Anglican Diocese grows with addition of parishes

from pittsburghlive:

"For the most part, the new member churches were attracted to the diocese because of its more conservative theological views than the national Episcopal Church, said Bishop Robert Duncan.

"'There has been a secular drift in the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and in the Anglican Church of Canada. It has caused the church to stray from core theology,' Duncan said yesterday at his diocese's first convention since the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh split in two last year.

"'There is a whole sense of freedom and joy here. We are not spending time debating differences,' said Peter Frank, a deacon at Grace Church in Mt. Washington."

Glad that they found the door. If they can wake up each day filled with hatred of their fellows, that is their business.

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

Glad that they found the door. If they can wake up each day filled with hatred of their fellows, that is their business.

Their business is the gospel and their "hatred" is for anything that distorts and detracts from it.

Once again, they had unwanted help finding that door.

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
Their business is the gospel and their "hatred" is for anything that distorts and detracts from it.
Once again, they had unwanted help finding that door.

The GOSPEL...The NEW Testament? Is that where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recount the life of Christ and he was teaching how to hate people? My Bible has a different story.

Why don't you read the Sermon On The Mount again and find the hatred for me...show me where it is Joe....

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>The GOSPEL...The NEW Testament? Is that where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recount the life of Christ and he was teaching how to hate people? My Bible has a different story ...

Here's a different story:

There once was a taylor who made an "invisible" set of clothes for his king, and anyone who said he couldn't see these vestments was "stupid".

Calling people hateful who disagree w/your agenda is the 21st century equivalent of the "Emporer's new clothes": he's really naked, and so is TEC.

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's a different story:
There once was a taylor who made an "invisible" set of clothes for his king, and anyone who said he couldn't see these vestments was "stupid".
Calling people hateful who disagree w/your agenda is the 21st century equivalent of the "Emporer's new clothes": he's really naked, and so is TEC.

Why don't you read the Sermon On The Mount again and answer the question again?

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>Why don't you read the Sermon On The Mount again and answer the question again?

I understand the Sermon, but do you understand how you fit into the "new clothes"?

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand the Sermon, but do you understand how you fit into the "new clothes"?

Did you click on the link I provided for our sermons at St. John's? Today's is already up.

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>Did you click on the link I provided for our sermons at St. John's? Today's is already up.

No, I have dial-up at home, but I am now at work w/a broadband connection; however, I find no link on this thread.

http://www.saintjohnscathedral.org

The sermons are under Worship on the left side of the page.

http://www.saintjohnscathedral.org/worship/se...

If your metaphor equates the Emperor's nakedness with TECs supposed "secularism", then I must state that we are most definitely not naked. We are listening to the calling of the Holy Spirit as best we can hear Her - and there is nothing secular about that despite the "conservative" view that we should listen to the traditions of men instead.

Warren Sensei wrote:

If your metaphor equates the Emperor's nakedness with TECs supposed "secularism", then I must state that we are most definitely not naked. We are listening to the calling of the Holy Spirit as best we can hear Her - and there is nothing secular about that despite the "conservative" view that we should listen to the traditions of men instead.

You assume that the Holy Spirit will lead you in a way contrary to God's Inspired and written word. I wouldn't make that assumption. Remember the question that lead to the fall of man? Did God say?

I assume that the Holy Spirit will constantly challenge our beliefs about the meaning and previous interpretations of Scripture - something with a longer and more clear history than most theologies we cling to like baby blankets.

Warren Sensei wrote:

I assume that the Holy Spirit will constantly challenge our beliefs about the meaning and previous interpretations of Scripture ...

Challenge, yes: contradict, no.

Nothing in Scripture has been contradicted by accepting homosexual relationships, nor women in ordained ministry, nor racial equality. Many *beliefs* about what certain passages mean have been changed, as has always happened throughout Christian and pre-Christian Judaic history. Jesus himself changed the beliefs about the meaning of all of Scripture as well as dozens of specific passages from what the Jews believed at the time, and that tradition has never changed.

I have posted links here to books and websites that outline in detail these new beliefs, and show how they are not contradictory to any Scripture and that in fact discriminating against LGBT people is itself against Scripture, but in case you didn't read those, I'll post some again:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Bible-Homosexuali...

http://www.truthsetsfree.net/

http://epistle.us/homobible.html

Warren Sensei wrote:

Nothing in Scripture has been contradicted by accepting homosexual relationships, nor women in ordained ministry, nor racial equality.

The two comparisons made above are not valid. Racial equality and women ministers are not the same. Homosexual acts are called sin in both the Old and New Testament.

Warren Sensei wrote:

Many *beliefs* about what certain passages mean have been changed, as has always happened throughout Christian and pre-Christian Judaic history. Jesus himself changed the beliefs about the meaning of all of Scripture as well as dozens of specific passages from what the Jews believed at the time, and that tradition has never changed.

Yes, the meaning of these passages has been changed by your side to promote homosexuality to the masses.

In Matthew’s Gospel (Matthew 19: 4-12), Jesus spells out exactly how God intended marriage to be instituted. His reference to Genesis is both descriptive and prescriptive of how God initially intended marriage to be. In verses 11-12, Jesus spells out that marriage is not for everyone including “born eunuchs.” Celibacy is the only answer for homosexuals.

Warren Sensei wrote:

I have posted links here to books and websites that outline in detail these new beliefs, and show how they are not contradictory to any Scripture and that in fact discriminating against LGBT people is itself against Scripture, but in case you didn't read those, I'll post some again: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Bible-Homosexuali... http://www.truthsetsfree.net/ http://epistle.us/homobible.html

Discriminating against anyone is against Scripture but so is condoning sin. More harm is done from the big lie that is being hoisted upon these people who are told that this lifestyle is acceptable in God’s eyes when there is a better way.

Again we come back to the question, did God really say? The answer is clear from the verses in Matthew alone.

Warren Sensei wrote:

... Jesus himself changed the beliefs about the meaning of all of Scripture as well as dozens of specific passages from what the Jews believed at the time, and that tradition has never changed ...

Jesus corrected many misunderstandings and misinterpretations of scripture, however ...

"The Rev. Robert Gagnon, a New Testament professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, challenged those who argued that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

"When Jesus insisted on monogamous marriage, he predicated it on a passage in Genesis which says that 'from the beginning God made them male and female ... In other words, the fact that God had designed two, and only two, sexes for complementary sexual pairing was Jesus' basis for monogamy ...'"

And yet, neither of you have taken the time to look at the resources I posted links to because they address your responses directly, including those raised by Gagnon.

Warren Sensei wrote:

And yet, neither of you have taken the time to look at the resources I posted links to because they address your responses directly, including those raised by Gagnon.

I have read most of this dribble before.

But I will endure it again if you will point out the specific link that deals with the specific passage (Matthew 19: 4-12) that I address above.