Matthew 18:12-14 | |
 | |
Our Lady of Guadalupe, Pigment on tima (cactus fibre wove cloak), Dated to the Marian apparitions in 1531 © Wikimedia Commons | |
Gospel Reading | |
Jesus said to his disciples: ‘Tell me. Suppose a man has a hundred sheep and one of them strays; will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hillside and go in search of the stray? I tell you solemnly, if he finds it, it gives him more joy than do the ninety-nine that did not stray at all. Similarly, it is never the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost.’ |
NPD(II) - 2
ReplyDeleteGVNPD(II)E SWEEPSTAKE - 3
Obviously Christ was referring to those paedophiles (most of them heterosexual, then as now) so roundly condemned by St Paul in Corinthians. Thank God for scholars like Edward Oliver who ferreted out the deliberate mistranslation of the word arsenokoitai to mean homosexuals (who don’t choose their sexuality, which therefore is God given). Instead of paedophiles (who choose to rape little girls and bugger small boys).
ReplyDeleteOne in the eye for you, Gene, eh? You can’t use St Paul any more to bolster your pig ignorant and vicious bigotry.
Perhaps spend some time today fabricating a convincing excuse why “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths - and Marianne pissed her knickers in C & A” won’t be published the day after tomorrow?
Or what about writing a memoir about your “Uncle Nancy”? You could use that phrase of Churchill’s for the title - “Keep buggering on”. Or perhaps “Don’t drop the soap in the shower, son”? “Carry on Cottaging?” “Carry on Up the Jacksie?” At least you’ll have a title, which come to think of it is as far as most of your books get.
Gary Bandall
Mary Winterbourne
Sebastian D’Orsai
THE "SCHOLARSHIP" OF GENE VINCENT [2]
ReplyDeleteAs I was talking with my friend I said, “I wonder why not until 1983? Was their influence from America?” So we had our German connection look into it again and it turns out that the company, Biblica, who owns the NIV version, paid for this 1983 German version. Thus it was Americans who paid for it! In 1983 Germany didn’t have enough of a Christian population to warrant the cost of a new Bible translation, because it’s not cheap. So an American company paid for it and influenced the decision, resulting in the word homosexual entering the German Bible for the first time in history. So, I say, I think there is a “gay agenda” after all!
I also have a 1674 Swedish translation and an 1830 Norwegian translation of the Bible. I asked one of my friends, who was attending Fuller seminary and is fluent in both Swedish and Norwegian, to look at these verses for me. So we met at a coffee shop in Pasadena with my old Bibles. (She didn’t really know why I was asking.) Just like reading an old English Bible, it’s not easy to read. The letters are a little bit funky, the spelling is a little bit different. So she’s going through it carefully, and then her face comes up, “Do you know what this says?!” and I said, “No! That’s why you are here!” She said, “It says boy abusers, boy molesters.” It turns out that the ancient world condoned and encouraged a system whereby young boys (8-12 years old) were coupled by older men. Ancient Greek documents show us how even parents utilized this abusive system to help their sons advance in society. So for most of history, most translations thought these verses were obviously referring the pederasty, not homosexuality!
So then I started thinking that of 4 of the 6 passages cited as condemning homosexuality, all these nations and translations were referring to pederasty, and not what we would call homosexuality today.
Q: How did the translation teams work?
Ed: Well, they didn’t operate out of a vacuum when they translated something. They used data available to them from very old libraries. Last week at the Huntington Library I found a Lexicon from 1483. I looked up arsenokoitai and it gave the Latin equivalent, paedico and praedico. If you look those up they means pederasty, or knabenschander, (boy molester, in German.) 1483 is the year Martin Luther was born, so when he was running for his life translating the Bible and carrying his books, he would have used such a Lexicon. It was the Lexicon of his time. This Lexicon would have used information from the previous 1000+ years, including data passed down from the Church Fathers.
Q: So there is historical tradition to show that these verses aren’t relating to homosexuality?
Absolutely! Sometimes I’m frustrated when speak with pastors who say, “Well I believe the historical tradition surrounding these verses” and then proceed with a condemnation of LGBTQ individuals. I challenge them to see what was actually traditionally taught. For most of history, most European Bibles taught the tradition that these 4 verses were dealing with pederasty, not homosexuality. I am saddened when I see pastors and theologians cast aside the previous 2000 years of history. This is why I collect very old Bibles, lexicons, theological books and commentaries - most modern biblical commentaries adjusted to accommodate this mistranslation. It’s time for the truth to come out!
Yes! My brother, who is a pastor, also told me the same thing: that every sector of the church has seen same-sex relationships as sinful for 2,000 years. But the more i read and study though, the more i just don’t see this being true.
Q: What was used before homosexual showed up in the RSV version?
Ed: King James Version triumphed the land and they used the phrase, “Abusers of themselves with mankind” for arsenokoitai. If you asked people during that time no one really wanted to tackle it. So that’s why I’m collecting Bibles, Biblical commentaries and lexicons, in order to show how theologians dealt with these passages.
[continued]
THE "SCHOLARSHIP" OF GENE VINCENT [3]
ReplyDeleteQ: In your opinion, how would the church be different if the RSV didn’t change aresenkoitai and malakoi to homosexual in 1946 ?
Ed: In my opinion, if the RSV did not use the word homosexual in first Corinthians 6:9, and instead would have spent years in proper research to understand homosexuality and to really dig into the historical contextualization, I think translators would have ended up with a more accurate translation of the abusive nature intended by this word. I think we could have avoided the horrible damage that was done from pulpits all across America, and ultimately other parts of the world. But let’s don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater — the RSV team did a great job on most everything else. It was an honest mistake.
Q: And do you think your life would have gone differently as a result?
Ed: Yes, absolutely! I think my life would have been starkly different if the translation would have been translated with the accurate historical contextualization - especially within my own family, since they rely so heavily on the English translation and put a lot of faith in the translators for the final product in English. Since most people haven’t studied Greek or Hebrew, they have no concept of challenging a translation, and any potential errors that may have occurred during translation. Therefore, many people are unable to consider the implications of the text beyond the English translation in front of them.
Q: Based on your research, what advice would you have for LGBTQ Christians today?
My advice to LGBTQ Christians today would be three things:
1.) As difficult as it may be, try to extend grace and patience to the Church. The vast majority of pastors in America have not done their due diligence on this topic, so we can’t expect them to be any further along than they are currently. In the same way that God has extended grace and patience with us when we sin, we need to extend grace and patience toward others regarding their error on this topic. Bitterness will only manage to create further damage.
2.) Seek out other LGBTQ Christians who have already done their due diligence on this topic and reached a point of peace between their sexuality and God. We can learn a lot from others who are a little further up the trail.
3.) Often remind yourself that this mess is not caused by God, but instead is the result of people who have been entrusted with free will.
Ed Oxford is a theologian and scholar attached to the United Methodist Church in Long Beach California.
In case you missed it last week, a reminder of the teaser question for the Gutless Vermin Christmas Quiz:
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime a teaser question for the 2023 Grand Christmas Gutless Vermin Quiz:
What common quality have all these books?
Solomon’s Portico
(Subtitle - The Queen of Sheba’s Back Passage)
The man who heard Jenny Lind Sing
(Subtitle: The man who heard Lily Langtry Fart)
Heartbreak at Hillingdon High
(Subtitle: Groper Gene and the Girls' Changing Rooms)
A Meditation on the Psalms
(Subtitle - A Wank on the Toilet)
Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths
(Subtitle: And Marianne pissed her knickers in C & A)
ANSWER TOMORROW!!
Mary Winterbourne
Gary Bandall
Sebastian D’Orsai
Antonio del Auto-Grande
Quacky Quackworth
Ducky Duckworth
Jobby Jobsworth
"Ed Oxford is a theologian and scholar attached to the United Methodist Church in Long Beach California."
ReplyDeleteHa! Ha! Ha! A Mickey Mouse theologian of no repute. Is that the best you can do Detterling?
Whether it's knabenschander, arsenokoitai, sodomite, shirtlifter or any other name we all know what it means.
So all the scholars of renown, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Jewish faith, the Muslim faith are all wrong? And Detterling is right? Your iron-clad self importance and arrogance knows no bounds.
GENE
Poisoning the Well and argumentum ad auctoritatem are not an argument, Gene. Mr Oxford is a respected scholar in his field. How's your latin, greek and hebrew, Gene? Oops! sorry, I forgot, you weren't able to plagiarise texts in those languages when you cheated your way to your PPE degree, were you?
ReplyDeleteAnd as for this,
"So all the scholars of renown, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Jewish faith, the Muslim faith are all wrong? And Detterling is right? Your iron-clad self importance and arrogance knows no bounds."
this is completely preposterous, and you know it. Detterling is not saying that he is right and the rest of the world wrong; he is claiming, what is his right, to freedom to believe as he chooses - and this is a choice of which he will have to render an account to God. It is his right to believe as he believes, and this is the same right that you enjoy.
It is also preposterous to claim, as you do implicitly, that scholars of renown, the Catholic and Anglican Churches, Jews and Muslims all agree about the relationship between faith and sexuality. There is a wide spectrum of belief, from the most liberally inclusive to the murderously bigoted, and you have no idea how many people across the world believe as you do. For you to claim otherwise is simple minded stupidity.
As usual, a pitiably inept performance from Gene, the Gary Bushell of theology.
Gene Vincent, παχύς καθώς και άσχημος και δυσάρεστος
Mary Winterbourne
Gary Bandall
Sebastian D’Orsai
Antonio del Auto-Grande
Quacky Quackworth
Ducky Duckworth
Jobby Jobsworth
Scholars of renown, the Catholic and Anglican Churches, Jews and Muslims all agree that sodomy is a grave sin.
ReplyDeleteYOUR CHURCH, THE ANGLICAN CHURCH, TEACHES THAT HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SCRIPTURES.
Glad to be of help,
GENE
GENE
"Scholars of renown, the Catholic and Anglican Churches, Jews and Muslims all agree that sodomy is a grave sin."
DeleteHave you asked them all, Gene?
Of course you haven't.
As always, when you run out of arguments [which usually takes about thirty seconds] you resort to preposterously unsupported assertion with absolutely no evidence to back it up. I hope you have convinced yourself, as you are fooling no-one else.
And as for this
"YOUR CHURCH, THE ANGLICAN CHURCH, TEACHES THAT HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SCRIPTURES."
Why then, has that same church now given permission to all its clergy to bless civilly contracted same-sex marriages in the same way as it blesses civilly contracted heterosexual marriages?
Note too, that such blessings are unconditional - ie, there is no requirement for the husbands or wives to promise to remain celibate in order to receive the blessing on their marriage.
It follows then that a majority of the Anglican church approves tacitly approves homosexual relationships which are sexually active.
Not only that, but trotting out this tired assertion with such ballsaching regularity as if this were an actual church teaching is absolute nonsense.
It is neither church teaching nor church doctrine. As usual, you have seized on a statement which seems to bear out your case without examining whence it came or its standing in terms of its influence on church doctrine.
The Church of England does NOT teach that homosexual acts are incompatible with scripture.
This statement derives from a resolution passed at the 13th Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, which passed a resolution "rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture".
The Lambeth conference is not a policy or rule making body within the church, nor, crucially, does it define doctrine. Only General Synod of the Church of England can do that.
So, when you claim that the Anglican Church teaches that homosexual acts are incompatible with scripture, you are, as usual, talking bollocks.
And in any case, the vote which passed this amendment was 389 in favour, 189 against, which means that your statement that "all Anglicans" agree that homosexual sexual acts are sinful is, also, bollocks. In fact on this showing only two-thirds would have agreed with you in 1998: and a great deal of progress has been made in twenty five years.
So: one preposterously silly and unevidenced assertion, a reading of Anglican church doctrine which is completely wrong, and proof that even twenty five years ago a third of Anglicans, like me, think you are talking bollocks.
Glad to be of help.
Mary Winterbourne
Gary Bandall
Sebastian D’Orsai
Antonio del Auto-Grande
"Why then, has that same church now given permission to all its clergy to bless civilly contracted same-sex marriages in the same way as it blesses civilly contracted heterosexual marriages?"
ReplyDeleteWHY INDEED!!! The C of E still teaches that homosexual acts are in compatible with Scripture.
"The Church of England does NOT teach that homosexual acts are incompatible with scripture."
ReplyDeleteOh! yes it does. As usual when you are defeated Detterling you begin saying black is white.
You have been thoroughly defeated over sodomy. Saint Paul says no sodomites shall ever enter the Kingdom of God. Scholars of renown, the Catholic and Anglican Churches, Jews and Muslims all agree that sodomy is a grave sin.
GENE
Detterling you should be deeply ashamed of yourself condoning, nay, promoting the depravity of sodomy. What man worth his salt would do that?
ReplyDeleteSodomy is so depraved that one does not even need the Church to teach so.
And let's hear you explanation for Saint Paul saying that no sodomites shall ever enter the Kingdom of God. Oops! Sorry I forgot. You don't have an explanation.
Mary Winterbourne
I have rarely seen a question more disgracefully begged, Gene. Your obsession with anal intercourse offers a disturbing insight into a perverse and sordid psychosis involving God knows what repressed appetites.
DeleteSebastian D’Orsai
"...which means that your statement that "all Anglicans" agree that homosexual sexual acts are sinful is, also, bollocks."
ReplyDeleteOf course not all Anglican agree. I did not say that. I said the Anglican Church teaches.
Of course not all Anglican agree. Many Anglican clergy are champing at the bit to institute sacramental sodomy.
GENE,
PS
The Church of England is f**ked.
Parroting the slogans of such as Calvin Robinson, the man who tacitly assents to the Ugandan Anglican support of the death penalty for homosexuals, merely shows how desperately short of substantive arguments you are.
DeleteGary Bandall.
ReplyDelete"The C of E still teaches that homosexual acts are in compatible with Scripture."
No it does not.
The doctrines of the Church of England are set out in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal. By all means quote chapter and verse of church doctrine in any of the above documents that states that homosexual acts are incompatible with Scripture.
You can't because they don't.
There is a body of opinion in the Anglican church which would agree that homosexual acts are incompatible with scripture, and a rather larger body that disagrees. Church teaching on the matter now allows for both points of view, no matter how loudly you try to shout that fact down.
As has been demonstrated above, the statement about homosexual acts and scripture you keep citing is NOT Anglican doctrine: it was a motion passed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Bishops. The Lambeth Conference is not a policy making or a doctrine revising body; only the General Synod of the Church of England can do that. The recent Synod allows the blessing in church of same-sex civil marriages with no caveat as to whether these marriages are sexually active or not. This tacit acceptance of homosexual acts as part of marriage means that, even if the church at large did once think that homosexual acts are incompatible with scripture, it does not do so now. Its teaching on the matter has how changed, and so you are wrong. If you can't accept that, Gene, then that is your problem.
"You have been thoroughly defeated over sodomy. Saint Paul says no sodomites shall ever enter the Kingdom of God."
Not so. The provenance of the Pauline text about sodomites that you endlessly bang on about is suspect as to its meaning, and there is a considerable body of peer-reviewed scholarship which sees his words as a reference to paedophilia in both sexualities.
Look it up, Gene, and by all means use your sophisticated theological skills to refute it - but don't insult our intelligence by dismissing it without even looking at it. You won't, of course, because you have already made up what passes for your mind.
"Scholars of renown, the Catholic and Anglican Churches, Jews and Muslims all agree that sodomy is a grave sin."
No they don't ALL agree - what polls have you consulted, what research have you done? None at all - you simply adjust your blinkers and hope that if you shout loud enough and persist long enough people will give in out of sheer exhaustion. Well in Detterling you have picked the wrong person to try to bully.
It would be true to say that some scholars of renown, and significant proportions of the Catholic and Anglican Churches, as well as equally significant proportions of Jews and Muslims agree that sodomy is a grave sin. That said, there is a body of scholarship, as well as significant proportions of Catholics, Anglicans, Jews and Muslims who feel that homosexuality is part of God-created human nature. These inclusive people of faith see the viewing of human relationships through the prism merely of how these are expressed physically as crudely reductionist and lacking in any sense of the spiritual nature of authentic love, whether heterosexual or homosexual."
"As usual when you are defeated Detterling you begin saying black is white."
Detterling is not defeated, and your repeatedly saying this will not make it happen. Nor is he saying that black is white. It is notable that you, Gene, NEVER engage with the propositions he advances: you simply bellow more loudly the reductionist slogans that you think support your views in an attempt to bully him and shout him down. And the shakier your case is, the louder you shout, and more you claim to have defeated him. You make a ludicrous spectacle of yourself in the process.
Mary Winterbourne
Gary Bandall
Sebastian D’Orsai
Antonio del Auto-Grande
NPD(II) - 1
ReplyDeleteGVNPD(II)E SWEEPSTAKE - 2
"By all means quote chapter and verse of church doctrine in any of the above documents that states that homosexual acts are incompatible with Scripture."
ReplyDeleteWhere in any of the above documents does it say that murder is incompatible with the Scriptures?
Coming out with nonsense like this make you look even more pathetic.
GENE
Nonsense - as the 39 articles make clear, the doctrines of the Church of England are all scriptural - and scripture forbids murder, you stupid bugger.
Delete"and scripture forbids murder"
DeleteAnd scripture forbids sodomy!
Ha! Ha! Ha!
No it does not.
DeleteAnd by the way the Thirty-Nine Articles you mention above affirms Original Sin and condemns Pelagianism.
ReplyDeleteGENE
Wrong again - the 39 articles make it clear that all Anglican Doctrine must be scripturally based. The doctrine of original sin was developed half a millennium after the gospels were written. Likewise the so called heresy of Pelagianism. More bollocks from the man who cannot think for himself.
DeleteTHE THIRTY NINE ARTICLES
Delete9. Of Original or Birth-Sin.
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption
of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone
from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the
Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection
of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, ,(which some
do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law
of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess,
that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
Wrong again. Talk your way out of that one Detterling. Ha! Ha! Ha! My word. I'm on a roll this morning.
GENE
I do hope you have learned your lesson from this Detterling. Don't tangle with Gene on theology. He will make mincemeat of you.
DeleteMary Winterbourne
Stop pretending to be me, Gene.
DeleteAnd in any case, no theological expertise is involved in Googling "39 Articles" and copying and pasting one of them. Mincemeat my arse.
As usual Gene's theological "expertise" has led him up the garden path. He should read and take on board the report
"To Proclaim Afresh", a research document of the Anglican Church Faith Order Commission, published in 2022, which considers the place of the The Thirty Nine Articles in Anglican doctrine. As follows:
"Among twentieth-century Anglicans, across the globe, there was a very wide range of views concerning the Thirty-nine Articles. Some rejoiced in them as a beautiful and succinct summary of Anglican doctrine and the best expression of Anglican theological identity. Others were dissatisfied with them on the following grounds:
• The Articles assume an Augustinian/Reformed theological framework.
• The Articles offer propositional teaching, not fluid theology which wrestles with puzzles and perplexities.
• The Articles focus on Reformation questions concerning justification and the sacraments.
• The Articles are polemical, pointing out the errors of other Christians.
• The Articles belong to a very different cultural and philosophical context, with no consideration either of more recent questions such as the secular state, urbanization, technology, race, ecumenism, other religions, lay ministry, or of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
The place of the Articles in modern Anglicanism was a major debate at the Lambeth Conference in 1968. There was increasingly diverse practice around the Anglican Communion – some provinces retained the Articles in their
constitutions, while others revised them, replaced them or abandoned them altogether. Some have never adopted them in the first place. The Church of England’s Doctrine Commission considered these questions in Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles (1968). They concluded that revising the Articles, or replacing them with a new authoritative doctrinal statement which would gain the enthusiastic backing of the whole Church of England, would be too difficult, too lengthy, and itself soon out of date. Abandoning subscription to the Articles altogether would also be counterproductive, as it would give the impression that the Church of England was not concerned for the biblical faith of its ministers. Therefore,
the Doctrine Commission proposed a new approach to subscription which, if it was to win wide acceptance, must satisfy several conditions:
• It must recognize that the Articles are a historic document and should be interpreted only within their historical context.
• It must leave room for an appeal to the Articles as a norm within Anglican theology.
• It must not tie down the person using it to acceptance of every one of the Articles of 1571.
• It must preserve the comprehensiveness characteristic of the Church of England.
• It must not put the Articles in isolation, but must acknowledge that Bible, Creeds, Prayer Book, Ordinal and the developing consensus of Anglican thought also have their own contribution to make to the doctrine of the
Church of England. It must also indicate that these possess different degrees of authority.
• It must not only declare in what ways the Church of England is distinctive, but must indicate the doctrines it shares with all Christians.
• The possibility of fresh understandings of Christian truth must be explicitly left open.
[to be continued]
O
PART ii:
DeleteOf the foregoing, these are the crucially important points:
• The Articles offer propositional teaching, not fluid theology which wrestles with puzzles and perplexities - in other words, theology needs to be able to develop in response to new situations
• It must recognize that the Articles are a historic document and should be interpreted only within their historical context: - in other words, the 39 articles met the theological requirements of the 16th Century and are not the word of God.
and most crucially of all:
• It must not tie down the person using it to acceptance of every one of the Articles of 1571. - in other words, individuals are not constrained to accept every article if each was Holy Writ.
This in turn means that individuals are free to reject theological constructs like original sin, developed long after the gospels were written, if they do not find it helpful to their faith.
In yet other words, while Anglicans must believe in the revealed truth of the Bible, they are not compelled to subscribe to doctrines developed subsequently.
Which boils down to the fact that for Anglicans, belief in original sin is not necessary: and quite right too.
Notice also that this has always been the case, as stated in another extract from the above about the attitudes of various branches of Anglican churchmanship:
"some provinces retained the Articles in their
constitutions, while others revised them, replaced them or abandoned them altogether. Some have never adopted them in the first place...."
And nobody ranted on about that, either, Gene.
The thing is, Gene, that Anglicans are expected and encouraged to think about their faith, not embalm in formulae whereby their thinking is done for them.
You will of course dismiss all this - you probably won't even bother to read it. But whatever you do, and how you respond, no matter how many times you stamp your foot and bellow that Anglicans do - or should, or must - believe in original sin, that will not put you in the right.
The real Mary Winterbourne.
If you really are interested in learning how the Thirty Nine Articles fit into Anglican theology, then google
DeleteTo Proclaim Afresh - Declarations and Oaths for Church of England Ministers and read the forty four page pamphlet. And if you do, then oblige us all by stopping your tedious habit of talking balls about things you don't begin to understand.
You are becoming increasingly an insupportable embarrassment to the Catholic Church.
Gary Bandall
Sebastian D'Orso
Antonio del Auto Grande
Detterling stop this waffle. You were wrong and you were demonstrated to be manifestly wrong.
DeleteIt was you who brought up the subject of the Thirty-nine Articles. It spectacularly backfired on you.
The thirty-nine Articles affirms the doctrine of Original Sin and condemns Pelagianism.
QED
GENE
No, Gene, I laid a trap, and you walked straight into it.
DeleteThe Thirty Nine articles do indeed affirm the doctrine of Original Sin and condemn the Pelagian heresy.
And, as you are always content to read the headlines, coin a slogan and bellow it at the top of your voice in the mistaken belief that you are thereby making an argument and winning it, you failed to do your homework and find out that acceptance of the 39 Articles has never been a compulsory requirement for membership of the Anglican communion, even in 1571.
This is made clear in the report To Proclaim Afresh, which gives a full and clear account of how thinking in the Church of England has evolved since the Articles were re-examined in the late 1960s. Note these conclusions from the report:
[1] the Articles are a historic document and should be interpreted only within their historical context
[2] [the Articles] must not tie down the person using it to acceptance of every one of the Articles of 1571.
[3] Acceptance of - and obedience to - the 39 Articles has never been universal in the church: as stated in the report, following their reconsideration in 1968, [a] some provinces retained the Articles in their constitutions, [b] others revised them, replaced them or abandoned them altogether.
And, nb Gene, [c] some had never adopted them in the first place.
All of which completely torpedoes the assertion you made some weeks ago that the Anglican Church subscribes to the Doctrine of Original Sin and rejects the Pelagian heresy.
Detterling told you that you were talking bollocks then, and now you know why.
[The real] Mary Winterbourne.
And further evidence that Gene is talking bollocks about the Church of England and homosexuality: From today's CHURCH TIMES:
ReplyDelete"BLESSINGS for same-sex couples can take place within existing church services from this Sunday, after the House of Bishops formally commended the Prayers of Love and Faith at a meeting on Tuesday.
A statement on Tuesday afternoon revealed that the Bishops had voted 24-11, with three recorded abstentions, in favour of commending the collection of prayers, which were first published in draft form in January (News, 18 January)
Two marathon debates in the General Synod, in February and November, ended with votes approving the Bishops’ plan to commend the blessings, despite threats of legal action if they were to go ahead (News, 5 July).
The blessings have only being sanctioned for use within regular services, and not as a stand-alone service. In the Synod in November, an amendment calling on the Bishops to consider a trial period for stand-alone services was carried, albeit narrowly (News, 15 November).
Tuesday’s statement, however, makes little mention of this, and merely says: “The House also continued to discuss separate proposals for special standalone services for same-sex couples to be formally authorised under canon law.”
Alongside their planned experimental use, the stand-alone services are to be considered for authorisation by the Synod, under a two-year process under Canon B2.
Tuesday’s statement made no mention of new pastoral guidance for priests, which is widely expected to permit priests to enter into same-sex civil marriages."
One in the eye for the Bigoted Bastards Brigade [Gutless Vermin, proprietor].
Gary Bandall
Mary Winterbourne
Sebastian D'Orsai
Detterling you take the biscuit. You have been defeated as soundly as anyone could be in any argument. Yet you go into denial and waffle and bluster. But that's all to no avail. Gene has the 'Indian sign' on you for sure.
ReplyDeleteNow think about this: were I to sit down with Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, and ask him the following questions what would his answers be?
Question 1 Does the Anglican Church believe and teach the doctrine of Original Sin?
Question 2 Does the Anglican Church condemn Pelagianism?
Question 3 Does the Anglican Church believe and teach that homosexual acts are incompatible with the scriptures?
His answers to all three question would be a resounding yes. And you know it.
Mary Winterbourne
Christ, Gene, listen to yourself. You create a nonsensically hypothetical situation and then purport to read the mind of a man famously known to prevaricate on any straight question put to him, and cite this as if it is solid evidence to bolster your argument. You stupid bugger.
DeleteNot only that, it was Justin Welby who commissioned the research that led to "To Proclaim Afresh" and signed off its conclusions, three of which were:
- We must recognize that the Articles are a historic document and should be interpreted ONLY within their historical context.
- the Articles must not tie down the persons using them to acceptance of every one of the Articles of 1571.
- by the time of the Lambeth Conference of 1968, when the role of the 39 Articles was re-assessed, there was increasingly diverse practice around the Anglican Communion:
some provinces retained the Articles in their
constitutions,
others revised them,
others replaced them,
others abandoned them altogether.
Indeed, some never adopted them in the first place.
These FACTS - as opposed to your farcical suppositions - mean that the answer to these questions: 1 Does the Anglican Church believe and teach the doctrine of Original Sin? 2 Does the Anglican Church condemn Pelagianism? would probably be something on these lines:
"Some do, and some don't, for the reasons given above from the report "To Proclaim Afresh" that I commissioned and signed off in 2022."
Similarly, in the light of the news published in today's Church, the answer to this question: 3 Does the Anglican Church believe and teach that homosexual acts are incompatible with the scriptures? would be, again, something on these lines:
"Some elements in the church believe and teach this as doctrine, but a majority of bishops and priests does not, as evidenced in the General Synod vote of 250 in favour of same sex-marriage blessings in church with 187 against.
Moreover, as the journalist Harriet Sherwood wrote in the Guardian of January 20th, 2023:
"Justin Welby said he was “extremely joyful” at proposals to allow clergy to offer God’s blessing to same sex couples who have legally married, but said he would impose a “self-denying ordinance” for the sake of unity in the global Anglican church that he heads."
This self-denying ordinance is that, as Ms Sherwood wrote,
"The archbishop of Canterbury will not personally bless same-sex civil marriages despite the Church of England’s historic change of position."
This is because he hopes thereby to maintain the unity of the world wide Anglican Communion - a lost cause, given the intransigence of the GAFCON factions.
Now, Gene: the above post is based on facts - the To Proclaim Afresh report and the latest actions of the Church of England with regard to same-sex relationships - changes supported joyfully by Justin Welby. The hypothetical answers to your questions, Gene, are based on facts and reasonable estimations of what the archbishop might say in answer.
Yours, on the other hand, are nonsensical self-serving bollocks, and you have made a complete fool of yourself in claiming a premature victory by walking into Detterling's trap.
This post represents a complete and final rebuttal of your position, and if you had any guts or integrity you would acknowledge that. You won't, of course, but your bellowing sloganising and preposterous hypothesising has been completely blown out of the water in this excellent post by Detterling.
Gary Bandall
"To Proclaim Afresh report and the latest actions of the Church of England with regard to same-sex relationships - changes supported joyfully by Justin Welby.."
DeleteHa! Ha! Ha! Supported joyfully! It's the way you tell 'em Detterling. The poor man is being frog marched by sodomite clergy salivating at the prospect of sacramental sodomy. The C of E position on so many issues is hypocrisy personiied.
It scarcely matters anyhow what the doomed and disappearing C of E does. Sodomy will never be accepted by the Christian faith - nor any of the Abrahamic faiths.
Will the Catholic Church ever go down the C of E route? Never. Nor indeed will the Anglican Church globally.
"Sodomites will never enter the Kingdom of God" good old Saint Paul wrote.
Detterling I don't think you have ever suffered a more humiliating defeat.
GENE
Detterling, in his last post at 1855, conclusively and ungainsayably
Delete(A) proved, using primary sources at the heart of the Church of England, that the Thirty Nine Articles, whilst still referring to Original Sin and the Pelagian heresy, are of but peripheral significance in modern Anglicanism. Justin Welby’s commission said in plain terms that no Anglican is required to assent to them all. Your contention that Original Sin and opposition to the Pelagian Heresy are doctrines of the Anglican Church is manifestly untrue.
(B) that, while portions of the Anglican Church remain opposed to same sex marriage and recognition by services of blessing there on, a majority of Anglican bishops, clergy and people accept that sexually active same sex couples are eligible to have their civil marriages blessed. For you to maintain that the Anglican Church teaches that homosexual sexual acts are contrary to Scripture in the face of these facts is denial bordering on derangement.
By all means disprove the facts of the case with regard to the 39 Articles using facts from primary sources - you won’t, because you can’t.
Similarly, demonstrate how a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages can at the same time teach that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture. You won’t, because you can’t.
And don’t insult our intelligence by writing imaginary dialogue asking imaginary questions and preposterously silly answers.
It is notable that your post above contains not a syllable in rebuttal of Detterling’s last post, merely crude abuse and denial - proof, if proof were needed that you are completely out of your depth and unable to offer a single cogent argument.
Continue to claim victory by all means. But we all know who has won - as you do.
GB
SD’O
MW
ADAG
What rebuttal? Detterling has been comprehensively defeated. He brought up the subject of the 39 Articles to bolster his non-existent case and this spectacularly backfired on him.
DeleteTalking about Justin Welby 'joyfully' going along with the sodomite line indeed! Welby is trapped by a bolus of episcopal sodomites. I just wish he would tell them to eff off and leave the sinking ship.
"Continue to claim victory by all means. But we all know who has won - as you do."
Yes we certainly do!!!
GENE
No, Gene, that will not wash.
DeleteRebut, if you can, the points so ably made and evidenced by Detterling in this post. Repeatedly claiming that you have defeated Detterling, whilst refusing to answer the points he has made simply shows that you have not the slightest idea of where to begin.
As for this:
"Talking about Justin Welby 'joyfully' going along with the sodomite line indeed! Welby is trapped by a bolus of episcopal sodomites. I just wish he would tell them to eff off and leave the sinking ship."
that is pure fantasy, and outstandingly nasty, even for an obnoxious piece of shit like you.
However that may be, pray let us have your detailed, evidenced rebuttal of the points made by Detterling herewith:
A) |Dettertling proved, using primary sources at the heart of the Church of England, that the Thirty Nine Articles, whilst still referring to Original Sin and the Pelagian heresy, are of but peripheral significance in modern Anglicanism. Justin Welby’s commission said in plain terms that no Anglican is required to assent to them all. Your contention that Original Sin and opposition to the Pelagian Heresy are doctrines of the Anglican Church is manifestly untrue.
(B) Detterling also demonstrated that, while portions of the Anglican Church remain opposed to same sex marriage and recognition by services of blessing there on, a majority of Anglican bishops, clergy and people accept that sexually active same sex couples are eligible to have their civil marriages blessed. For you to maintain that the Anglican Church teaches that homosexual sexual acts are contrary to Scripture in the face of these facts is denial bordering on derangement.
By all means disprove the facts of Detterling's case with regard to the 39 Articles using facts from primary sources - you won’t, because you can’t.
Similarly, demonstrate how a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages can at the same time teach that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture. You won’t, because you can’t.
Until you can do both of these things, your claim of victory is about as convincing as the latest delay the publication of "Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths - and Marianne pissed her knickers in C & A".
You pathetic, boneless, brainless bigoted wanker.
Gary Bandall
Sebastian D'Orsai
Mary Winterbourne