# Episcopalian smackdown



## centerpin fan

> For the first time, the global organizing body of Anglicans has punished the Episcopal Church, following years of heated debate with the American church over homosexuality, same-sex marriage and the role of women.
> 
> The Anglican Communion’s announcement Thursday that it would suspend its U.S. branch for three years from key voting positions was seen as a blow to the Episcopal Church, which allows its clergy to perform same-sex marriages and this summer voted to include the rite in its church laws.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...episcopal-church-for-3-years-from-committees/


----------



## Ruger#3

Here's some detail from our Bishop who attended the meeting of Primates.

The resolution is one of the links at the bottom of the page.


http://www.anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/1164


----------



## centerpin fan

Ruger#3 said:


> Here's some detail from our Bishop who attended the meeting of Primates.
> 
> The resolution is one of the links at the bottom of the page.
> 
> 
> http://www.anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/1164




I used to listen to Foley Beach on the radio as I got ready for church.  I like him.


----------



## Ruger#3

centerpin fan said:


> I like him.



Me to, he baptized me.

I get to hear a live sermon about once a year when he visits.


----------



## RNC

I'm sure they will go on as usual ,propagating their falsehoods and acting as if Romans 1 doesn't exist.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RNC said:


> I'm sure they will go on as usual ,propagating their falsehoods and acting as if Romans 1 doesn't exist.



Maybe they read past Romans 1 into chapter 2.

Romans 2:1
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

Lust is a looked upon as adultery. Anger is looked at as murder. We all do the same things. If we pass judgment, we condemn ourselves.


----------



## RNC

One things for sure . They looked right past it .


----------



## Artfuldodger

Maybe they overlooked who Paul was addressing;

Romans 1:21-23
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 
22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.


----------



## Ruger#3

http://www.anglican.ink/article/bishop-currys-thoughts-canterbury-communique


----------



## Madman

I believe Archbishop Josiah Fearon, the Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council and former Archbishop from Nigeria, said it best.

“…But generally on the continent of Africa our culture does not support the promotion of this type of life style. I know a lot of gays. But they won’t come out and start propagating it as a way of life. 

“So the problem therefore on the continent of Africa generally is for strong groups from outside Africa coming to impose what is culturally unacceptable. Coming to impose it. That is where the difference is. If the West would just leave Africans within our various cultures, we know how to live together with our differences…”

The west just has to export it's depravity wherever it can.

https://americananglican.org/current-news/anglican-leader-west-imposing-agenda-africa/


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> I believe Archbishop Josiah Fearon, the Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council and former Archbishop from Nigeria, said it best.
> 
> “…But generally on the continent of Africa our culture does not support the promotion of this type of life style. I know a lot of gays. But they won’t come out and start propagating it as a way of life.
> 
> “So the problem therefore on the continent of Africa generally is for strong groups from outside Africa coming to impose what is culturally unacceptable. Coming to impose it. That is where the difference is. If the West would just leave Africans within our various cultures, we know how to live together with our differences…”
> 
> The west just has to export it's depravity wherever it can.
> 
> https://americananglican.org/current-news/anglican-leader-west-imposing-agenda-africa/



Maybe those coming from the outside feel the gays in Africa are not in the position to speak out. Maybe they feel the need to help liberate them from their oppressors.
If they themselves, the outsiders, don't feel like it's depravity then it's not their reason for going to Africa.

Now they could be mislead but I don't feel they are trying to lead the African gays into depravity.


----------



## elfiii

centerpin fan said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...episcopal-church-for-3-years-from-committees/





> The Anglican Communion’s announcement Thursday that it would suspend its U.S. branch for three years from key voting positions was seen as a blow to the Episcopal Church, which allows its clergy to perform same-sex marriages and this summer voted to include the rite in its church laws.



That wasn't enough in my opinion. The Anglican Communion should have broken communion with ECUSA for all time. They are not coming back to the word of God. ECUSA is shot out.


----------



## rjcruiser

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe those coming from the outside feel the gays in Africa are not in the position to speak out. Maybe they feel the need to help liberate them from their oppressors.
> If they themselves, the outsiders, don't feel like it's depravity then it's not their reason for going to Africa.
> 
> Now they could be mislead but I don't feel they are trying to lead the African gays into depravity.



So, is homosexuality a sin? Or not a sin?  

I don't know of a homosexual who thinks it is a sin.


----------



## Artfuldodger

rjcruiser said:


> So, is homosexuality a sin? Or not a sin?
> 
> I don't know of a homosexual who thinks it is a sin.



Only for heterosexuals who "exchanged," "left," "changed," "traded" or "abandoned;"

Romans 1:21-23
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Only after I was enlightened by a special revealing of exactly why Christ died on a cross, was I able to distinguish the difference between the Law and Love.
One has to have this personal struggle as Paul did to even begin to understand  Paul's letters.

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I'm pretty sure each of us knows what is right from wrong because it's within our hearts. We can now go on this insider information.
You kinda get a gut feeling when you do something wrong in eyes of God. 
If you go with this and the commandment to love, you can get a better picture of the power of grace and the power of love.

This is my answer to your post#13. You can respond but then I think we should try to keep on the OP and somehow try and keep it related to how this struggle is happening within the Episcopal Church.

Meaning I don't think we need another homosexual vs. heterosexuals having gay sex thread.


----------



## rjcruiser

Artfuldodger said:


> Only for heterosexuals who "exchanged," "left," "changed," "traded" or "abandoned;"
> 
> Romans 1:21-23
> For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
> 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.



So...is that a no?  You believe it isn't wrong for those who are born homosexual?  But it is for those who aren't born homosexual?

Not trying to pin you one way or the other, just trying to understand your position.

Based on your post below, it appears that you're trying to justify one sin (Homosexuality) by saying we all sin (lust, adultery, hate, murder).



Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe they read past Romans 1 into chapter 2.
> 
> Romans 2:1
> You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
> 
> Lust is a looked upon as adultery. Anger is looked at as murder. We all do the same things. If we pass judgment, we condemn ourselves.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I believe it is wrong to exchange the worship of God for that of idols and whatever other exchanges go along with that exchange.

Therefore I do believe it is wrong for heterosexuals to have gay sex. It is not wrong for homosexuals to have gay sex because for them it is natural.

I am not justifying one sin over another. I'm just showing that Jesus died for all of our sins. If one is washed then he is washed.
From that moment forward he isn't bound by the yoke of sin.
He should follow what is now recorded on his heart and act accordingly following the new commandment of love.

My response in post 6 was to show Paul's setup. Paul is showing us a group who exchanged God for idols. Then he explains how and what they did in this idol worship. He sets us up by showing us how evil these people were. Yes exchanging hetero sex for gay sex for the purpose of idol worship was evil.
Then in chapter two he reveals the "set up."


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> Only after I was enlightened by a special revealing of exactly why Christ died on a cross, was I able to distinguish the difference between the Law and Love.



Unless I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say this is Gnosticism and that is a heresy.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> Unless I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say this is Gnosticism and that is a heresy.



Within Christianity it is referred to as "lead by the Holy Spirit."
I feel the Spirit has lead me to lead others to this revealing by sharing my experiences with Paul. 
I'm not saying the Spirit has revealed everything about Paul to me, but he has helped tremendously. 

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I'm not the only one with this special revealing as is thus happening in the Episcopal Church. I think part of the problem that is keeping the rest of the Church from understanding is our culture. We've grown up with a bias towards homosexuality. We have used Paul's letters to propagate our beliefs. 
Why not, it's the attitude and culture of the world.  Even in places that have never heard of Christianity.

This same thought process of using scripture was used by society against women, blacks, and other groups that we as a whole didn't want to accept as equal. 

Therefore we've gone into this study biased by our own view and thoughts of what Paul was saying. It will be a slow process but with each new generation, we'll make progress. I praise those in the Episcopal Church for leading the way.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> My response in post 6 was to show Paul's setup. Paul is showing us a group who exchanged God for idols. Then he explains how and what they did in this idol worship. He sets us up by showing us how evil these people were.



I think the underlying theme is the horrible depravity of ALL mankind,which included you and me.Paul is laying this foundation first,then he brings in the working of grace afterwards.
After the work of grace is done for us,we no longer walk by the flesh but by the Spirit.

...and we know that when we walk by the Spirit,there is NO condemnation.

He's preaching grace.Don't miss that.

Homosexuality is a sin, because it is done in the flesh.But,when the Holy Spirit comes into a sinner's heart,changes begin to take place.Conviction leads to repentance.

"where sin abounded,grace did much more abound."
Haleluiah!


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> I think the underlying theme is the horrible depravity of ALL mankind,which included you and I.Paul is laying this foundation first,then he brings in the working of grace afterwards.
> After the work of grace is done for us,we no longer walk by the flesh but by the Spirit.
> 
> ...and we know that when we walk by the Spirit,there is NO condemnation.
> 
> He's preaching grace.Don't miss that.
> 
> Homosexuality is a sin, because it is done in the flesh.But,when the Holy Spirit comes into a sinner's heart,changes begin to take place.Conviction leads to repentance.
> 
> "where sin abounded,grace did much more abound."
> Haleluiah!



2 Corinthians 7:10
For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation; but the sorrow of the world produces death.


----------



## welderguy

How much grace do the Episcopalian and Anglican churches preach?

I guess the question should be : Do they preach grace to repentance... or tolerance without repentance?


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> How much grace do the Episcopalian and Anglican churches preach?
> 
> I guess the question should be : Do they preach grace to repentance... or tolerance without repentance?



Could that somehow come into play either yeah or neigh, as to how they feel about homosexuality?


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> Only for heterosexuals who "exchanged," "left," "changed," "traded" or "abandoned;"



I thought I had heard it all, but that defiantly is a new one.

I have this one question:  What does the Bible ever say that is good about homosexuality?


----------



## Madman

welderguy said:


> How much grace do the Episcopalian and Anglican churches preach?
> 
> I guess the question should be : Do they preach grace to repentance... or tolerance without repentance?



I am Anglican Church of North America, we preach grace to repentance, Episcopalians preach tolerance with no need for repentance.


----------



## welderguy

Madman said:


> I am Anglican Church of North America, we preach grace to repentance, Episcopalians preach tolerance with no need for repentance.



Ok. That explains it in a nutshell then.
Thanks.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> I thought I had heard it all, but that defiantly is a new one.
> 
> I have this one question:  What does the Bible ever say that is good about homosexuality?



Well I guess you've never read Romans 1 very closely.
These were people who knew God yet abandoned, swapped, exchanged, traded, or turned worshiping God for that of idols.

They reverted back to the pagan rituals and worship prevalent in Rome during that time. Paul was presenting these terrible people to show the others that they were just as guilty. 

Getting back to this group of pagans who formerly knew God, who changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.

Now these God knowing heterosexuals, many of them probably married, stopped glorifying God. They "exchanged" their hetero sex for homo sex. I'm not making this up, it really happened this way as told by Paul.
Your gonna really get a kick out why Paul is telling this story so stay tuned.

God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.
They exchanged, traded, swapped, or changed the truth about God for a lie.

For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. We know what that means don't we? Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex. Chrysostom was in fact the first Church Father of whom we have record to read the passage as having anything to do with lesbianism.
Strange that even those dudes can't figure out what Paul was saying. Peter warned them that Paul was a hard fellow to figure out. 

Anyway the once heterosexual God glorifying  men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

Well since they didn't think it was worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, God gave them over to a depraved mind. Then they went bat dung crazy with evilness. Again Paul wanted to present a group of super evil people for his setup. 

These homo acting heteros not only continued to do these very things but also approved of those who practiced them.
Besides acting homo they were foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 

They were so evil they deserved to die.

Now the setup;

You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things.

Did Paul tell them or what? I used to not like Paul. I found his teachings conflicting. It took me awhile but I finally got a handle on Paul.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> I thought I had heard it all, but that defiantly is a new one.
> 
> I have this one question:  What does the Bible ever say that is good about homosexuality?



Love thy neighbor?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> I am Anglican Church of North America, we preach grace to repentance, Episcopalians preach tolerance with no need for repentance.



I would like to praise your Church for leaving the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the USA based on their beliefs of Jesus not being the only way.


----------



## hummerpoo

After
40,000+ questions
ask over a period of
4 years +
in
11,000+ posts.

THIS:



Artfuldodger said:


> I believe it is wrong to exchange the worship of God for that of idols and whatever other exchanges go along with that exchange.
> 
> Therefore I do believe it is wrong for heterosexuals to have gay sex. It is not wrong for homosexuals to have gay sex because for them it is natural.  ... He should follow what is now recorded on his heart and act accordingly following the new commandment of love.



while ignoring Rm. 2:12-16; Num. 22:34; etc.

Blessed be the www.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> After
> 40,000+ questions
> ask over a period of
> 4 years +
> in
> 11,000+ posts.
> 
> THIS:
> 
> while ignoring Rm. 2:12-16; Num. 22:34; etc.
> 
> Blessed be the www.



"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?"(Exodus 4:11)

"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."(John 9:1-3)

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"(Romans 9:20)


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> After
> 40,000+ questions
> ask over a period of
> 4 years +
> in
> 11,000+ posts.
> 
> THIS:
> 
> while ignoring Rm. 2:12-16; Num. 22:34; etc.
> 
> Blessed be the www.



For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are. (Romans 3:20)

Blessed be the Word of God.


----------



## gemcgrew

Art, what did God create for man as the suitable companion? When man chooses something other than what God determined to be suitable, is it not always inferior?

Also, "gay sex" can never, ever, be an act of love. It is the opposite.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Art, what did God create for man as the suitable companion? When man chooses something other than what God determined to be suitable, is it not always inferior?
> 
> Also, "gay sex" can never, ever, be an act of love. It is the opposite.



Why do non Christian men take on the suitable companion God made for us?

Not every man is born to take on a suitable companion of any description. Is it a sin to not take on a suitable companion?

If the analogy of Christ and his Bride is always that of a man and woman, then is it a sin to not marry?

What about celibacy for reasons other that God's call? Paul or Jesus were not inferior  for not taking on a designed companion. 
They were eunuchs of their own "free will."


----------



## Artfuldodger

Galatians 5:1-3
1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

Romans 3:20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> Why do non Christian men take on the suitable companion God made for us?



Why do animals mate with a suitable mate? God designed it that way.



Artfuldodger said:


> Not every man is born to take on a suitable companion of any description. Is it a sin to not take on a suitable companion?



If you mean to remain celibate, no, it's not a sin.



Artfuldodger said:


> If the analogy of Christ and his Bride is always that of a man and woman, then is it a sin to not marry?



No.




Artfuldodger said:


> What about celibacy for reasons other that God's call?



No.


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things.



Sounds as if you are condemning me.

Please show me where I have condemned anyone, much less said that they should be punished.  I have a responsibility only to call mankind away from a life of sin, a life that is holy and pleasing to God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> Sounds as if you are condemning me.
> 
> Please show me where I have condemned anyone, much less said that they should be punished.  I have a responsibility only to call mankind away from a life of sin, a life that is holy and pleasing to God.



I apologize if you thought those were my words or if you thought I was condemning you or anyone. 
My commandment is to love. 

Romans 2:1
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

The thing about the New Covenant is that hate becomes as bad as murder and lust becomes as bad as adultery.
We are all equally as guilty as the man who exchanged heterosexual sex for gay sex. 

I know you said you aren't saying anyone should be punished but what about;

Leviticus 20:13
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> I apologize if you thought those were my words or if you thought I was condemning you or anyone.
> My commandment is to love.
> 
> Romans 2:1
> You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
> 
> The thing about the New Covenant is that hate becomes as bad as murder and lust becomes as bad as adultery.
> We are all equally as guilty as the man who exchanged heterosexual sex for gay sex.
> 
> I know you said you aren't saying anyone should be punished but what about;
> 
> Leviticus 20:13
> If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.



You need to take that up with God, those are His words not mine.


----------



## hummerpoo

Madman said:


> You need to take that up with God, those are His words not mine.



That won't be necessary; there's an antecedent somewhere to be misconstrued.


----------



## Madman

hummerpoo said:


> That won't be necessary; there's an antecedent somewhere to be misconstrued.



hummer,

by whom?


----------



## hummerpoo

Madman said:


> hummer,
> 
> by whom?



The antecedent of "they" in Rm. 1:20 —"... So they are without excuse."— is the Gentiles who had not had occasion to know God's revelation of Himself by word or letter, as stated in vss. 18-20.  One who can interpret that passage to support  their misdirected compassion on the issue of homosexuality, (which should be love without support of depravity) should have no difficulty getting Lev. 20:13 to do the same without having to consult God on the issue.


----------



## Madman

hummerpoo said:


> The antecedent of "they" in Rm. 1:20 —"... So they are without excuse."— is the Gentiles who had not had occasion to know God's revelation of Himself by word or letter, as stated in vss. 18-20.  One who can interpret that passage to support  their misdirected compassion on the issue of homosexuality, (which should be love without support of depravity) should have no difficulty getting Lev. 20:13 to do the same without having to consult God on the issue.



I understand.  I believe Art wanted me to respond as to agreeing completely with the Lev. 20:13, a way of painting me as homophobic, in his new context of "love", but that was a direct command to Israel for a specific purpose. It is given in a completely different context than Paul's letter to the Roams.

I do not have to defend what God says only proclaim it, if Art has a problem take it up with the God.


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> Well I guess you've never read Romans 1 very closely.
> These were people who knew God yet abandoned, swapped, exchanged, traded, or turned worshiping God for that of idols.
> 
> They reverted back to the pagan rituals and worship prevalent in Rome during that time. Paul was presenting these terrible people to show the others that they were just as guilty.
> 
> Getting back to this group of pagans who formerly knew God, who changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.
> 
> Now these God knowing heterosexuals, many of them probably married, stopped glorifying God. They "exchanged" their hetero sex for homo sex. I'm not making this up, it really happened this way as told by Paul.
> Your gonna really get a kick out why Paul is telling this story so stay tuned.
> 
> God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.
> They exchanged, traded, swapped, or changed the truth about God for a lie.
> 
> For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. We know what that means don't we? Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex. Chrysostom was in fact the first Church Father of whom we have record to read the passage as having anything to do with lesbianism.
> Strange that even those dudes can't figure out what Paul was saying. Peter warned them that Paul was a hard fellow to figure out.
> 
> Anyway the once heterosexual God glorifying  men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
> 
> Well since they didn't think it was worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, God gave them over to a depraved mind. Then they went bat dung crazy with evilness. Again Paul wanted to present a group of super evil people for his setup.
> 
> These homo acting heteros not only continued to do these very things but also approved of those who practiced them.
> Besides acting homo they were foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
> 
> They were so evil they deserved to die.
> 
> Now the setup;
> 
> You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things.
> 
> Did Paul tell them or what? I used to not like Paul. I found his teachings conflicting. It took me awhile but I finally got a handle on Paul.



Art,

Let's not highjack CPs thread.  Move over hear;

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=864651


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> The antecedent of "they" in Rm. 1:20 —"... So they are without excuse."— is the Gentiles who had not had occasion to know God's revelation of Himself by word or letter, as stated in vss. 18-20.  One who can interpret that passage to support  their misdirected compassion on the issue of homosexuality, (which should be love without support of depravity) should have no difficulty getting Lev. 20:13 to do the same without having to consult God on the issue.



You can spin it however you want but I can assure you the group in Romans 1 knew God, exchanged, changed, or traded glorifying or worshiping God for that of idols.
They were not so depraved to not know better. They were without excuse.

God expected and demanded that they worship him. Agan they were not totally depraved Gentiles who only knew God by a general revelation. They lived in Rome, not Tahiti.

They began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and  confused. Professing to be wise, they became fools. 

Eventually because of their own free will they worshiped idols and heaps of other evil wicked deeds.
Because of this God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

God can't give a totally depraved Gentile a depraved mind.

Concerning Leviticus 20:13
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

God never changes. They were without excuse.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> Because of this God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
> 
> God can't give a totally depraved Gentile a depraved mind.


The contradiction is your own mind and you provide the evidence. I do not believe that you have the wherewithal to sort it out.


----------



## Madman

elfiii said:


> That wasn't enough in my opinion. The Anglican Communion should have broken communion with ECUSA for all time. They are not coming back to the word of God. ECUSA is shot out.



The rest of the Anglican communion does not think it was enough either, ECUSA is unrepentant and should be thrown out for the salvation of the soul of it's priests and members.  1 Cor. 5:5.

The African primates and the North American primate said that ECUSA and Canada should be set out, but Canterbury went soft.


----------



## centerpin fan

I'm speechless:



> At another point, a few years later, I did have an abortion. I was a single mother, working and pursuing a path to ordination in the Episcopal Church. The potential father was not someone I would have married; he would have been no better a candidate for fatherhood than my daughter's absent father. The timing was wrong, the man was wrong, and I easily, though not happily, made the decision to terminate the pregnancy.



http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2007/12/06/abortion-as-a-moral-choice/


----------



## centerpin fan

> At another point, a few years later, I did have an abortion. I was a single mother, working and pursuing a path to ordination in the Episcopal Church. The potential father was not someone I would have married....



This "potential father" comment didn't register with me at first.  As I read further, however, you can see that it was no mistake.  Until you take a breath, you're only "potential" life:



> To talk theologically about women's right to choose is to talk about justice, equality, health and wholeness, and respect for the full humanity and autonomy of every woman. Typically, as moral theologians, we discuss the value of potential life (the fetus) as against the value of lived life – the mature and relational life of a woman deciding her capacity to continue or terminate a pregnancy. And we believe that, in general, the value of that actual life outweighs the value of the potential.



Lord have mercy.


----------



## hummerpoo

As a "moral theologian", where did she find her "theos"?
As a "moral theologian", where did she find her "morals"?
It was easy, they were right there in the mirror.


----------



## centerpin fan

hummerpoo said:


> As a "moral theologian", where did she find her "theos"?
> As a "moral theologian", where did she find her "morals"?
> It was easy, they were right there in the mirror.



Alas, there are millions more just like her.


----------

