Dr Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham | Christianity SHOULD allow gay marriage - 3/8 | Oxford Union
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-unio...
Currently, Church of England members of the clergy are not permitted to carry out same-sex marriages, whilst homosexual Anglicans are required to remain celibate. In recent years, however, the Church of Wales, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and, most recently, the Methodist Church, have all embraced marriage equality. In February 2023, the General Synod met to discuss the issue, raising the question across the Anglican Communion and Christendom: should Christianity extend the sacraments to same same-sex marriages?
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Man, this Anglican Bishop is WAY more blasphemous than many atheists friends
And that’s why people hate Christianity because those so called bishops are blasphemous, clueless, ignorant, coward, “wolves in sheep skin”, corrupt and either physical or spiritual molesters.
He's a demon, not a bishop
wolf in sheep's clothing.
very true
this chap is more human and decent than any wanky Baptist or anti-same-sex marriage priest/Bishop.
Someone said, "If you tolerate anything, what is it that you're standing for?"
True but this statement's application to this situation is an obvious perversion.
You can’t change basic religious principles and beliefs just to be popular. This Isn’t a popularity contest.
It certainly is not a popularity contest which is why it is more appropriate to reject religious so called principles altogether.
@@davidcotuit And instead follow your principles.
@@jamalnasir3099 My principles are those of western civilisation.
"Does the Church have sex with Jesus? I don't think so!"
It's appalling to hear an ordained minister, let alone a bishop, speak this way. Is this man even a Christian?
Yes, what a disgraceful comment.
No, he isn't. He has the moral Christianity of Judas iscariot.
No, he's a bishop
Obviously he is not.
He isn’t a Christian. A Christian is one filled with the Spirit of God, Christ and has a very high reverence for His word and there are analogies a Christian cannot make.
A bishop wearing a pimp jacket, bling, and advocating for gay marriage within a Christian doctrine. Now I've seen it all.
It's not bling. It's a cross, which is customary for bishops to wear.
He seems to confuse the secular and Church, as a Bishop he speaks for the former which is a disgrace, even mocking and deriding the Bible for laughs. He seems to view marriage as primarily a sex act and further confuses love and sex. He is not a man of God. He seems more interested in being popular than upholding and preaching the word of Christ. " either we belive in Christ or we don't" - He would do well to pay close attention to C Robinson's speech.
well said, snowdog - 'whoever is not against you is for you' Lk9:50 & the converse must be true 'whoever is not for you is against you'...this one-dimensional, unlearned oick of a bishop is an embarrassment.
Well that’s why any one becomes a part of the church for money and fame in most religions that includes christianity as it allows you a lot of political power over how people vote especially in countries like America
God didn't love sexual immorality.
doesnt
truly sickening. completely off the rails of what the faith teaches.
Them protestants again
Dr Wilson reminds me of the scribes and pharisees of Jesus' day. His arguments are rooted in societal changes and not in the sacrificial glorifying of God. He is a stereotypical Church of England bishop who by his words seeks the destruction of the church he allegedly serves.
As a catholic I see this man as a blessing, let him become arch Bishop of Canterbury and there won't be an Anglican church in 10 years. You guys are welcome to come back btw.
So....He is absolutely wrong on his idea that the early church didn't have a doctrine of Marriage....it did. It may not have been written in a silly Book of Common Prayer...but it was written explicitly to churches by Paul. The church's urge to re-define marriage goes against scripture. Using examples like Solomon or Levitical law is not helpful in the discussion. He assumes that Solomon having hundreds of wives was a blessing from God...but that is not the case. What does Jesus say about Marriage? We know that he defines it as a man and a woman. The redefinition of marriage is about attraction and sexuality...not what it's initial purpose was intended to be...a picture of God's relationship with creation. It's the churches last gasp effort to fit in with the cultural norms...and it is a death knell for her current organizational structure.
And many Christians are walking out of the Anglican Church, and well they should.😢😢😢
Thank you for your comments.
"Some Spanish nun". Is he referring to St. Teresa of Avila? I hope not.
*Matthew 7:15*
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Take away blasphemy and mockery out of his remarks, and this Bishop's "arguments" fall flat on their face.
Really sad his level of understanding about God's Word and Will for his Church.
As a Catholic, you Anglicans should convert to Catholicism. While we are beginning to fight this battle in our church it has not gone so far out as the blasphemy that I've seen in this video.
Notice how he doesn't share a single scripture verse to support his views. And how he merely blankets over the idea of the gospels with his own ideas. Which are worldly ideas.
Everything under the sun was designed with a purpose according to the LORD our GOD'S creation. And we already know that we are still living in a fallen world and that humans are the purveyors of evil.
So please answer these questions and tell me:
what purpose does homosexual acts serve?
Whose purpose do they serve?
And how can they or do they glorify our Father in Heaven?
The Church of England no longer serves God
This old man did nothing in his argument. Blasphamous! Mocking God!
if you don't believe in christianity my friend don't be a christian
He died about a year after this.
I hear a lot of “well others do it and have done other things. Why don’t we do it too?” With no biblical basis
Is this a comedian or a bishop? Bring back bloody Mary to clean up this mess.
So sad. The Church of England cannot get any patrons in their doors, they no longer hear worship so they will settle for the cheers and jeers of atheists and agnostics when the Bishops of England condone this apostasy. “Judge them by their fruits” and the Church of England is a barren orchard. 🪦
These people love the sound of their own voice so much. They are running the CofE into the ground. But it is all ok because he made some kids laugh…
Let's be fair to Dr Alan Wilson. It doesn't seem that he really believe this, his heart isn't quite in it. He probably does know the truth.
Religion does not have to make sense!
It says in the bible man lays with a woman not a man with a man or a woman with a woman
You are doing this to please man not God.
Paul wrote about such demons as this fellow, prelates who lead the sheep astray in the 1st chapter of Romans. He also is clear what happens to them.....
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them...hey are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.....
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die-yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them."
Sound familiar?
"Let them be anathema" (Rev. Calvin Robinson)
I came to this article in the hope that it would give me some insight into the biblical reasons why blessing same sex union is acceptable to God and there was no biblical teaching at all just throw away comments. God is love but, as Calvin Robinson observes, he sets the terms not us
A weak argument covered up by comedy.
Totally.
9 different forms of marriage in the Bible but he names one with an erroneous explanation, one fact remains you cannot change the word of Christ.
I agree
Indeed, cloaked in heresy disguised as wit.
After my interaction with people, I came to a conclusion that gender doesn't matter at all, gentle temperament, good character and behavior is more important.
I myself got to experience triple trauma:
1.dealing with a narcissist and other mentally ill person
2.dealing with personality clash
3.dealing with other toxic behaviors
I feel like there are problems that need to be addressed like who will be married and are qualified to become parents, the issue on teenage pregnancy is also a problem...
The problems faced by our society have been brought by heterosexual people mostly..
His argument would be airtight if Christian doctrines were based on the the arguments and opinions of bishops in the Anglican church instead of the bible. He can take it up with Jesus when He meets Him some day at the resurrection of the dead. If I were him, I'd be worried. The bible is pretty clear and teachers will be held to a higher standard than most.
But that's precisely how doctrine works in churches that have an episopal structure lmao. Doctrine is based on the arguments and decisions of bishops. I'm not saying it should be, but that's how it works in the Anglican, Orthodox and Catholic Churches, take it or leave it. Guess you're leaving it.
Exactly. He actually won't know what hit him. Speaking of "the small print" like it doesn't matter.
It's God's word.
The bible is very clear about Divorce but that doesn't seem to be much of a problem for protestants.
I have my doubts about him ever meeting Jesus.
Why even read or study the Bible if it refers only to that historical context. Church of England has departed from Christianity and now just believes in the Beatles slogan "all you need is Love".
That mean sex Not agape
@@lebotonton I disagree - the concept of universal, brotherly, transcendent love was well-known by many in the Beatles' generation, and I've always understood that this is what they meant in the song. But of course, you can interpret it any way you want 🙂
The Beatles DIDN'T mean "sex" - even I, as an 18 - year old virgin in 1968, knew that, but our elders thought they meant sex, because they were often lacking in an understanding of the concept of spiritual, universal love - which is what the Beatles clearly meant in their phase of spiritual inquiry - however half-hearted that may have been 🙂
"A time is coming when men are going to run mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will laugh at them saying, "you are mad, you are not like us." -St Augustine
Agreed
I am very happy that these videos were posted. It helps me to remember why I left Anglicanism.
If you don’t mind me asking did you leave Christianity all together or did you go to a different denomination? Just wondering because Pope Benedict XVI created the Anglican ordinariate in the Latin Rite Catholic Church for former anglicans, who wanted to come into full communion with Rome.
He only left the Anglican church
@@FatJoe98100 you can just go to Rome altogether in order to be in communion. In any case. A church that's debating this topic is not much of a church.
Because they allow divorce?
This man is not arguing as a theologian , worrying that he is a bishop
@thanyanimariba1424
This is correct. What we have here is a clash of theologies. This is however not un-Christian, the fact of a clash of ideologies, that is. Christianity has been a series of clashes of theologies for 1500 years.
Wow, so many bad arguments here, especially the failure to distinguish between biblically mandated forms of marriage, which is clearly only one, and types of marriage described in the Bible. That is just sloppy thinking.
What’s new? A Church of England bishop doesn’t believe in Christianity.
Here’s why he doesn’t - he refuses to accept - even though it’s staring him in the face - that maleness is both an immaterial thing - in Jesus (and the father) - and material in Jesus the man and also in man - and that femaleness is both an immaterial thing in the church - and also a material thing - in woman.
That's the first mistake of people like this bishop - and here's the second. People with the bishop's views usually also pretend that the two parts of God named as male is a product of patriarchy. But here’s why that view isn’t possible. The bishop isn’t disagreeing with Jesus being biologically male - only male as God (along with the Father). But here is why he doesn’t have that freedom. If Jesus in his divinity is named only as male but not actually male an impossibility arises - namely that the Jesus who became man and then ascends to be with his Father is once ascended both not actually male (in his divinity) and male in his humanity. But not just at that moment because God is outside time and therefore the bishop is asking us to imagine that Jesus is both male and not male all the time.
So then I have proven Christianity is about material and non-material sex/gender - and that the bishop must be wrong for not believing this.
Therefore God’s eternal plan being a marriage - a marriage of the God human man Christ with the God human woman church (Rev 19 and 21) - has meaning - it doesn’t need the church to be biologically female to have meaning. And therefore it most definitely is the case that people of any attraction can be eternally married to God - a marriage which outweighs all earthly marriage it defies description - and also to have spiritual fathers and mothers - brothers and sisters - and sons and daughters).
It should be clear then that same sex marriage and homosexuality is according to the Christian worldview contrary to the plan and heart of God. In what way does it contradict God’s heart? While I cannot fully explore what maleness and femaleness is from a Christian perspective let me at least point out that God’s heart when it comes to being male is that it is about pouring oneself out in sacrifice for woman - in order to earn the authority to establish an environment of justice - as Jesus does - in which woman (biological woman and also immaterial woman - the church) then leads in showing mercy. The disintegration of man and woman - and of marriage - and of Christ and the church - is the world and the apostate church saying that leadership should instead be a reward for just being born - and that’s what we’ve been seeing in the last couple of decades as people turn away from God - so called leaders acting as if leadership is the opportunity to serve themselves. Anything goes - we are at sea.
Oh my theres alot of your misguided opinion here but very little fact lol. Kiddo why does it matter what the bible says? Do you have the evidence there is a god to turn away from? Better yet do you have the evidence the bible has any truth in it at all? You gotta prove your case before you can argue it. So that being said, why should anybody care about a damn thing you just said?
@@scottblack7182 Hi Scott, I was arguing with a bishop who claims to be rightly interpreting the bible - not with you. I wouldn't argue with you in the same way.
It blows my mind that a bishop of the Church of England doesn’t understand the analogy of the church as the bride of Christ. My 7 year old son understands it…
The Church of England is NOT the Church. Its "prophet" is Henry VIII, NOT Jesus Christ. So the Church of England is driven by Satan and fools. This is why we have to hear such nonsense from its "bishops".
We must pray for this bishop and the church.
Tool of Satan , end times !!! He’s not a man of God , God called this sin an abomination yet he’s preaching that’s it’s ok …. There’s a special place in hell for him and the others if they do not repent before they pass ,
I was thinking the same thing. "This man has no understanding of what an analogy is!"
If you study his mannerisms and how he emphasises he displays a need to receive attention. He approaches the arguments well however, for me, he is not a follower of Christ.
I love how they are not quoting the Bible to strengthen their arguments because the Bible doesn't support gay marriage.
Actually yes it does you haven’t read the bible then very well if you’re saying that because the bible doesn’t state anything that says being gay is a sin so stop being sinful by putting words in gods mouth
@@Darthdog4957 yes, it does state that homosexuality is a sin.
@@Darthdog4957 Yes, it does declare homosexuality is a sin. Old and New Testament. The Lord hands them over to a depraved mind in Romans. Leviticus called it sin and calls for stoning. Paul states that the sexually immoral will not enter the Kingdom of God.
@@Darthdog4957 Again, no scripture. You just making claims. Show me the scriptures that prove that what you are saying is correct.
@@juliemarie693 thank you.
Another wolf in sheep's clothing
Dr. Wilson needs to repent of his abandonment of God's word and pray for forgiveness with fear and trembling.
After insisting that marriage has been redefined numerous times, he then says "marriage is marriage is marriage, and that's it." Which means marriage is meaningless, yes?
To anybody who doesnt have a person they wanna dedicate their love life to sure . Otherwise the rest of us will just live our lives and marry who we please without caring what anybody else thinks. And if the church wants to accept that than more power to them. Its a good thing 😘
@@scottblack7182 God will never accept it. So don't kid yourselves
@@scottblack7182 I'm commenting on what the man himself said.
His argument is inconsistent.
@@scottblack7182 if it's about "love" you don't need the Church nor the State to change their canon. So go on loving who you want. LGBTFO
Spot on. Which is why the Bishop's argument is wrong. The issue after the dust has settled is that no-one is going to bother getting "married" at all. Without its specificity around child-bearing, the celebration of sexual difference, and so on, we're then just looking at people shacking up together. The idea of marriage becomes a matter of habitation and not relationship. That, in itself, provides not a whole bundle of societal good compared with the primacy of nurturing a healthy and well-rounded next generation. Modern western governments have, in recent decades, intervened to force "good behavour" on spouses, particularly in relation to children, in the stipulations of alimony, separation of children from one parent, and in extreme cases taking the child away from both parents "for the sake of the child and society". Now it has done this, what then is the benefit of marriage? After all, this is, in the UK, a very recent (250 years or so) construct, created after the industrial revolution to deal with the increased abandonment and subsequent destitution of pregnant women by anonymous "admirers". The only real importance given outside of religious and sacramental considerations is a tax-break for surviving spouses in the event of death. But before the invention of institutional marriage, and also before 1967, the definition of marriage as monogamous was almost universal worldwide, irrespective of culture and religion. The imposition of the concept of same-sex marriage on English-speaking peoples, and from there to the rest of the world, has been worked through public opinion, vicious public opprobrium of opponents, and the fiat of governments.
And we accuse earlier generations of bigotry and ignorance. How little do we know the damage this is going to wreak on society.
I’m still waiting for his argument?
surprise, surprise! - he doesn't have one.
He has none, save throwing around sarcasm and back street jokes. So sad.
There was alot of different marriage in the Bible so it shouldn’t be shocking that people want to have gay marriage in the church, everyone is equal and all marriage is equal gay or straight.
@@rpenguinboy But it's sin and not supported. Lust is bad, sex is for childbearing and marriage is an institution to protect the procreation of children within a strong bond.
What was his actual argument? This man is not a Christian, he is an atheist masquerading as a Guardian columnist in priestly garb.
The guardian is an in name only news site/paper
It is only for God to judge men's hearts
@@mariannehavisham8323 Open your mouth, judge righteously, And defend the rights of the poor and needy.... Proverbs 31:9
@@fletcherchristian6522 yes but I don't see the relevance? He is defending the rights of the needy -that is PRECISELY what he is doing! I think people call that taking a verse out of context and weaponising the Bible! I approve of the verse but not the way you are using it.. to bully people..
@@mariannehavisham8323 Judging sin isn't bullying people. Wanting to have your sin blessed by God doesn't make you a needy person. It makes you a rebellious person.
What a weak argument. He knows he can't ignore what the Bible says. Oh its only in the small print 9 times but it's the overarching message that counts. Err... no. It's what the Bible says that counts no matter how small the print. And it states it a lot more than once! He never even mentioned marriage & children as there's no way he'd win that argument.
Umm not sure if your listening abilities are on point lol. His point was most people ignore most of the original bible and most are unaware of all the dramatic changes made to it and still call themselves christian. By your own admission here only people who follow the bible exactly are christian which mean most people only think they are 😏. You dont get to pretend that the bible is taken seriously even by supposed christians. And knowing what we know now about all the revisions ..who the f*ck is actually Christian anyways? Food for thought dear.
Sure..... The Bible is always right ...
It certainly never started in Aramaic to then be translated in ancient Greek and then Latin and then french and finally English...
Thank god it never got lost in translation.... But then again, I heard a Polish fellow say the Bible was the word of god even if his Bible was in Polish.....
How interesting indeed
@@EvilZ2009 so you're saying this bishop is right and the bible is wrong? It's clear you're not Christian.
@@turningrightuk4628 I am saying that you should pray to whomever you wish but not put to much care in a book which lets face it was written so long ago that you cannot read it for face value. Terms and mentalities change and so language adapts itself to the need.
Using terms like horse power for a car will eventually phase out as more and more the younger generation will have no frame of reference for a horse and carriage.
To say that you do not wish homosexual to marry because the Bible isn't a good reason unless you are saying you read and follow it to the letter and so are in favor of slavery and other subjects covered in the Bible which is no longer acceptable.
@@EvilZ2009
I'm not sure where you are getting this idea of a long translation chain from.
Almost all protestant bible translations (historic or modern) are translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew. This was, in fact, one of the major contentions of the reformation. And even for Roman Catholic, who might use translations which went thorough the Latin Vulgate, it never went through French. I have no clue at all where you got that idea from.
And virtually all the books in Greek/Hebrew were written in it originally. Some contend the book of Matthew was originally Hebrew or Aramaic, but that's it and they are in the minority.
Of course, dialogue in the gospels may have been translated from Greek (or Latin in some instances). However, the gospels themselves are inspired by god, so you can't really appeal to mistranslation here, unless it was a mistranslation intended by god.
I must admit seeing people like this makes me question the sexuality of a lot of our clergymen.
This lad might be in the wrong line of business
Whatever his sexuality..he was absolutely right 😏.
@Jessie weeizy not just the Catholic Church, but I agree there needs to be more scrutiny on a priests sexual desires if he has sworn an oath of celibacy.
@@turningrightuk4628 Most men who have entered the church throughout the whole history of the church have been less on the virile side, many of whom are quite NON-virile. This is fundamentally a crowd of bisexual, asexual and homosexual men. It's always been this way. Screening for sexual desires will lead to an empty clergy. It's the same thing with Imams in Islam; it's a bunch of unmanly, nerdy, bisexual/asexual/homosexual, introverted, articulate, hyper-verbal, awkward dudes.
The percentage of priests and bishops that are gay is huge.
Many polls put it well over a quarter and widespread anecdotal evidence suggests it’s maybe as high as 50%.
It’s the elephant in the room of the church sex abuse scandal.
Laughing his way to a dead church.
I'm very surprised an Anglican bishop today would say "deceased wife sister marriages" were condemned in the bible and Solomon's marriages were condoned.
Fair enough having a different view on gay marriage, but I don't understand how he was enthroned with such a poor understanding of the Old Testament scriptures.
"Deceased wife sister marriages" are pretty much the same thing as Levirate marriages. If anything, you could make an argument for them being *mandatory* under the old covenant (which would have worked much better for his argument), and it's certainly not forbidden at any point in scripture.
Solomon's bigamy was (perhaps prophetically) condemned in Deut 17: 14-17 . And you can see in 1 Kings that his many wives led directly to his downfall and the breakup of Israel into the northern and southern halves. Now, you could point out that Deut 17 only forbids bigamy for kings (at least, only explicitly). But bringing up Solomon (a king) as an example does not work, in fact he is pretty much the worst possible example of this you could find in the bible.
It seems like his confused about whats descriptive and normative. Just becaused something is described or occured in the OT, doesn't mean its endorsed. I didn't listen to him all the way though...
@@mathiaswaagepetersen5527
In the case of Solomon though, it wasn't just described but actively condemned.
Deuteronomy warns that a king taking many wives they will lead him astray, Solomon took many wives and they led him to idolatry.
(The same passage also warns about a king gathering wealth and horses for himself, which Solomon also did).
And as a result God said:
"Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates"
He says this is in the same chapter where his many wives are described (1 Kings 11).
If you wanted to use a descriptive example of someone with multiple wives in the Old Testament; Solomon is the worst possible example, because Solomon was the one actively condemned for it.
Also, just because we don't have writings of the early church on marriage, doesn't mean that the early church would have endorsed same-sex marriage, that is a non-sequitur.
We do have early Church writings on marriage.
@@tpw7250 It wasn't my claim that we didn't. It was Wilson's claim.
Yeah. Paul's writings were all directed toward correcting known problems within the early church at that time. Why would he waste time condemning sins that weren't a widespread problem at the time he was alive?
Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT) Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
@@lebotonton 'becoming one flesh' refers to conception, so if she didn't get pregnant, but was consummated, the marriage may still be voided, correct?
This is BLASPHEMOUS.
Marriage as a man/woman union is assumed in moe than nine verses of the Bible. Hundreds of verse, at least. This man needs to go away and learn how to debate using facts and real reasoning.
God Will Judge This Man. And that's All I'll say.
Correct, and he will not be happy with the outcome
And God will put an end to it and same sex marriage is no marriage in the sight of God.
In the beginning He made them made and female
Look, it's plain to see there is a divide among Christians on this issue, but really, it's quite a simple choice to make: do you defend a living, dynamic faith like the kind witnessed in the Acts of the Apostles, where the early Church allowed for Spirit-driven growth and the shedding of old assumptions and restrictions in the pursuit of a universal call to love and forgive, or a narrow, ahistorical, dead faith with no compassion, no renewal, and no re-evaluation of the cultural contexts in which oft-cited (and oft-mistranslated and misunderstood) passages were written?
If mere Christianity becomes mere cruelty, it is already lost and frankly best discarded. Don't cite scripture (like the devil does) in defense of hate when anyone worth their salt in that area knows that Paul softens Jesus's (!) stance on divorce and that gendered language and metaphors in the Old and New Testaments is often fluid (kings nurse, God is compared to a mother at times, and there is enough talk of "adoption" to make laughable the conservative emphasis on procreation in the "natural" order of things).
I mean, come on. There is no prohibition on slavery in the Bible, anywhere, that could be called explicit, and arguably some support for it, and awkwardly the Patristic Tradition doesn't help much with this fact. Instead, it was the moral force of movements against that horrendous practice that led to the scales finally, belatedly falling from the Church's eyes on that issue. Now let's hope the Church comes around on the equality of women and queer people too, because spiritual callings, mutual tenderness and love, and human lives (many children's and teens') will be lost if it doesn't, or if it has to be dragged kicking and screaming toward repentance over this ongoing, callous disregard for others.
jesus christ he same yesterday, today, and forever
This Bishop will hear this Matthew 7:22-23 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Psalm 6:8 Away from me, all you who do evil, for the Lord has heard my weeping. Luke 13:27 But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’ this Bishop could out read out know more Bible verses could peach sermons, but now he will condemned him self and many other, Jesus was right about the last days he said Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. people please read your Bibles don't let sinful men turn you away from the SAVIOR who took the sins of the world, don't think that the shepherd is leading you down the narrow road to the narrow gate,
Is it not ironic that Solomon also bowed before pagan idols after having so many concubines? Would it not be ironic that he violated sexual moral laws and ended with violating the first commandment?
CoE = Church of Error
I think it is fair to say that humans are determined to do what they want and move anything to justify it. Not so with God. His principles stand forever and we depart from them at our peril. The man sounds a blasphemous comedian than anyone who is related to the church of Jesus. I am sure that he has been toying with many other principles before he arrived at his current standing. This is frightening, to say the least, given that this issue relates to eternal matters.
These enablers harming homosexuals in the name of Christian love turn my stomach. They should be showing them how to be free from sin not encouraging it. Cunningly evil and Tragic.
"For certain men have slipped in stealthily, who were designated long ago for this condemnation, ungodly ones, who change the grace of our God into licentiousness and who deny our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ." Jude 1:4
Two bishops supporting publicly heresy. What a shame!
To speak in such a frivolous way is a desecration of serious subject. Where in the bible do we find the prophets, apostles or Jesus behaving like comedians? This bishop will answer for the views expressed and the manner in which they were expressed.
This is a problem for the Church of England. Christ will reinstate new leadership to his Church. The Church belongs to God, He is the Lord , a day is coming when calling into God's ministry work will be directed by the Holy Spirit not a persons intellectual and academic/religious qualifications.
It's not about "allowing" gay marriage. It's about people CHOOSING to be a Christian and not partake in gay marriage. If the Church was strong then people would respect it, but it's weak and people laugh at it and think they can change it and make it do whatever they want it to do, which is what is happening here.
Imagine believing this guy's actually a bishop.
I couldn't even concentrate on what he was saying after a few minutes of Bla Bla Bla. . . . a lot of nonsense. Surely we are seeing the end times as institutions that once worshiped God and upheld the Bible as the Word of God is now turning it's back on God and replacing His Divinity with their own ideas, redefining God with their own god, a god that they can feel comfortable with, one that is ok with their sin. . . . the bible lists this as the 2nd commandment and calls it idolatry.
How is a paradigm not a definition of marriage? It seems that the paradigm is exactly what should be the definition of marriage, regardless of whether one lives up to it perfectly or not.
right? Thats like saying beauty doesn't exist because nothing on earth is the fullest and most correct sense of the word
this bishop is an insult to the church
Leviticus 18:22 and the lord spoke to Moses saying you shall not lay with a male as if it was a woman for it is an abomination draw the line
Well he's definitely not a bishop
A bishop shall be a man of one wife .
Repent Bishop, there’s no need for atheists to be trapped in the pulpit anymore.
yes there is: atheists are the only ones the ozanne/welby triumvirate will allow near the pulpit
You are all wrong. Plain and simple. Don't be hateful be kind don't judge show love.
Sola Scriptura!!!!
The Bible and the Bible alone.
The question of Marriage shouldn't be answered by the supposed wisdom of mere men such as bishops...the question of Marriage should be answered from the inspired word of God, the Bible. And if one honestly and wholeheartedly searches the scriptures, they will find that Marriage is a divine institution ordained of God reserved for a husband and his wife.
Pure blasphemy from this "bishop."
Is this really a bishop? Judas is still around! Church of England repent and come back to the True and One Church of Christ, the Holy Mother Catholic Church!
What else after this? Permit to marry your dog, your car, your siblings may be, or yourself if you're priest?
It's only a matter of time. The church follows culture now, like a dog.
this guy makes it so much more believable when they say men wrote/changed/edited the bible
They don't have a leg to stand on, akhi
This Bishop will have sexual scandals for sure. He is lucky to live in free country like England.
Why is this man a Bishop in a Christian church - not a gospel view in sight? Much better suited to Dawkin's humanism society ?
What a disgusting flippancy in addressing this issue! In the name of Christ, what does it take to become a Bishop in the Anglican church?
He doesn’t make arguements, just snarky observations. Yes the OT presents various forms of marriage, but just because the Bible describes something, it doesn’t mean it prescribes it. That’s basic close reading, and orthodox exegesis. King Solomon having that many foreign wives went against the law and actually was one of the reasons the kingdom fell. All polygamous marriages in the Bible are presented poorly. They all cause problems. The progressive revelation of the Bible confirms that the Biblical viewpoint of marriage is heterosexual union between one man and one woman. The definitive word is Jesus’. When probed on marriage, that is exactly his response
And the bit about having sex with Jesus completely sidesteps the actual metaphysical arguement. This is classic philosophy of religious language. It’s Aquinas. He is basically saying the language taken literally is nonsense, but he doesn’t regard the analogical significance! And thats what really matters. Eph 5. Marriage is a mystery that points to Christ and His church. The sexual act goes beyond skin deep literalism. It is a metaphor pointing to the divine love between Christ and His church. And we are not ready to receive Him.
Lastly, just because the Bible has 9 verses out of x thousand, is not any kind of arguement but is a logical fallacy. The Bible only says twice in the same chapter that God is love. But that’s the basis of the progressive side’s entire worldview! Better disregard that little fact, only measly represented in comparison to the hundreds of references to God’s wrath. Thats simply not an arguement at all.
This man is blasphemous. I think he is one of those to whom Christ will say, "depart from me, I never knew you".
This "churchman" is an affront to the Church and the Christian faith. No wonder the CoE is in the grips of apostacy.
A Dr too and so badly mauls scripture....
Wow ... he's gonna be feeling really stupid when he stands before the Lord one day.
all of this polemic is pointless. no marriage is possible where no creation of life is possible.
Seriously, where did all these nut cases come from ?
Incredible how he spent 9 minutes talking, and said nothing. All he raised were straw-man arguments, and bumper sticker slogans, mixed with humor to make his position more appealing. "there's 9 types of marriage in the bible", yes, but the bible only talks about 1 as being right. "there's only 9 verses that talk about same sex marriage in the entire bible, out of 32,000" yes, but all 9 of them condemn it. In addition, not every verse in the bible talks about murder, does that mean that it's not really that important it is fine? All this man raised were point about the church, a body of imperfect, fallen beings, and never once mentioned this the Christ ACTUALLY SAID!
christians after saying that anyone who doesnt agree with them isnt a true christian 😇🤩🎉🎉✨
I've listened to 3 so far. Please tell me there are no more stupid presentations than this.
wow, how is this guy a doctor or bishop. he doesn't have a clue
🔥Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!🔥 ~ Isaiah 5:20-21 (NASB)
This minister is going to find out what Jesus meant by what He said as recorded in Luke 12:47-48 and Matthew 7:21-23.
It’s so pathetic when people clap and cheer over the lamest things “marriage is marriage is marriage is marriage”. WOWWWWW so profound!!!! 🙄😂
Very weak submission
These people are wolves in sheep's clothing trying to impress the world and not Christ!
Blasphemy
False teacher
So the argument is:
1. Many secular states have legalised homosexual marriage (covering 1.2 billion people),
2. The Church did not define marriage until the Anglicans did it in the 1920s, and they did it wrong,
3. The Bible does have 8 references condemning homosexuality, but the rest of the Bible doesn't mention it,
4. God is Love,
Therefore, support the blessing of homosexual marriage in Anglicanism.
The speaker appeared to carry his argument with an air of careless, mocking, deceptive arrogance.
But, the one point he makes regarding the State has some force.
I wonder as follows:
If the head of the state of England is the head of the Anglicans, then State and Church are not distinct at the highest level according to Anglicanism, and since England has legalised homosexual marriage, then why shouldn't Anglicanism follow its head?