Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churches. Seems like every time mainline Protestants have a choice between making God happy and making gays happy…
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churches
View Comments (75)
This whole thread is an example of why I don't follow organized religion. I don't think you need a translator or third party to speak to the creator.....And no matter what happens people are going to argue more about religion than politics. I think I need a drink..and I don't drink...... :)
Let's get together and not have a drink, NSS, I'm back in the Sacramento area for the summer.
Let me know I'm not that far from Sac. I don't usually drink but I have one now and then.
How should we get our emails to each other? Poppa Joe has mine.
If your email you use for your post is correct I have it. If not just email ihatethemediainfo@gmail.com and I'll get it.
I'm pretty sure I'm using one of my active accounts. It'd be great to get together with more IHTMers!
I think I still have it from last year, I'll send you a shout and see if it works...
Let me know if you need it.
Well then, maybe you should start, at least a little.
Naaahhh, it's the religious version of being bisexual. It doubles your chance of getting a donation to the plate.
Maybe the answer is somewhere in here: http://basicinstructions.net/basic-instructions/2009/4/15/how-to-maintain-a-peaceful-break-room.html
I thought they already were doing that.
Amen, RKae. Each local church is to be according to the pastoral instructions found in God's Word, not man's imagination. Singular Christians are vulnerable as was Lot when he fled Zoar to the opposite side of the valley from where his godly uncle Abraham was. And his sin found him out. The brotherhood within the local church is a key part of each Christian maturing as Christ would have him do.
That's why I've never been a fan of the Evangelical Protestant 'Franchise" model with little overall quality control. Become a pastor and set off on your own- that's just begging for things to get off standard.
Sure, there is a manual- but sometimes it's harder to figure out than the Engrish manual for chinese made furniture.
Exactly. Mainstream denominations are loosing members, but part of that is current lifestyle, not just about 1 or 2 specific issues. I am. Concerned bout the trend of "churches" that are nothing more than positive thinking, motivational systems.. Having been involved with a rogue pastor,and the damage he caused, I want some screening system to weed out the sociopaths.
I knew a church that didn't have a pastor. I asked what happened during Sunday services. They replied that everybody sat there until the Holy Spirit called someone to the podium to start talking. I said, "Okay, that covers the sermon but what about music?" Same thing: everyone sat there until the Holy Spirit moved someone to start singing. I never attended. I was afraid the Holy Spirit would tell someone to throw me out.
Sounds a Friends (Quaker) church!
The Amish, Mennonites and Mormons do the same kind of thing. A church elder starts thing off by welcoming everyone then sits down and all is quiet until someone is inspired to get up and speak.
I thought the Amish had assigned elders to preach? I have no clue about Mormons. That's something else too. The temple in Jesus day was not a "church" as we understand them. It was for sacrifices, and were only attended on high holidays. Most worship was done in the home.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Mormons are more organized than that.
I hate audience participation theater!
This is just one more reason as to why I have nothing to do with organized religion.
I was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic School from K-8, was an altar boy too. I became disgusted with the church and almost went Lutheran with my first wife, but found them Not to be a much better choice.
Now, I just do my praise my way, so I don't have to argue with any left leaning preachers, which there seems to be no short supply of lately.
Religion should be organized. Christ Himself wanted it to be. He threw the money-changers out of the temple; He didn't just tell the worshipers to stop going to the temple. All the letters of St. Paul are about organizing religion.
Making the phrase "organized religion" into a pejorative is another Alinsky tactic from the left. They know how powerful organization is (since they used it to take over journalism, entertainment and the schools), so they want the rest of us bitter and scattered.
Without organization, people come up with their own spirituality, and - surprise, surprise! - it always agrees with everything they want to do. Organized religion helps us all hold each other's feet to the fire and stay on the straight and narrow.
Organized religion is man's invention, God and Jesus had nothing to do with it. Look at all the different sects, who came up with them? And all of them say the same thing, believe my way or you are doomed.
There are Baptists then there are Southern Baptists. There are Catholics then you have Lutherans. There are Jews but they don't believe quite the same way as Hassidic Jews. Then you have the "plain people". The Amish won't drive a car or have electricity in their homes but the Mennonites drive and have electricity. Even the Muslims are divided, the Shiite and Sunni, and they kill each other over their differences in what they believe the Koran says.
Jesus didn't say anything about "organized religion", he only told us to believe in Him. He didn't need a grandiose building to preach in, he sat on a rock or on the sand to spread his word. The huge beautiful buildings, the cathedrals, the churches, the mosques, were built by man so they could pray to God and say "look at how much we love you Lord, we built this wonderful monument for you."
As a half-assed theologian I have to agree that there were temples built for God, like King Solomon's Temple that was destroyed by the Babylonians, but that is in the old testament teachings. Jesus never said, that I can find anyway, that temples had to be built to show your faith in Him or the Holy Father. A man can preach His word while sitting on a rock or the beach, just like Jesus did.
Initially, there were no Christians. They were an offset of Judaism. Jesus was an educated, practicing Jew. He never said to abandon that. The early church was one church for a couple of centuries, before the Eastern church and the Roman church split over dogma. As early as 500, there were people arguing against the stranglehold Rome had on most of Europe. Wyclif, Lollards, long before Luther.
You err. Christianity is the fulfillment of Israel, not an offset or offshoot. Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith, called so after a short time of early saints going from town to town proclaiming the gospel. First called "The Way", called Christians very quickly. The early church was never "one church" - there were autonomous local churches that answered to Christ and helped one another. The Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until the 5th century, although certain elements it is known for began to take shape earlier.
The early followers were considered a Jewish sect. That is why there was n issue when NonJew believers joined up. Should they havto be circumcised? Did they need to.follow the dietary rules? Paul preached to.Jews until the threw him out for blasphemy. The Roman, Greek, and Eastern churches were initially one, and that was the Christian church. As more people got on the band wagon, themessage started to change. That's when leaders got together to establish the creeds the approved canon of scripture, etc.
Re-read what I said then look at everything you guys have said. You are all making my point. There is one Book, one God, one Jesus, nowhere is anything mentioned about different sects all claiming to believe the same thing when the truth is all sects believe their way is the only true way to salvation.
He threw money-changers out of the Temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
Jesus celebrated Passover. He recognized ritual. Communion is a ritual. He taught in temples AND outdoors. He taught everywhere.
Your rendition of different sects is way off. Baptists do not condemn Lutherans, etc. Different sects breaking off is a sign of freedom of thought. And it's necessary when a sect has fallen.
The early churches were warned to stay away from the Nicolaitanes, who were incorporating pagan sex into their luke-warm Christianity. But they weren't told, "Just stop organizing."
St. Paul tells the attendees of early churches to keep fellowship. He doesn't tell people to make up their own stuff.
As for building cathedrals... what were people supposed to do? Build their theaters that grand and then not have a church? What does THAT say about a community. Cathedrals are worship through the art of architecture. Builders need to worship with their craft the same way musicians need to.
Voting on this makes having a Pope seem like a good idea.
With more denominations folding to the GayKK, it just more pressure on the remaining ones to give up too. That is the real story,
What next, at the church picnic a swingers tent? Sacred Cow Saturday's?
Trust me when I tell you good, faithful.people have been and are struggling with the Church's role in this. It isn't taken lightly.
Yes, and you have been in my prayers over this.
Thank you. Both sides need your prayers.
There's a Piscopal church down the road from me that had a sign up a couple months back advertising a gay dance.
Yeah, that sounds like a situation that would have Jesus chasing people out of God's house with a whip made out of cords again.
Actually, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. He did, however, talk about divorce. He considered it a necessary evil, because people make bad choices.
Jesus defended biblical marriage as that between a man and a woman. All sex outside marriage is sin. Ergo, Jesus condemns homosex as well as heterosexual adultery.
He never said one man, one woman. Polygamy was practiced by many seminomadic groups, including Jews. And marriage was a legal contract, not "blessed" in the Temple.
Started by a guy who thought chopping his wives' heads off was a handy way to divorce, the theology it preaches has always been defective so this is not surprising.
Not exactly. There had been splits with Rome for a few hundred years before Henry. Cromwell just used those politically to get Henry what he demanded. Henry VIII was really a worthless king. No one would even.remem er him.except for the wife thing.
Started by a guy who thought chopping his wives’ heads off was a handy way to divorce
Really? I didn't know they were an offshoot of Islam!
He only beheadd a couple. The rest he divorced. The Tudor claim to the throne was shaky at best. He was desperate for a male heir to hold on to the top spot. Indeed, after Elizabeth died heirless, there was hell to pay to.establish. the next royal family.
Glad somebody mentioned this. They branched off from the Anglican Church after the American Revolution and the Anglican church wasn't started in protest or for reformation but because a king was afraid he wouldn't be able to produce a male heir with his dead brother's ex-fiance. Instead of a Knox, Calvin or Luther they had Henry Tudor.
That's actually incorrect; Princess Katherine of Aragon married Prince Arthur of England in 1501; Arthur died 5 months later. Henry VII petitioned Pope Julius II for dispensation to allow Prince Henry to marry his brother's widow, his argument being that due to Prince Arthur's poor health and illnesses, he had been unable to consummate the marriage, leaving Katherine a virgin. Henry would, because of Anne Boleyn, after 24 years of marriage, request Pope Clement VII to annul his marriage to Katherine (1 surviving child Mary Tudor); he refused, and so began the Church of England. Henry married Anne Boleyn (1 surviving daughter, Elizabeth I), had her head cut off to marry Jane Seymour, who died after giving birth to Henry's only surviving legitimate son, Edward. Henry would then go on to marry Anne of Cleves; annulled (too ugly), Catherine Howard (beheaded for adultery), and finally, Katherine Parr (the only reigning Queen that survived him, but it was pretty close; at the time of Henry's death (advanced syphilis, obesity), he was busy having a warrant of arrest drawn up for Katherine). And that concludes my history lesson for today.
Whose incorrect?
Kip Hooker 7/2/15@10.33 a.m.; he was incorrect in as that he referred to Katherine of Aragon as "his dead brother's fiancee". She had, in fact, married Prince Arthur, thus was his dead brother's widow.
The Americanchurch was started by the Scottish church. Our priests . Would not pledge fealty to the King of England.
Nevertheless, out of those personal motives a lot of good transpired. The Protestant movement would have flourished anyway, no doubt, but having the monarchy of England and an entire country (which would soon be the most powerful country on the planet) thumb their noses at the Pope, was very good for Christianity. If you go back to the time of the Spanish Inquisition, when the Catholic Church was completely out of control and evil, with its minions on the Spanish throne acting as its enforcers, you can't help realizing how momentous the destruction of the "invincible" Spanish Armada by a rabid bunch of much smaller English ships was to the future of Christianity. That day, Christ's church took a turn away from Catholicism and toward Protestantism that would change the world. Spain was never the same, the Pope was never again that powerful, and all of it because Henry needed an heir and got fed up with the Pope's interference.
The Anglican/Episcopal communion is somewhat divided on whether it is actually "Protestant" or not. There is one stream of thought called the "Branch Theory", which sees the Anglican Church as one of the three historical Apostolic churches, along with the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches.
A slight historical correction, Pope Clement was actually a rather weak-willed leader, and not "powerful" at all, having been imprisoned by the French emperor and remaining under his imperial thumb thereafter -- one reason he could not deal effectively with Henry VIII. It was not the Pope's "interference" so much as his dithering.
Finally, the English were just as vicious towards Catholicism as vice versa. It really was mostly politics, not religion (faith was the accelerant perhaps, but not the fuel.) I was quite surprised to discover, relatively few years ago, that the classic hymn "Faith Of Our Fathers," was actually written by a Catholic imprisoned in an English dungeon.
"Finally, the English were just as vicious towards Catholicism as vice versa."
Oh boy, you'd get a debate from me about that. We'd need a whole case of beer to weather that discussion. Little known fact: when the English defeated the Spanish Armada in a war which was every bit as much a religious war as a political war, the Lord Admiral in charge for the English was Catholic. You would not have seen the reverse happen in a Spanish fleet. A non-Catholic in Spain would be tortured until he confessed and then killed for confessing, whereas a Catholic in England could rise to the leadership of the greatest fleet the English had ever collected. Quite a difference in attitude.
Of course that was under Elizabeth, who was much more a pragmatist. Under Henry, though -
In November 1534, Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy. This gave Henry the title of the "Supreme head of the Church of England". A Treason Act was also passed that made it an offence to attempt by any means, including writing and speaking, to accuse the King and his heirs of heresy ...
On 15th June, 1534, it was reported to Thomas Cromwell that the Observant Friars of Richmond refused to take the oath. Two days later two carts full of friars were hanged, drawn and quartered for denying the royal supremacy. A few days later a group of Carthusian monks were executed for the same offence. "They were chained upright to stakes and left to die, without food or water, wallowing in their own filth - a slow, ghastly death that left Londoners appalled".
In April 1535 the priors of the Carthusian houses, in Charterhouse Priory in London, Axholme Priory in North Lincolnshire and Beauvale Priory in Nottinghamshire, refused to acknowledge the King to be the Head of the Church of England. They were hanged, drawn and quartered...
In May 1535, Pope Paul III created Bishop John Fisher a Cardinal. This infuriated Henry VIII and he ordered him to be executed on 22nd June at the age of seventy-six.
Thomas More was convicted of treason....More was to be hanged, cut down while still living, castrated, his entrails cut out and burned before his eyes, and then beheaded.
Henry VIII was angry with Thomas Cromwell for arranging the marriage with Anne of Cleves......Thomas Cromwell was convicted by Parliament of treason and heresy on 29th June and sentenced him to be hung, drawn and quartered.
===
http://spartacus-educational.com/TUDhenry8.htm
====
By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
How many total victims did you just list? 20? 40? 100? In response, I list the Inquisition, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, the Smithfield Fires when Mary Queen of Scots was the CATHOLIC queen of England and decided to burn some Protestants who wouldn't become Catholics, the extermination of West Indians, the cruel enslavement of South and Central Americans... do I need to continue?
A little later, under Oliver Cromwell, Catholics were hunted down and beggared if they were lucky, executed if they were not. Most grand ouses hada "Priest.s hole" a hiding place for the resident clergy. Under Bloody Mary, it was the . Same. Elizabeth generally didn't care about one's personal belief, as long as you were no threat to.her.
Just making the point that Henry 8 was a bloodthirsty sonuvabeech. BTW, you have some reference to your statement that "the Lord Admiral in charge for the English was Catholic."?
That piqued my curiosity and all I came up with was this:
"Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Nottingham (1536 – 14 December 1624), known as Howard of Effingham, was an English statesman and Lord High Admiral under Elizabeth I and James I. He was commander of the English forces during the battles against the Spanish Armada "
I found little reference to his faith, but all indications are that he was a Protestant. "He served as General of the Horse in 1569 and suppressed a Catholic rebellion in northern England. " "His portrait in later years shows a grave face with a strong nose. He comes down as an elegant, handsome man, not sufficiently dashing perhaps to win Elizabeth's heart, but cautious, steady, strong, and a good Protestant."
Here is the reason for my firm belief that he was Catholic: at the time of the battle with the Armada, contemporary accounts of officers on other ships mention his conduct (and his brother's) as being under particular observation because of his Catholicism, and everybody was impressed and convinced of his loyalty by the ferocious way he pressed forward into battle. In other words, it seems to have been an open secret among his fellow ship's captains and peers.
It's a point in dispute. His father was definitely Catholic and the debate rages whether Elizabeth would have allowed him to follow the family tradition. He was so loyal and so diligent about FIGHTING Catholics, I think she would have allowed it. This link disagrees with me:
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/effingham.htm
"It has been frequently stated that Howard was a Roman catholic. The presumption is strongly against it, for the Act of Uniformity passed in 1559, declaring the queen the supreme head of the church, required a sworn admission to that effect from every officer of the crown. The statement itself seems to be of recent origin. Dodd, Tierney, Charles Butler, and Lingard, among catholics; Camden, Stow, Collins, Campbell, and Southey, among protestants give no hint of it. The story was not improbably coined during the discussions on catholic emancipation, and suggested by the known religious belief of recent dukes of Norfolk."
I went to an Episcopal wedding and everyone there was so far left I'm amazed they even gave their right foot equal time when they walked. They were all so hip to have a gay wedding that I was starting to fear that they were going to run out and kidnap some gays out of a parade just so they could perform the ceremony.
And yet... the ceremony I was watching was heavily heteronormative. Every comment and quote was about the union of man and woman.
I kept thinking, "Wow! They're gonna need to rewrite the entire ceremony to fit the new gay thing."
Apparently, all those years, they weren't listening to a word they were saying in that ceremony. It doesn't mean anything if you can just throw it out.
I guess "emerging awareness" does that to ya!
Anyone catch the Racist George Takai rant against Clarence Thomas?
George just hates black people Maybe Penis Envy?
No, George hates anyone that isn't as gay as he is.
And that's the problem. Thou shalt not have views in opposition to.the current PC demands. They don't want equality, they want to.be in charge, and abuse others the way they have been abused (real or perceived)
They approved of women "priests" years ago. That is the first sure step towards total apostasy. The Episcopal Church quit being a Christian church decades ago; her lampstand has been removed.