which is far different from the Christian who has God define that.

This is never a question of priorities. Preachers spend more time exhorting their flocks not to gossip than they do to vote against gay marriage. However there is never a movement within any denomination to accept the sin of gossiping as an acceptable activity. Nor is it likley that a church leader would be elected if he thought gossiping was ok.

This is your opinion and one that God does not share with you.

Awwwwww.....looks like you could use a Big Squishy Hug, huh?

 

[Autodidact]

Obviously you don't know the meaning of the word hypocrisy. I never once heard Ted Haggard say that his sin was ok.

Sure I do, Hypocrisy is the act of persistently professing beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that are inconsistent with one's actions. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie. Y'know, like Ted Haggard--professed a standard inconsistent with his actions. No, he never said it was o.k.; he said it was a sin, all the while carrying on doing it. That's what we call hypocrisy.

The hypocrite is the bishop who says he is a Christian but then claims that sin is ok.

I don't think there are any bishops who say this. What they say is, homosexuality is not a sin. That's very different.

This is never true and I didn't say it was. The wages of sin is death. No doubt Rev Haggard has paid a price for his sin and will continue to do so. However his sin is forgiven by God and the chances are that the sins of Mel White (whoever that is) are not.

What's not true? You don't believe Ted Haggard is a good Christian? You don't believe Mel White is an unrepentant sinner who will suffer eternal torment?

If this is true he stands a good chance of going to Hell while Ted inherits eternal life.

That's what I said! For you, a lying hypocrite whore-monger will sit at the right hand of Jesus (with Jeffrey Dahmer, by the way) because he confessed (once he was well and truly busted) and asked forgiveness in Christ, while a man who lives in love and integrity will burn in hell, because he does not see love as a sin. I understand.

*note to self. Never consider Christianity as an option*

 

[rusra02]

I'm willing! I'm willing! Please show it to me. Because so far all I have is the classic circular logic, and surely even you must know that doesn't work.

Here is but one example of many.

​

w08 1/1 pp. 22-23“I am the Divine One and there is no other God, nor anyone like me; the One telling from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done.” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) So says Jehovah, the one able to foretell the future unerringly.
Man’s inability to predict the future accurately is notorious. That the Bible is a book of prophecy should therefore stimulate all truth-seekers to investigate its claim of divine authorship. Consider some Biblical prophecies that have already come true.

God foretold that Babylon would suffer permanent destruction and that Edom, Moab, and Ammon would also be destroyed forever. (Jeremiah 48:42; 49:17, 18; 51:24-26; Obadiah 8, 18; Zephaniah 2:8, 9) The disappearance of these peoples as distinct national groups testifies to the accuracy of God’s prophetic Word.
Of course, one might argue that anyone can predict that a nation, however mighty, will eventually pass out of existence. But that argument ignores the vital fact that the Bible went further. For example, it provided details as to just how Babylon would be overthrown. The Bible foretold that the city would be conquered by the Medes, that the invading soldiers would be under the leadership of Cyrus, and that the city’s defensive rivers would be dried up.—Isaiah 13:17-19; 44:27–45:1.

Not in all cases did the Bible predict that a conquered nation or people would cease to exist forever. On the contrary, in foretelling the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, God said that the city would experience a restoration, despite Babylon’s policy of never releasing its captives. (Jeremiah 24:4-7; 29:10; 30:18, 19) This was fulfilled, and the Jews’ descendants continue to exist as a distinct people to this day.
Further, Jehovah foretold that Egypt would be overthrown as a world power but that “afterward she [would] be resided in as in the days of old.” In time, this ancient power would “become a lowly kingdom.” (Jeremiah 46:25, 26; Ezekiel 29:14, 15) This proved true as well. In addition, Jehovah predicted that Greece would be overthrown as a world power, but never did he say that this nation would cease to exist. What do we learn from the disappearance of civilizations about which Jehovah predicted annihilation and the presence of others about which he made no such prediction? That God’s Word contains genuine, reliable prophecy."​

 

[Autodidact]

Here is but one example of many.

w08 1/1 pp. 22-23“I am the Divine One and there is no other God, nor anyone like me; the One telling from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done.” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) So says Jehovah, the one able to foretell the future unerringly.
Man’s inability to predict the future accurately is notorious. That the Bible is a book of prophecy should therefore stimulate all truth-seekers to investigate its claim of divine authorship. Consider some Biblical prophecies that have already come true.

God foretold that Babylon would suffer permanent destruction and that Edom, Moab, and Ammon would also be destroyed forever. (Jeremiah 48:42; 49:17, 18; 51:24-26; Obadiah 8, 18; Zephaniah 2:8, 9) The disappearance of these peoples as distinct national groups testifies to the accuracy of God’s prophetic Word.
Of course, one might argue that anyone can predict that a nation, however mighty, will eventually pass out of existence. But that argument ignores the vital fact that the Bible went further. For example, it provided details as to just how Babylon would be overthrown. The Bible foretold that the city would be conquered by the Medes, that the invading soldiers would be under the leadership of Cyrus, and that the city’s defensive rivers would be dried up.—Isaiah 13:17-19; 44:27–45:1.

Not in all cases did the Bible predict that a conquered nation or people would cease to exist forever. On the contrary, in foretelling the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, God said that the city would experience a restoration, despite Babylon’s policy of never releasing its captives. (Jeremiah 24:4-7; 29:10; 30:18, 19) This was fulfilled, and the Jews’ descendants continue to exist as a distinct people to this day.
Further, Jehovah foretold that Egypt would be overthrown as a world power but that “afterward she [would] be resided in as in the days of old.” In time, this ancient power would “become a lowly kingdom.” (Jeremiah 46:25, 26; Ezekiel 29:14, 15) This proved true as well. In addition, Jehovah predicted that Greece would be overthrown as a world power, but never did he say that this nation would cease to exist. What do we learn from the disappearance of civilizations about which Jehovah predicted annihilation and the presence of others about which he made no such prediction? That God’s Word contains genuine, reliable prophecy."​

Yeah, like Tyre. They predicted that would be wiped out forever, and it was...not.

 

[rusra02]

Yeah, like Tyre. They predicted that would be wiped out forever, and it was...not.

Your statement concerning Tyre is not accurate. But that aside, it's revealing to me you choose to ignore the evidence presented of the Bible's inspiration.

 

[ChristineES]

Maybe I can help clarify things. I don't use the Bible to prove anything outside of my faith. If someone uses the Bible, it is for them- not to prove it to anyone else. The best we can do is tell a non-believer (in God)what we believe, since we certainly can't tell anyone else what to believe.
What I believe about prophecy is this: I never thought it was to "predict the future" but instead messages from God. In Jonah (whether it is a literal story or an allegory is another debate), Jonah told Nineveh it would be destroyed, but it wasn't- the whole city repented. So that is why I have that belief.