Ditching a friend for offensive beliefs?

[eik]

I attend an Episcopal parish and never saw any of that. They never said we weren't sinners or didn't need God's grace (I wouldn't attend such a church that taught those things as my theology is fairly conservative). A form of the Confiteor is recited during the liturgy, as well.

And that's the reality of the espiscopal church. You confess your sins, but the reality is you're allowed to carry on sinning, unless sins against political correctness. For the episcopal church welcomes the immoral and desires to include them cf. "Rev 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel...." In any case, LGBT marriage as condoned by it is blasphemous.

 

[eik]

That Jude verse was referring to the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, which was a case of attempted gang rape of angels in disguise. That has nothing to do with gay people in general.

The Sodom and Gomorrah incident involve the entire population of Sodom and Gomorrah being wiped out, not only those participating in "rape" which were only a tiny minority. It was a case of widespread accomodation of LGBT in the population at large.

Rom 1:32
Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.​

What is implied is that LGBT was widely condoned. There was no resistance to sin in general. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah had given up resisting sin, except for Lot.

I already mentioned the context of Romans. Either way, Paul was just a man and not God Himself. I take what he said with a grain of salt. He said much useful things but other things are dated relics of his bygone culture.

Which is why no bible believing church could accept your version of Christianity, which in ancient terms, is gnosticism, not orthodoxy. The view is that once we have the right knowledge, (the right idea of political correctness) sins of thef flesh are irrelevant.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Sodom and Gomorrah incident involve the entire population of Sodom and Gomorrah being wiped out, not only those participating in "rape" which were only a tiny minority. It was a case of widespread accomodation of LGBT in the population at large.

Rom 1:32
Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.​

What is implied is that LGBT was widely condoned. There was no resistance to sin in general. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah had given up resisting sin, except for Lot.


Which is why no bible believing church could accept your version of Christianity, which in ancient terms, is gnosticism, not orthodoxy. The view is that once we have the right knowledge, (the right idea of political correctness) sins of thef flesh are irrelevant.

God Himself, through the Prophet Ezekiel, gave His reasons for destroying Sodom and Gomorrah in Ezekiel 16:
"46
Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom.
47
You not only walked in their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they.
48
As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
49
"`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50
They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

I would think if one of the reasons was homosexuality, He would've mentioned it. I also find it interesting that He says that Israel transgressed far further than Samaria and Sodom, but nowhere is homosexuality mentioned when it would sense to do so, if homosexuality was a chief reason.

I am not a Gnostic. I'm very influenced by early Church Fathers and Catholic and Orthodox mystics.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And that's the reality of the espiscopal church. You confess your sins, but the reality is you're allowed to carry on sinning, unless sins against political correctness. For the episcopal church welcomes the immoral and desires to include them cf. "Rev 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel...." In any case, LGBT marriage as condoned by it is blasphemous.

I don't understand your fixation on political correctness. Politics was never mentioned at the parish I attend.

How is it "blasphemous"?

 

[eik]

I would think if one of the reasons was homosexuality, He would've mentioned it. I also find it interesting that He says that Israel transgressed far further than Samaria and Sodom, but nowhere is homosexuality mentioned when it would sense to do so, if homosexuality was a chief reason.

I am not a Gnostic. I'm very influenced by early Church Fathers and Catholic and Orthodox mystics.

The reference to it in scripture is to "detestable things." Your church is given over to gnosticism (of a sort), the effective replacement of biblical faith by the liberal dogma of an elite hierarchy that is given over to oppressing conservative voices, under the pretext of superior knowledge. In fact it is my opinion that it is impossible to be a liberal and a Christian due to e.g. 1 Cor 5:11 etc.

 

[eik]

I don't understand your fixation on political correctness. Politics was never mentioned at the parish I attend.

How is it "blasphemous"?

You have to look at the hiearchy. Some of what I say really relates to the policies of the hiearachy (bishops etc). I fully agree that at the parish level, you could find wide variations of practice and belief.

Wiki:

"The 1976 General Convention also passed a resolution calling for an end to apartheid in South Africa and in 1985 called for "dioceses, institutions, and agencies" to create equal opportunity employment and affirmative action policies to address any potential "racial inequities" in clergy placement. Because of these and other controversial issues including abortion, individual members and clergy can and do frequently disagree with the stated position of the church's leadership. In January 2016, the Anglican Primates Meeting at Canterbury decided that in response to the "distance" caused by what it called "unilateral action on matters of doctrine without catholic unity", "for a period of three years, The Episcopal Church [would neither] represent [the Communion] on ecumenical and interfaith bodies… [nor] take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity."


"The Episcopal Church affirmed at the 1976 General Convention that homosexuals are "children of God" who deserve acceptance and pastoral care from the church and equal protection under the law. The first openly gay person ordained as a priest was Ellen Barrett in 1977.[49] Despite such an affirmation of gay rights, the General Convention affirmed in 1991 that "physical sexual expression" is only appropriate within the monogamous lifelong "union of husband and wife.""
​

None of the above, i.e. preferment of clergy on the basis of racial profiling (rather than on the basis of merit), or admission of LBGT people as "children of God", had got anything to do with the bible.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The reference to it in scripture is to "detestable things." Your church is given over to gnosticism (of a sort), the effective replacement of biblical faith by the liberal dogma of an elite hierarchy that is given over to oppressing conservative voices, under the pretext of superior knowledge. In fact it is my opinion that it is impossible to be a liberal and a Christian due to e.g. 1 Cor 5:11 etc.

I Cor 5:11:
"11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."

None of that has to do with being politically liberal or progressive. If you want to go that route, I can turn it around and say it's referring to conservatives with all the sex scandals, greed and money worship from the right.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And that's the reality of the espiscopal church. You confess your sins, but the reality is you're allowed to carry on sinning, unless sins against political correctness. For the episcopal church welcomes the immoral and desires to include them cf. "Rev 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel...." In any case, LGBT marriage as condoned by it is blasphemous.

Sorry, but that seems like a laughable interpretation. Your church is sinless? Ha ha ha ha ha

 

[eik]

I Cor 5:11:
"11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."

None of that has to do with being politically liberal or progressive. If you want to go that route, I can turn it around and say it's referring to conservatives with all the sex scandals, greed and money worship from the right.

It does, because progressives and liberals do not find sexual immorality to be immoral. They have superseded the bible, if they hold themselves out to be Christians.

I concur that the verse equally applies to hypocritical conservatives.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Sodom and Gomorrah incident involve the entire population of Sodom and Gomorrah being wiped out, not only those participating in "rape" which were only a tiny minority. It was a case of widespread accomodation of LGBT in the population at large.

Also laughable, ignoring the prophetic interpretation of the story in Ezekiel. Romans 1:23 is pretty obviously about when Israel is carried away into exile, and its inexcusable for your church to teach otherwise since you're making it the standard for everyone else. Why should ignorance be the standard and judgment be called Christianity? Its a hideous evil wrong to perpetrate upon people. I guess if that appeals to you maybe you've never sinned or think you haven't. What does the apostle John say about people who claim to have no doctrinal errors, I wonder? No, actually I don't need to; because he accuses them of being liars. Strange that your church claims such doctrinal purity though. Maybe it doesn't think John is talking about anything except homosexuality. After all its someone else's problem, so its convenient to pick that as the topic for judgment.

 

[eik]

Sorry, but that seems like a laughable interpretation. Your church is sinless? Ha ha ha ha ha

There are lesser and greater sins. If you don't understand that may be you need to consider I John 5 &etc and study the sins of the Pharisees who classified divorce on demand as "non sinful."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It does, because progressives and liberals do not find sexual immorality to be immoral. They have superseded the bible, if they hold themselves out to be Christians.

I concur that the verse equally applies to hypocritical conservatives.

Most people find things like adultery and wanton promiscuity to be immoral.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Romans 1:23 is pretty obviously about when Israel is carried away into exile

Very interesting. I never heard of that interpretation of it. Can you expand on that?

 

[eik]

Also laughable, ignoring the prophetic interpretation of the story in Ezekiel. Romans 1:23 is pretty obviously about when Israel is carried away into exile,

Nothing obvious about that.

and its inexcusable for your church to teach otherwise since you're making it the standard for everyone else. Why should ignorance be the standard and judgment be called Christianity? Its a hideous evil wrong to perpetrate upon people. I guess if that appeals to you maybe you've never sinned or think you haven't. What does the apostle John say about people who claim to have no doctrinal errors, I wonder? No, actually I don't need to; because he accuses them of being liars. Strange that your church claims such doctrinal purity though. Maybe it doesn't think John is talking about anything except homosexuality.

You're hideously perverting the scriptures, aren't you? John talks about pretending to have no sins. There are little sins, and there are big sins. Sexual immorality was never tolerated in the early church. John isn't talking about homosexuality except in 1 John 5 and the "sin that leads to death."

 

[Brickjectivity]

Very interesting. I never heard of that interpretation of it. Can you expand on that?

Ok, well its a Jewish scripture. In what major Biblical event is a group taken away from its Torah and forced to live in sin? There were two times when Jews were carried away into exile. The first time the southern kingdoms were trounced by Syria, and only a few remained Jewish but were Samaritans not considered pure Jews. The second time was an exile to Babylon, and some people returned from that darkness. The church with such stringent doctrinal emphasis never picked up on this? Talk about clueless.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You're hideously perverting the scriptures, aren't you. John talks about pretending to have no sins. There is sin, and there is sin. Sexual immorality was never tolerated in the early church. John isn't talking about homosexuality except in 1 John 5 and the "sin that leads to death."

John is blatantly focused upon doctrinal errors. Error is 'Sin'. I'm sorry its not convenient to your argument, but no I'm not perverting any scripture nor am I suggesting that homosexual sex is Christian. On the other hand neither is a lot of the things people do. I doubt very seriously that any church is up to standard.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ok, well its a Jewish scripture. In what major Biblical event is a group taken away from its Torah and forced to live in sin? There were two times when Jews were carried away into exile. The first time the southern kingdoms were trounced by Syria, and only a few remained Jewish but were Samaritans not considered pure Jews. The second time was an exile to Babylon, and some people returned from that darkness. The church with such stringent doctrinal emphasis never picked up on this? Talk about clueless.

Thanks. That makes sense. I'm so used to reading the Bible in a certain way that I forget that the original Christians would've read it differently.

 

[eik]

John is blatantly focused upon doctrinal errors.

What's not confessing that Jesus has come in the flesh got to do with anything in this thread?

 

[Brickjectivity]

What's not confessing that Jesus has come in the flesh got to do with anything in this thread?

This is about your criticism of the episcopal church saying its not as good as yours. I'm calling you out on that. I don't know everything about your church or the episcopals, but I don't see anybody's righteousness shining like the dawn. I'd have heard of it by now.

 

[eik]

This is about your criticism of the episcopal church saying its not as good as yours. I'm calling you out on that.

First I am not comparing the espiscopal church with any other modern church but with the early church of the bible. That is my point of reference and I am entitled to do that and I do do that with every church. The espiscopal church was merely being discussed, because it had relevance to my correspondent.

The episcopalians are also in the news recently for calling Trump out on hypocrisy. They warrant discussion for that reason also.

I don't know everything about your church or the episcopals, but I don't see anybody's righteousness shining like the dawn. I'd have heard of it by now.

I suspect there are many churches you've never heard of. What about the Free Presbyterians or the Anabaptist groups formally part of the Mennonite World Conference? There are so many denominations it is impossible to know of all of them.

The sins being complained of in 1 John were to do with a prevailing brand of gnosticism with docetic implications denying that Christ had come in the flesh, to be more compatible with the prevailing paganism of gods begetting gods in heaven, which regretably is reproduced in modern high Trinitarianism, such as the espiscopal church also espouses, where the son is referred to as begot in heaven, and in a "union" with the flesh, rather than "made flesh."

So there may be more connection between episcopalianism and the opponents in 1 John than you care to imagine.