C of E shows a rarely seen backbone

For many years I have considered the Church of England a weak entity that has no principles it can call its own, and has been blowing in the wind of modernity like a feather in a hurricane. The Protestant religion I was born and christened into has never been one I felt I could be proud of or show any deference to as it has in recent years continually caved in to every passing fad, and trend. It wrongly believed that rolling over in the face of our increasingly culturally Marxist society would be the savior to its fast dwindling flock.

The ordination of women seems so long ago, and somewhat trivial in the face of the ordination of openly Gay Bishops that damn nearly caused a worldwide Anglican catechism. Today the faintest glimmer of hope was seen in the rejection of the ordination of women Bishops thanks largely to the House of Laity. I know many will see this as another example of how religion is out of step with mainstream society, and as I have no particular concern one way or the other I feel that I can at least say that the whole point of faith is about unchanging constancy that does not second guess itself in the face of a few angry dissenting left wing voices.

Although I am not about to start rocking up at my local Church of England house in light of this courageous decision I can say that my respect for this establishment has raised slightly, and its spiritual stock has just undergone something of a rally.

reply to post by hotel1


Seems like you should be open to some change if new information about what caused the formation of your religion in the first place is discovered and such.
Like the ..

The Gospel of Mary is an apocryphal book discovered in 1896 in a 5th-century papyrus codex.

en.wikipedia.org...

and other information, things can grow and be refined. The scriptures did say information would be forthcoming in the time of the end.

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by hotel1

 

Seems like you should be open to some change if new information about what caused the formation of your religion in the first place is discovered and such.
Like the ..

The Gospel of Mary is an apocryphal book discovered in 1896 in a 5th-century papyrus codex.

en.wikipedia.org...

and other information, things can grow and be refined. The scriptures did say information would be forthcoming in the time of the end.

It seems like you should read my post again for comprehension. I said I had no particular interest either way, but that for once the Church of England had shown some backbone instead of caving in to every left wing boilerplate.

Cof E is just watered down Catholicism created by stroppy monarch who couldn't get his own way.
The whole thing should be abolished.
(Along with Catholicism).

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by hotel1

 

Seems like you should be open to some change if new information about what caused the formation of your religion in the first place is discovered and such.
Like the ..

The Gospel of Mary is an apocryphal book discovered in 1896 in a 5th-century papyrus codex.

en.wikipedia.org...

and other information, things can grow and be refined. The scriptures did say information would be forthcoming in the time of the end.

The Gospel of Mary is a Gnostic text, not a Christian one, so what bearing does it have on the Church of England?

Originally posted by BrianDamage
Cof E is just watered down Catholicism created by stroppy monarch who couldn't get his own way.

Actually, the Church of England is a cross between Catholicism and Protestantism (they are referred to as "the Middle Way",) though a lot heavier on the side of Protestantism.

The whole thing should be abolished.

Why? It obviously brings a bit of cheer to a lot of people and doesn't impact you, so why do you think that your opinion about it is the one that matters?

Originally posted by hotel1

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by hotel1

 

Seems like you should be open to some change if new information about what caused the formation of your religion in the first place is discovered and such.
Like the ..

The Gospel of Mary is an apocryphal book discovered in 1896 in a 5th-century papyrus codex.

en.wikipedia.org...

and other information, things can grow and be refined. The scriptures did say information would be forthcoming in the time of the end.

It seems like you should read my post again for comprehension. I said I had no particular interest either way, but that for once the Church of England had shown some backbone instead of caving in to every left wing boilerplate.

I didn't say you did have an interest either way. Simply saying caving in sometimes may be moving ahead not caving in.
If you had absolutely no interest either way you would not have posted.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by hotel1

 

Seems like you should be open to some change if new information about what caused the formation of your religion in the first place is discovered and such.
Like the ..

The Gospel of Mary is an apocryphal book discovered in 1896 in a 5th-century papyrus codex.

en.wikipedia.org...

and other information, things can grow and be refined. The scriptures did say information would be forthcoming in the time of the end.

The Gospel of Mary is a Gnostic text, not a Christian one, so what bearing does it have on the Church of England?

Originally posted by BrianDamage
Cof E is just watered down Catholicism created by stroppy monarch who couldn't get his own way.

Actually, the Church of England is a cross between Catholicism and Protestantism (they are referred to as "the Middle Way",) though a lot heavier on the side of Protestantism.

The whole thing should be abolished.

Why? It obviously brings a bit of cheer to a lot of people and doesn't impact you, so why do you think that your opinion about it is the one that matters?

Gnostic's were Christians.

But the majority of the documents place themselves in genres of "Gospels" and "Apocalypses" and mention figures such as Jesus, Philip, Peter, and Mary, but are not books that are found in our New Testament. These writings may date to as early as the first century AD - the same time the New Testament books were being written. Some even suggest they are older than the canonical Gospel accounts.

www.religionfacts.com...

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Gnostic's were Christians.

No, they weren't -- even the Gnostic Christians would say that they weren't Christians. Pretty much the only thing that the two religions had in common were the figures that the religion was about -- the GC's had a distinctly different theology regarding Jesus, God, and what Jesus was here to do.

Originally posted by hotel1
For many years I have considered the Church of England a weak entity that has no principles it can call its own, and has been blowing in the wind of modernity like a feather in a hurricane. The Protestant religion I was born and christened into has never been one I felt I could be proud of or show any deference to as it has in recent years continually caved in to every passing fad, and trend. It wrongly believed that rolling over in the face of our increasingly culturally Marxist society would be the savior to its fast dwindling flock.

The ordination of women seems so long ago, and somewhat trivial in the face of the ordination of openly Gay Bishops that damn nearly caused a worldwide Anglican catechism. Today the faintest glimmer of hope was seen in the rejection of the ordination of women Bishops thanks largely to the House of Laity. I know many will see this as another example of how religion is out of step with mainstream society, and as I have no particular concern one way or the other I feel that I can at least say that the whole point of faith is about unchanging constancy that does not second guess itself in the face of a few angry dissenting left wing voices.

Although I am not about to start rocking up at my local Church of England house in light of this courageous decision I can say that my respect for this establishment has raised slightly, and its spiritual stock has just undergone something of a rally.

There is a reason for this dissonance.

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

The denial of Christ three times associates Peter with the problem. I will show you why and how this relates to the empty tomb and the rock that is to be rolled away.

Matthew 16:18

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Petros is the rock that is movable. Petra is the Chief Cornerstone. The builder of the world is the mind. The Cornerstone of this building process is the will of God to give and receive only. The builders decided to take. The thief takes, but the Cornerstone gives. The Rock must be moved and rolled away to reveal the risen Christ. Those who remain will be left in the tomb.

Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone'? LUKE 20:17 (Also Psalms)

As I progress, I will identify the nature of Peter, along with several other disciples. You will tag them to the crime scene if you know your scripture. The builders are the Masons. Specifically, they represent those who took the Mystery, partially taught, from God's plan and purpose for mankind. We know this as the Mystery School and Mystery Babylon. The builders that build the external temple are those who use the mind for selfishness.

We now have two: Builders (Masons who reject the will to give and receive only) and Priests (Peter-Those who are served rather than serving). Notice that Peter dies a death he does not want, in the verses below, because he was dressed rather than dressing himself.

Matthew 7:24

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Contrast the two mentioned to the Elect.

The 153 Fish of John 21

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter,“Simon son of John, do you love (Agape/Divine Love) me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love (Phileo/Friendly love) you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love (Agape) me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love (Phileo) you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love (PHILEO) me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love (PHILEO) me?”
He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (PHILEO) you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.
18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Notice that Peter only loved Christ in a friendly way. Do you love me more than "These," may have been a reference to the disciples or to the fish. Linguistics are important in the Bible. In the end, it means what God intended and nothing more. We will eventually look back and connect the dots.

The third group are the Money Changers - Jesus Enters the Temple as a Prophecy

Come out of Egypt and roll the rock away. Go out and serve.

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by hotel1

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by hotel1

 

Seems like you should be open to some change if new information about what caused the formation of your religion in the first place is discovered and such.
Like the ..

The Gospel of Mary is an apocryphal book discovered in 1896 in a 5th-century papyrus codex.

en.wikipedia.org...

and other information, things can grow and be refined. The scriptures did say information would be forthcoming in the time of the end.

It seems like you should read my post again for comprehension. I said I had no particular interest either way, but that for once the Church of England had shown some backbone instead of caving in to every left wing boilerplate.

I didn't say you did have an interest either way. Simply saying caving in sometimes may be moving ahead not caving in.
If you had absolutely no interest either way you would not have posted.

I use the word interest in the legal/administrative sense in that I see it has having no direct effects or consequence for me personally. I originally posted the subject as I thought it may be interesting to ATS, it seems that our debating semantics are at cross purposes.