Church of England warning on gay marriage

churches need to evolve

Originally posted by ZeroMax
churches need to evolve

They do all the time. It's called apostacy. Which is sad because God doesnt evolve. He is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore.

the queen on taking her vows of office puts her hand on a 1611 kjv bible & makes a solem promise to uphold GODS laws . thats the first 5 books of the bible which state that god has made all the laws for man to follow man shall not make any laws himself . man shall not lie with man .god made adam & eve not bob & steve death to all rapists murderers & pedos & queers thats what god said who am i to argue queen lizard breath should be tried for treason for not upholding this as was her promise of office as brittish means man of the covenant .and all this from a picti nuff said

send them to iran to get married end of problem . bring back adolph all is forgiven .well its my rite to say this freedom of expression

reply to post by boymonkey74


correct me if i am wrong ANAL sex is illegal between a married couple . just thinking

Originally posted by geobro
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

correct me if i am wrong ANAL sex is illegal between a married couple . just thinking

Where?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by ZeroMax
churches need to evolve

They do all the time. It's called apostacy. Which is sad because God doesnt evolve. He is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore.

The parable of the wheat and the tares was explained to me to be referring to Church teachings - truth and heresies mixed together in the same field. So when a Church evolves it might be simply discarding the heresies.

I'm sure you don't think the Lutherans were apostates. Things change. Christians don't go around telling women to wear hats or keep their mouths shut in church do they? That's a change from the NT.

reply to post by cloudyday


Sheep and wolves in sheeps clothing. Believers and posers planted by the enemy. Why do you need the parable explained to you? Christ explains it a couple verses later to His apostles. No, but it's not an issue anymore since men dont sit on one side of the synagogue and women on the other. Talking no longer disrupts the service. And most people never take the suggestions and make them commands. The religious folks do that. They nullify the commandment (singular) of God so they can keep the traditions of their elders. (Mark 7) That Pharisee spirit never died, it takes the form of religion and denominationalism today.

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by ZeroMax
churches need to evolve

They do all the time. It's called apostacy. Which is sad because God doesnt evolve. He is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore.

The parable of the wheat and the tares was explained to me to be referring to Church teachings - truth and heresies mixed together in the same field. So when a Church evolves it might be simply discarding the heresies.

I'm sure you don't think the Lutherans were apostates. Things change. Christians don't go around telling women to wear hats or keep their mouths shut in church do they? That's a change from the NT.

Don't forget about slavery. Perfectly acceptable practice, according to God. Except that things change -- and now we no longer view slavery as an acceptable practice. So, the question is... does God still find slavery acceptable, or has he changed along with the rest of us???

reply to post by kaylaluv


The Biblical or ancient model of slavery was nohing like the African and American versions. Our perception or perspective is clouded by that. The ancient model was how people payed off debts or kept themselves from starving to death. And in the Hebrew model the slaves were given their freedom every 7 years. Not even close to compare the two. The African and American versions of slavery is condemned in the Bible by Paul.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by cloudyday

 

Sheep and wolves in sheeps clothing. Believers and posers planted by the enemy. Why do you need the parable explained to you? Christ explains it a couple verses later to His apostles.

Here is a snippet from wikipedia regarding Jesus' explanation for that parable. If you read this explanation with an open mind, you should be able to see that "children" means "things that cause stumbling". Jesus isn't saying that some people are wheat and other unfortunate people are tares. (I highlighted the important part of the quote.)

Then Jesus sent the multitudes away, and went into the house. His disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the darnel weeds of the field." He answered them, "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the children of the Kingdom; and the darnel weeds are the children of the evil one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. As therefore the darnel weeds are gathered up and burned with fire; so will it be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will gather out of his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and those who do iniquity, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be weeping and the gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
—Matthew 13:36-43, World English Bible

Wheat and Tares

reply to post by cloudyday


No to be offensive, but why would you go to a secular source to get an explaination to a Bible passage? Why?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

The Biblical or ancient model of slavery was nohing like the African and American versions. Our perception or perspective is clouded by that. The ancient model was how people payed off debts or kept themselves from starving to death. And in the Hebrew model the slaves were given their freedom every 7 years. Not even close to compare the two. The African and American versions of slavery is condemned in the Bible by Paul.

Some forms of slavery may be worse than others, but ALL forms of slavery are wrong. How could God condone ANY type of slavery? We don't condone any type of slavery now, so why did God do so then?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by cloudyday

 

No to be offensive, but why would you go to a secular source to get an explaination to a Bible passage? Why?

I googled "wheat and tares" and that was the first one. Of course the snippet I included was straight from the Bible.

Doesn't it make sense that if the wheat represents Jesus teachings in the parable of the sower and the soil represents people that the same might be true in the following parable of the wheat and tares?

reply to post by cloudyday


The entire context is about people. People teach/carry doctrine.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

The Biblical or ancient model of slavery was nohing like the African and American versions. Our perception or perspective is clouded by that. The ancient model was how people payed off debts or kept themselves from starving to death. And in the Hebrew model the slaves were given their freedom every 7 years. Not even close to compare the two. The African and American versions of slavery is condemned in the Bible by Paul.

Some forms of slavery may be worse than others, but ALL forms of slavery are wrong. How could God condone ANY type of slavery? We don't condone any type of slavery now, so why did God do so then?

You may think they are wrong but who are you to judge? In the ancient model a widowed woman could either starve to death, become a slave, or enter into prostitution. A person who wished to borrow money w/o collateral could enter slavery to pay off their debt. In that day and time for most people freedom meant freedom to starve to death. It was just a way if life before banks lent money with interest. That's why one must seperate from their mind the idea we have today of slavery from the ancient model. They two were not similar whatsoever.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
The Church of England has warned that proposals to legalise gay marriage could undermine its status.

Of course it would undermine the status of the Church of England. It would show that people don't listen to what is coming out of the pulpits but are instead making up their own minds as to what they believe and don't believe. The real question - is it a bad thing for the Church of England to have it's status 'undermined'??

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

The Biblical or ancient model of slavery was nohing like the African and American versions. Our perception or perspective is clouded by that. The ancient model was how people payed off debts or kept themselves from starving to death. And in the Hebrew model the slaves were given their freedom every 7 years. Not even close to compare the two. The African and American versions of slavery is condemned in the Bible by Paul.

Some forms of slavery may be worse than others, but ALL forms of slavery are wrong. How could God condone ANY type of slavery? We don't condone any type of slavery now, so why did God do so then?

You may think they are wrong but who are you to judge? In the ancient model a widowed woman could either starve to death, become a slave, or enter into prostitution. A person who wished to borrow money w/o collateral could enter slavery to pay off their debt. In that day and time for most people freedom meant freedom to starve to death. It was just a way if life before banks lent money with interest. That's why one must seperate from their mind the idea we have today of slavery from the ancient model. They two were not similar whatsoever.

So, two men being in a committed, loving relationship is a horrible abomination, but a widowed woman being forced into slavery or prostitution to avoid starvation is ok? Something really stinks here.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by cloudyday

 

The entire context is about people. People teach/carry doctrine.

I wish you wouldn't dismiss this out of hand like that. It's not my idea. If you do a little research, I'm sure you will find somebody you respect who shares the interpretation that I mentioned.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Who said it was "okay" either? It is what it is. It would be nice to snap the fingers and not have anyone forced into slavery or prostitution, but the real world doesnt operate on Abbra Caddabra be well and prosper. It's unfortunate, but it was the way of life back in ancient times.