Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anglicans and Sexual Contradictions
Answering Protestants ^ | 12 December 2013 | Matthew Olson

Posted on 12/12/2013 4:07:04 PM PST by matthewrobertolson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-217 next last

1 posted on 12/12/2013 4:07:05 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: matthewrobertolson
The Episcopal "Church" of the USA (the official American branch of Anglicanism) also now blesses homosexual relationships. (See their liturgy for it here.) The "Church" of England recently announced that it will follow the same route.

Once the Spirit has left the building, there is nothing left to do but call the realtors.

2 posted on 12/12/2013 4:13:48 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron

My thoughts exactly.


3 posted on 12/12/2013 4:25:12 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: matthewrobertolson
The Anglican positions on marriage and sexuality are nonsensical. Would not God's true Church be more consistent? If Anglicans really want to "secure a better education for the clergy in moral theology" (Resolution 12 of the 1930 LC), then they should tell them to become Catholic.

I agree. Liberal Anglicans would be better off being Catholic.

4 posted on 12/12/2013 4:26:41 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matthewrobertolson

The declaration at Lambeth is contentless. They never answered the question: WHAT moral considerations could make continence immoral?

Ultimately, of course, married couples were being told: Do the right thing, unless you find it difficult or unpleasant.


5 posted on 12/12/2013 4:53:10 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matthewrobertolson

Tolkien best summarized Anglicanism: “a pathetic and shadowy medley of half-remembered traditions and mutilated beliefs.”


6 posted on 12/12/2013 4:58:47 PM PST by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matthewrobertolson
The Anglican positions on marriage and sexuality are nonsensical. Would not God's true Church be more consistent? If Anglicans really want to "secure a better education for the clergy in moral theology" (Resolution 12 of the 1930 LC), then they should tell them to become Catholic.

Related threads:
Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin assigns blame to himself and church for same-sex marriage in R.I.
Q-poll: Catholic voters are leading the USA to same-sex marriage

7 posted on 12/12/2013 5:26:15 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

>> I agree. Liberal Anglicans would be better off being Catholic.

What in your mind justifies Catholicism being a better spiritual venue for pro-homosexual Anglicans?


8 posted on 12/12/2013 8:12:47 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: matthewrobertolson

“So, if openness to life is not required in marriage (which the acceptance of contraception would seem to indicate), then why are same-sex couples in the ECUSA mandated to practice sexual abstinence? And if it is required, then why are contraception and homosexual relationships now endorsed?”

Excellent point. But sin is incompatible with true logic and reasoning.


9 posted on 12/12/2013 9:04:54 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matthewrobertolson
The Anglican positions on marriage and sexuality are nonsensical. Would not God's true Church be more consistent? If Anglicans really want to "secure a better education for the clergy in moral theology" (Resolution 12 of the 1930 LC), then they should tell them to become Catholic.

If Roman Catholicism is being presented as "God's true church" and superior to any other denomination of Christianity based on this one area, then shouldn't this church actually demonstrate that moral superiority better? Without even dwelling on the abysmal child sexual abuses of the past BY clergy and the cover-ups, stonewalling and perjury by the hierarchy, explain how the "contraception" rules are intrinsically different when the "rhythm method" and "natural family planning" are recommended for married couples to avoid conception? The result is basically the same whether a couple uses NFP or a condom. All the Catholic Church is doing is piously asserting "their" way is the only way God's church should act in the area of what a husband and wife do in the planning of their families between themselves and God. It sounds more than a little hypocritical to me.

I sincerely HOPE nobody decides to join the Catholic Church solely on the basis of this issue.

10 posted on 12/13/2013 12:12:41 AM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
What in your mind justifies Catholicism being a better spiritual venue for pro-homosexual Anglicans?

For starters, the CAtholics aren't pro-homosexual.

11 posted on 12/13/2013 4:51:30 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; RichInOC; Prince of Space; JoeFromSidney; TNMountainMan; alphadog; infool7; Heart-Rest; ..
In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Anglicans and Sexual Contradictions, boatbums wrote:
If Roman Catholicism is being presented as "God's true church" and superior to any other denomination of Christianity based on this one area, then shouldn't this church actually demonstrate that moral superiority better? Without even dwelling on the abysmal child sexual abuses of the past BY clergy and the cover-ups, stonewalling and perjury by the hierarchy, explain how the "contraception" rules are intrinsically different when the "rhythm method" and "natural family planning" are recommended for married couples to avoid conception? The result is basically the same whether a couple uses NFP or a condom. All the Catholic Church is doing is piously asserting "their" way is the only way God's church should act in the area of what a husband and wife do in the planning of their families between themselves and God. It sounds more than a little hypocritical to me.
You are a "member" of the "True Church", yes?
12 posted on 12/13/2013 5:04:00 AM PST by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: narses; boatbums; RichInOC; Prince of Space; JoeFromSidney; TNMountainMan; alphadog; infool7; ...
explain how the "contraception" rules are intrinsically different when the "rhythm method" and "natural family planning" are recommended for married couples to avoid conception?

I'm not a Roman Catholic, but here would be a few answers to boatbums question:

First, placing a physical (or drug) barrier rather than a self-control barrier smacks of the philosophy that we, instead of God, are the arbiters of our own fates, of who gets born and who dies. In fact, it says "we INSIST that we are in control of life and death."

Second, use of the physical barrier more likely leads to turning a blind eye to one's children's use of same when they become of a sexually active age.

Third, rejecting a well-intentioned church teaching in one area could lead to a life of looking for exceptions in other (all?) areas of church teaching. The straight-forward purpose of the contraception mandate is to honor God as being sovereign in all affairs.

13 posted on 12/13/2013 5:16:57 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I agree, well said Padre.


14 posted on 12/13/2013 5:58:52 AM PST by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins; boatbums; metmom; CynicalBear

This subject always seems WEIRD to me. Does anyone actually think God is knitting His brow over contraception questions, when we cannot even get “THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD” correct? Really. Here we are, called to be ambassadors for Christ, preaching the reconciliation God desires for man, through the finished work of His Son, and yet, contraception is the highest note we can reach for Him.


15 posted on 12/13/2013 6:07:24 AM PST by smvoice (HELP! I'm trapped inside this body and I can't get out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; narses

If you have a chance to honor God in one area, then why wouldn’t you?

However, the issue of man determining he is sovereign over life and death is a huge issue, so “condoms” are a slippery slope to euthanasia....murder to promote social convenience.


16 posted on 12/13/2013 6:20:31 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Actually that’s very easy to understand. Catholics must obfuscate to the peripherals of Catholic teaching that cannot be substantiated in scripture because they cannot stand on scripture alone. Satan always attempts to deflect from what scripture says. As Jesus pointed out, Satan is always trumped by what scripture actually says. It’s why Jesus so often said “it is written”. Catholics must get off of “it is written” or they will be thwarted like Satan was.


17 posted on 12/13/2013 7:01:58 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

THAT makes sense. I’ve not seen so many “experts “ on contraception than here. Ask about a condom and the reply is swift and without doubt. Ask about the gospel of your salvation, and well..


18 posted on 12/13/2013 7:40:37 AM PST by smvoice (HELP! I'm trapped inside this body and I can't get out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: xzins; boatbums
Third, rejecting a well-intentioned church teaching in one area could lead to a life of looking for exceptions in other (all?) areas of church teaching. The straight-forward purpose of the contraception mandate is to honor God as being sovereign in all affairs.

"Well intentioned church teaching" ≠ Scripture. There's no point in following church teachings if they do not line up with the Word of God. It does not impress God or earn brownie points with Him.

Considering the rate of contraceptive failure, I hardly think that God is not sovereign in conception. If God so chooses that a certain person exist, that person will despite the efforts of parents to prevent pregnancy. And there's no fool proof contraceptive.

There's danger in mandating what God is silent on in Scripture. It smacks of legalism and is how cults are born.

19 posted on 12/13/2013 12:38:52 PM PST by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: metmom; narses

We all make decisions based on the revelation that we do have, Metmom. To say that nothing can counteract or stump the power of God is a true saying. That fact, however, has not prevented any number of creatures from nonetheless trying to do so. Did Satan’s rebellion triumph over God? No it has not as will be seen in the will have not.

So, because Satan cannot counteract God’s purpose and power, does that mean Satan hasn’t really done bad? No. He has done evil, and that sin will be punished eventually in the lake of fire.

With us is there anyone God has decreed to be born who will remain unborn? Never. God’s sovereignty overcomes all.

Is the intention to change the status of those who are to exist to the status of those who will not exist a sinful thought? I think it is. I think it is an assumption of sovereignty in the same way that thought of murder is an assumption of sovereignty. (BTW, every pro-life argument supports this viewpoint. The pre-born are living creations of God.)

What about the pre-conceived? Are they real?

Well, only if there is evidence that the “yet to be conceived” have ever been predicted and the prediction come true. The Messiah Jesus, John the Baptist, and Cyrus come quickly to mind.

Therefore, the intention of the heart to do away with the yet to be conceived is a sin of the heart akin to the taking of a life.

Far better to err on the side of life.


20 posted on 12/13/2013 2:55:51 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-217 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson