Skip to comments.[Archbishop] Justin Welby: Boy Wearing a Dress to School 'not a Problem'
Posted on 09/21/2017 7:06:24 PM PDT by marshmallow
A boy wearing a dress to school is "not a problem", the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.
Speaking on LBC radio the most senior cleric in the Church of England said he would tell a concerned parishioner that they should help their child "understand".
He said: "I would say to them, I don't think that's a problem.
"The other family are making up their own minds. The other child is making up their own mind.
"Talk to your child. Help them to understand. Help them to see what's going on and to be faithful to their own convictions."
The Archbishop also said that he had been "struggling" with the question, and said added: "I make a point of not commenting on particular cases because you just never know the whole story".
Pushed by LBC presenter Nick Ferrari he said: "I would say - for us - our kids went through all our schooling in the local state schools.
"There were bit we liked, and bits we didn't like, and it's the home where you educate and train people in following faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Pointless religion is pointless.
False prophets have a terrible judgement waiting.
The Archbishop has a problem with pronouns. If he can’t deal with pronouns, how can he possibly deal with theology?
Has this buffoon ever read the Bible he supposedly is ordained to represent and promulgate? Deut. 22:25: A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. (NIV)
The Pope: “islam is no threat.” Easy peasy.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Do you know to whom these instructions were given to? You are not interested in truth, but to make the lord look foolish. You know nothing. Be careful.
Religious liberalism is mocking GOD. Abusive parenys, unless his chromosomes is XXY or XXXY...
I do not discount anything in the Bible as "ridiculous". The laws paint a godly standard and not all laws have the same penalty associated with their violation. Some have no stated earthly penalty. Some require restitution. Still others require the life of the law breaker. (see Leviticus 20:13 -- the death penalty for sodomites).
So, your statement that they are "equally ridiculous" simply exposes your damnable ignorance. If you are at all curious as to which old covenant laws have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and no longer require a "priest" class to implement, read the new testament epistle Hebrews 9:1-10ff).
The Bible warned us about mockers:
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
But Jude advises this for some:
22 And have mercy on some, who are doubting; 23 save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.
The wages of sin is death and the sinner is headed for eternal punishment in the lake of fire. God's perfect justice demands payment of the penalty. But the good news is that God himself through Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sin and offers redemption to those who will accept this gift through faith in his sacrificial work on the cross.
Believe and live.
However, this free offer expires on your death.
Easy for you living well outside The Law and in the 21st century, to so summarily brush it off.
I suspect none but a few of us would have an easy time living in The Land some 3000 years ago.
I agree: The Law was indeed perhaps quite suitable for regulating the affairs of a squalid band of mostly illiterate, very superstitious, warlike Bronze Age tribesmen roaming through the deserts of the Middle East.
Indeed: Given that they had no access to the Internet, Wikipedia, telescopes, high-speed computers, had no knowledge of microscopic organisms, a proper understanding of Cause and Effect, of the Scientific Method, etc. - it may well have been that the Law's stern injunctions were better suited to their needs.
One God, now and forever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.