Canadian Anglicans Reject Redefinition of Marriage

[Jerome]

Defeated progressives who lost in a secret vote complain they were triggered by opposition:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...n-church-turns-its-back-on-same-sex-marriage/

More than 200 delegates to the six-day synod just north of Toronto rejected the resolution after speakers lined up to make their points

The vote by General Synod 2016, which followed complaints of bullying and intimidation, sparked bitter disappointment among some members. "It is breaking my heart...," said Eliot Waddingham, 24, a transgender person from Ottawa who was an observer. The vote, she worried, was tantamount to a "death sentence" for the church

complaints about bullying emerged. . . . "Some members of our synod are deeply hurt. Some of them are deeply offended. Some are feeling unsafe to continue to speak lest they be reprimanded," [Archbishop Fred] Hiltz told the gathering.

 

[Jerome]

http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/relief-despair-as-same-sex-marriage-motion-fails

Within minutes of its announcement, several members walked out of the conference room rather than take part in the Evensong that followed the vote. In the corridor outside, a youth delegate collapsed, sobbing, on the floor. Several bystanders came to the aid. Other members headed toward their rooms with swollen eyes and tear-stained cheeks.

 

[BobRyan]

How sad for these who embrace sin as a virtue that - sin might still be recognized as such by some of their members. I guess the trend of throwing out the Bible in favor of man-made-trends redefining marriage and redefining humanity - has its "limits" among some Christian groups.

 

[Smyth]

I guess the trend of throwing out the Bible in favor of man-made-trends redefining marriage and redefining humanity - has its "limits" among some Christian groups.

Aw, you're so naive it's cute. They "recounted" the votes and changed the outcome...

 

[BobRyan]

so then no moral content just creative math -- or are you saying they already had that moral mindset and just "did not know it" until they "recounted", was their fraud in the first count? What are you saying?

 

[Smyth]

so then no moral content just creative math -- or are you saying they already had that moral mindset and just "did not know it" until they "recounted", was their fraud in the first count? What are you saying?

I think it's as simple as the immoral losers screamed bloody murder and so the votes were recounted and the outcome changed. Now, the moral people are the losers, and they're not like the immoral who try to torment everyone around them when they don't get their way, so they didn't scream bloody murder, or even robbery. The moral people with stronger feelings will just quietly leave the denomination, and same-sex marriage will become uncontroversial among the Canadian Anglicans. (Uncontroversial because immoral people do no tolerate dissent.)

 

[BobRyan]

The immorals that voted against the Bible got ousted -- the question is whether they rigged the vote to start with and then let the truth come out on the 2nd time recount. Atheists generally argue that the Bible is evil and any vote that aligns with the word of God is necessarily evil. I think we all agree on that point.

 

[Darrell C]

The immorals that voted against the Bible got ousted -- the question is whether they rigged the vote to start with and then let the truth come out on the 2nd time recount. Atheists generally argue that the Bible is evil and any vote that aligns with the word of God is necessarily evil. I think we all agree on that point.

I have found that atheists usually tend to agree on a general level with the Bible, its the failure of Christians to follow the Bible that generates their charge of hypocrisy.

And while there are those among atheists that try to punch holes in the Bible by pointing out "contradictions (most of which are resolved within the very context of the contradiction)," most atheists agree that it is wrong to murder, steal, lie, et cetera. There are actually very conservative atheists that stand against immoral behavior such as homosexuality and worse. On one atheist forum I was on there was actually an atheist advocating for lowering the marriage age to around 13-14. His argument? That is how it was done in ancient Biblical cultures. Most of the atheists there called him on it and basically denounced the man as a pedophile.

The point in all that is that we should not misrepresent atheists. I have spent a lot of time with atheists and have not seen that they "generally argue the Bible is evil," but, that what is evil is how "Christians" interpret the Bible. And the OP is a good reason why sometimes they are right. The atheist that reads the above will only be strengthened in his hostility towards "Christianity," because he will think these morons are representative of Christianity, Christians, and Christ.

It is an individual effort in ministering to the atheist, just as it is individualistic when we minister among ourselves. We seldom make headway towards groups, its usually when we minister individually that we can examine issues on a level where we can examine the reasoning behind what we endorse or reject.

And I think we can see that interpretation of the Bible, rather than a rejection, is a primary element of what is going on with those who think homosexuality should be condoned by the Body of Christ. The truth is that we are witnessing the infiltration of the World into the visible Body of Christ, and we should not be surprised that the Media is more than happy to publish what they present as an "internal struggle" in the Church.

Its not an internal struggle, its a campaign of war, and being successfully wages by the Liberal Agenda.

There is simply no way that the Bible can be reasonably offered as justification for sin.

When we see an agenda that endorses adultery in the lives of believers, perhaps the absurdity of the endorsement and condoning of homosexuality might be understood by those who look at events like this who mistakenly think that there is legitimacy from a Biblical viewpoint.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

I have found that atheists usually tend to agree on a general level with the Bible, its the failure of Christians to follow the Bible that generates their charge of hypocrisy.

I find that atheists generally reject the 7 day creation week, the world wide flood, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ - the Gospel, the substitutionary atoning sacrifice of Christ - Angels, the fall of mankind, the garden of Eden, the tree of life, a real devil, the miracles of the Bible etc.

What I like about them is that in many of those cases they are still willing to admit to what the Bible actually says - they just think it is wrong. Does not fit real life.

 

[SolaSaint]

The United Reformed church in the UK also decided to allow same-sex marriages. I heard this denomination goes all the way back to the Puritans. Imagine that: from being Puritans in 1600 to gay pride in 2016....WOW

 

[Darrell C]

I find that atheists generally reject the 7 day creation week, the world wide flood, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ - the Gospel, the substitutionary atoning sacrifice of Christ - Angels, the fall of mankind, the garden of Eden, the tree of life, a real devil, the miracles of the Bible etc.

What is worse, Bob, is that there are many who call themselves Christians who also reject a six day Creation, the Flood, and other supernatural aspects of Scripture. Many treat Scripture as though its Pilgrim's Progress.

But the issue revolved more around morality, and I just wanted to point out that atheist does not immediately mean immoral in general matters. Many atheists are as opposed to gay marriage and gender neutrality as we are.

What I like about them is that in many of those cases they are still willing to admit to what the Bible actually says - they just think it is wrong. Does not fit real life.

I usually enjoy conversations with them for one reason, it forces me to look at arguments that deal with science. For example, in regards to the Flood, while researching an argument someone presented concerning sedimentary layering (used to be an argument for the age of the earth, I ran across turbidary channeling. Turbidity deals with settling of what is in water, the general principle being that heavier objects settle first, then that which is lighter. By studying turbidary channeling in the Oceans, many Geologists have admitted that the layering we see, which has been for years taught as evidence of slow process over millions of years, may have occurred in very short periods.

When it comes to debating Scripture, it is usually pretty easy to reconcile their "contradictions," because we have natural minds trying to understand a spiritual Book, and most of them simply do not understand the simple rule of context.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

What is worse, Bob, is that there are many who call themselves Christians who also reject a six day Creation, the Flood, and other supernatural aspects of Scripture. Many treat Scripture as though its Pilgrim's Progress.

Certainly it is true that "to him that knew much - shall much be required"

I don't think the people in Canada can all claim they have no knowledge of the Bible. Though perhaps many can.

But the issue revolved more around morality, and I just wanted to point out that atheist does not immediately mean immoral in general matters. Many atheists are as opposed to gay marriage and gender neutrality as we are.

That is true - certainly communist atheists prove that point. Why some Christians should be more befuddled on that point that the atheist -- I don't know.

But I do know this - evolutionism provides the context for that confusion so atheists like Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers the National Academy of Sciences can be much--expected to favor SSM and LGBT as "curtural norms that have evolved" etc.

I usually enjoy conversations with them for one reason, it forces me to look at arguments that deal with science. For example, in regards to the Flood, while researching an argument someone presented concerning sedimentary layering (used to be an argument for the age of the earth, I ran across turbidary channeling. Turbidity deals with settling of what is in water, the general principle being that heavier objects settle first, then that which is lighter. By studying turbidary channeling in the Oceans, many Geologists have admitted that the layering we see, which has been for years taught as evidence of slow process over millions of years, may have occurred in very short periods.

Agreed. The turbidity current facts - observations in nature -- tend to blunt some of the anti-Bible storytelling.

When it comes to debating Scripture, it is usually pretty easy to reconcile their "contradictions," because we have natural minds trying to understand a spiritual Book, and most of them simply do not understand the simple rule of context.
God bless.

Also agreed. But what I think they bring to the table (As in the case of James Barr) is that they are less inclined to "bend the Bible to fit blind faith evolutionism" because they have no stake in the game. They don't care if the Bible says 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 because they don't place any confidence in the Bible. They are happy to say that it says - what it says. (unless of course they are a former Christian turned atheist because of evolutionism -- in that case they may still retain many of their bible-bending notions)