Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Rhiannon on February 16, 2017, 09:05:14 AM
-
Nice move from the House of Clergy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38989304
-
Not a good move at all! :o
-
Why? They rejected the report that supports the status quote and told the House of Bishops to come back with something better. The original report caused huge hurt. The bishops don't get away with not considering the views of the LGBT+ Anglican community this time. I'm not expecting miracles but this is a clear signal from the front line clergy that they want to be able to minister more effectively. My guess is that this will lead to clergy being able to offer blessings to couples in same sex marriages as they currently can do for divorcees remarrying.
-
I very much doubt that the bishops CAN come up with a differing report. They might soften the language a bit, but if the same theologians are on the panel, the conclusion cannot be different if they wish to continue in communion with the Anglican Church worldwide (and the Christian Church in general).
-
No, but I think schism is inevitable. About bloody time too. Should have happened twenty years ago.
This was why I lost my vocation and my belief in the church long before I lost my faith. Justice and compassion matter far more than the Anglican Communion.
-
Not a good move at all! :o
I think you have misunderstood what happened. The House of Clergy stopped the report being approved.
-
I'm afraid that, were a schism to occur, Rhi, I'd side firmly with the evangelicals. Whilst I in no way condemn secular gay marriage, any reading of the New Testament brings me to the inescapable conclusion, that, for the Christian, the only acceptable marriage is man and woman.
-
And you are entitled to that opinion and schism will allow you to maintain it. It is indefensible that the Anglican Church currently does not offer the same freedom of belief to those who support gay marriage.
-
Schism is not the answer, though. The sad fragmentation of the Church of Scotland shows that to anyone who cares to look. At the last count, there were twelve presbyterian denominations here - eight of them splits of sub-splits of the Free Church, itself a split from the CofS. Such fragments become atrophied and insular, and need a real kick to change the most minute aspect of their make up......for instance, it took the Free Church over 120 years to allow musical instruments in the church if the Kirk Session consented.....this resulted in yet another mini-schism. Once a denomination picks up the habit of Schism, the momentum is unstoppable. The actual numbers attending may not change (actually, in the case of the Free Church, they are increasing and new churches are being planted), but the voice of the church is fractured.
-
And you are entitled to that opinion and schism will allow you to maintain it. It is indefensible that the Anglican Church currently does not offer the same freedom of belief to those who support gay marriage.
If there are denominations who do allow their clergy to marry they should join them rather than present antichristians with wankfodder.
-
The Church's voice at present is seen by many to be unjust and lacking compassion - few outside of it take it seriously because it voices opinions that are uncaring and unloving, making a mockery of its claim to serve a loving god. If it has to fragment in order to gain any kind of sympathetic hearing from the wider society I don't see why believers would see that to be a bad thing.
-
If there are denominations who do allow their clergy to marry they should join them rather than present antichristians with wankfodder.
Why should an Anglican have to pretend to be a Quaker or a Unitarian in order to marry?
-
The Church's voice at present is seen by many to be unjust and lacking compassion - few outside of it take it seriously because it voices opinions that are uncaring and unloving, making a mockery of its claim to serve a loving god. If it has to fragment in order to gain any kind of sympathetic hearing from the wider society I don't see why believers would see that to be a bad thing.
Yet the primary purpose of a congregation is to gather those who accept discipleship and spread the Gospel, both in service and by word. To spread a Gospel which is not in agreement with the New Testament (and therefore the New Covenant sealed by Christ) would not be serving God. [/quote]
-
Others interpret the Gospel differently. I did as a believer. If things had gone differently and I'd been ordained I'd be defrocked by now for blessing gay unions anyway.
-
Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick when listening to the news this morning. Of course I am in favour of gay marriage.
-
The rejected report was one against it. Hopefully this will pave the way for a change in attitude within the church. Of course the likely outcome will be compromise and fudge, it always is with the Anglican church, but it's a hopeful sign.
-
The Church's voice at present is seen by many to be unjust and lacking compassion - few outside of it take it seriously because it voices opinions that are uncaring and unloving, making a mockery of its claim to serve a loving god. If it has to fragment in order to gain any kind of sympathetic hearing from the wider society I don't see why believers would see that to be a bad thing.
Wider society cannot lecture anyone on care or loving and is completely incapable of a sympathetic hearing.
The trouble is that a church can be used as a useful bulwark against a loving God.
The chief gift of Protestantism is the reminder that we can come to Christ and that we can open the door to him without the middlemen.
same sex marriage is a recent development with all sorts using and abusing it.
Its potential for linguistic mischief making is immense as is it's potential for secular humanism to try to sink it's old enemy in a bit of thought fascism.
The equality argument is blown as long as heterosexuals cannot have civil partnership.
-
I'm in favour of straight civil partnerships, in fact you can have them on the Isle of man, they are popular with English couples.
Isn't the church supposed to be *exactly* the body that lectures the rest of us on love and compassion? Yet it seeks to deny the full expression of love to some of its members while others are free to enjoy it to the full. If there is a god of love it must be making him weep.
-
I'm in favour of straight civil partnerships, in fact you can have them on the Isle of man, they are popular with English couples.
Isn't the church supposed to be *exactly* the body that lectures the rest of us on love and compassion? Yet it seeks to deny the full expression of love to some of its members while others are free to enjoy it to the full. If there is a god of love it must be making him weep.
Nobody forces people to become Anglican priests.
Since it is OK cos you can have a civil partnership in the IOM
then it must be OK cos you can become a married gay clergyman in another denomination.
-
The equality argument is blown as long as heterosexuals cannot have civil partnership.
Really -that's your argument, after the number of times we've been over this?
The only reason Civil Partnerships don't exist is because the government doesn't see it as useful to do (more pressing things to do like wreck the NHS and destroy the economy). Every voice that I have ever heard talk on this debate has said that CP's for heterosexuals should be made available. This is simply some kind of security blanket you go back to stroking when you have no form of valid argument.
-
same sex marriage is a recent development with all sorts using and abusing it.
Evidence please of people abusing same sex marriage.
-
Evidence please of people abusing same sex marriage.
Antitheists protesting at the policy of the C of E. In this case it is another weapon at hand.
Same sex marriage is not an historically cherished position.
-
Evidence please of people abusing same sex marriage.
Well there may be - but then there are people who abuse marriage period. So why gay people should be singled out for abusing the institution I don't know.
Two words: Britney.Spears.
or another two: Elizabeth. Taylor.
or ZsaZsa. Gabor. (Ok that may be 3)
-
Nobody forces people to become Anglican priests.
Since it is OK cos you can have a civil partnership in the IOM
then it must be OK cos you can become a married gay clergyman in another denomination.
No, it really isn't ok. If you are an Anglican you are an Anglican. And it isn't just priests who face hate and discrimination - all done with the love of the Gospel of course. It is gay couples who wish to marry in church or at the very least have their unions blessed in the sight of God.
Effectively you are saying that the Anglican Church is right to force its children to be homeless or to have to find shelter elsewhere. How completely loving.
Th
-
Well there may be - but then there are people who abuse marriage period. So why gay people should be singled out for abusing the institution I don't know.
Two words: Britney.Spears.
or another two: Elizabeth. Taylor.
or ZsaZsa. Gabor. (Ok that may be 3)
I am not singling out gay people.....I am singling out antitheists who see this as a way to stick one on a church.....and that's it.
-
Well there may be - but then there are people who abuse marriage period. So why gay people should be singled out for abusing the institution I don't know.
Two words: Britney.Spears.
or another two: Elizabeth. Taylor.
or ZsaZsa. Gabor. (Ok that may be 3)
You would not believe the stuff the church in this area thinks is ok. Remarriage of adulterers is the norm. I have no problem with it - we all make mistakes - but Jesus wasn't keen if the Gospela are to be believed.
And as for the naughty vicar and the woman he was giving marriage guidance to... still in Holy Orders because the sex acts didn't involve penetration.
-
I am not singling out gay people.....I am singling out antitheists who see this as a way to stick one on a church.....and that's it.
Fairy nuff.
The point still stands - marriage as an institution is in most folks eyes in this country an excuse to take pretty pictures outside a picturesque church with a soft focus vintage Rolls in the background. To claim that it is some historically cherished position is way off the mark. And most of 'em will never go back for a church service until they reach the other end of their life and find that funerals are far outweighing the weddings.
-
I am not singling out gay people.....I am singling out antitheists who see this as a way to stick one on a church.....and that's it.
Bollocks. Nobody welcomes the church's stance - we want to see it stop making people suffer, that's all. If the church changes then the 'antitheists' have no argument to make. If it doesn't it deserves to die as a place not fit for the Gospel it preaches.
-
No, it really isn't ok. If you are an Anglican you are an Anglican. And it isn't just priests who face hate and discrimination - all done with the love of the Gospel of course. It is gay couples who wish to marry in church or at the very least have their unions blessed in the sight of God.
Effectively you are saying that the Anglican Church is right to force its children to be homeless or to have to find shelter elsewhere. How completely loving.
Th
I'm saying go to another denomination and get married in theirs.
-
I'm saying go to another denomination and get married in theirs.
Yes I know. Why should an Anglican have to do that? It's like telling your child that if he wants to have Christmas dinner with his boyfriend he's not welcome under your roof but can go to someone else's house. You call that love?
-
Bollocks. Nobody welcomes the church's stance - we want to see it stop making people suffer, that's all. If the church changes then the 'antitheists' have no argument to make. If it doesn't it deserves to die as a place not fit for the Gospel it preaches.
Elements of non sequitur.
Where on earth is ''not being able to get married in an Anglican church'' on the league table of suffering I wonder.
-
Elements of non sequitur.
Where on earth is ''not being able to get married in an Anglican church'' on the league table of suffering I wonder.
Ask those who were protesting yesterday. Ask those who are told their love is unclean.
-
Elements of non sequitur.
Where on earth is ''not being able to get married in an Anglican church'' on the league table of suffering I wonder.
alright. Stop it for heterosexuals then. Make them go somewhere else.
-
alright. Stop it for heterosexuals then. Make them go somewhere else.
OK
-
OK
Good. Sorted.
-
OK
How's this going to work then?
-
Antitheists protesting at the policy of the C of E. In this case it is another weapon at hand.
You could turn it on its head - in other words that theists protesting at the policy of the democratic government and its enacted laws are 'abusing same sex marriage'. But of course the clear assumption of your statement was that couples were abusing same sex marriage by getting married when they weren't in a relationship/able to legitimately make the marriage commitments. You have no evidence for this.
Same sex marriage is not an historically cherished position.
So what? And there is no 'same sex marriage' - there is just marriage, with the groups able to make that commitment extended. So marriage remains a historically cherished position, but one that now extends to more loving couples who wish to commit to each other in the eyes of the law.
-
Good. Sorted.
Apparently Jeremy Kaplowitz was about to go on stage etc.
-
You could turn it on its head - in other words that theists protesting at the policy of the democratic government and its enacted laws are 'abusing same sex marriage'. But of course the clear assumption of your statement was that couples were abusing same sex marriage by getting married
Nope. You read that in. As I explained those abusing same sex marriage were antitheists merely using it as a weapon to stick one on the church.
The Church of England doesn't believe that the enviable bliss of a commitment to another affable chap, probably a pipe smoker, talking about modifications to Nigel Gresley's tenders on Pacifics is ''marriage''...and lets face it, it is not that long ago that chaps sharing the bliss of commitment to another affable chap, probably a pipe smoker, would have agreed with them.
-
Nope. You read that in. As I explained those abusing same sex marriage were antitheists merely using it as a weapon to stick one on the church.
The Church of England doesn't believe that the enviable bliss of a commitment to another affable chap, probably a pipe smoker, talking about modifications to Nigel Gresley's tenders on Pacifics is ''marriage''...and lets face it, it is not that long ago that chaps sharing the bliss of commitment to another affable chap, probably a pipe smoker, would have agreed with them.
Don't know what all this pipe smoking's got to do with it - but leaving aside your baseless and questionable stereotypes I personally don't give a stuff about getting married in Church, or indeed even getting married. But for some of my friends it is important. It is important to them because they suffer under the same sad, woeful misconception that you do; that is that a Christian God exists. Therefore because of the way they view things it would be awfully nice if you Christians just let them do it - and throw out your old, useless prejudices against gay people like you did with mixed fibres, slavery and shellfish.
Anyway why aren't you keeping up biblical tradition by upholding this:
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
or this:
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
or indeed this:
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.”
-
Don't know what all this pipe smoking's got to do with it - but leaving aside your baseless and questionable stereotypes I personally don't give a stuff about getting married in Church, or indeed even getting married. But for some of my friends it is important. It is important to them because they suffer under the same sad, woeful misconception that you do; that is that a Christian God exists. Therefore because of the way they view things it would be awfully nice if you Christians just let them do it
But they are Christians too. Stop trying to make them honorary atheists.
My point is that they can get married in church since some denominations will take them so your appeal to Christians has already been answered. Also polygamy is not recognised by the church and they have to go elsewhere and would have to in countries where polygamy was legal.
-
They cannot get married in the *Anglican* church. If that is the church family to which they belong and they request the right to marry their church family will reject them.
Nobody here is arguing for the right to polygamy, just equal monogamy.
-
They cannot get married in the *Anglican* church. If that is the church family to which they belong and they request the right to marry their church family will reject them.
They might reject their claim that they can marry yes since if the church believes that marriage is between a man and a woman then the minister will not in all consciousness be marrying them.
Also the minister is not actually preventing them from being married....how can she?
-
But they are Christians too. Stop trying to make them honorary atheists.
My point is that they can get married in church since some denominations will take them so your appeal to Christians has already been answered. Also polygamy is not recognised by the church and they have to go elsewhere and would have to in countries where polygamy was legal.
Not trying to make them honorary atheists. They define themselves as Christians as you do. I accept that. I think you are all wrong as I expect you think I am wrong, do you think I am an honorary Christian?
No I accept their self definition as Christian.
As to your other sideswipe it is a polygamous straw man or perhaps more correctly, men.
But if they have worshipped in an Anglican Church all their lives and in some cases serves that Church all their lives, why on Earth would they want to run off to another church?
-
Not trying to make them honorary atheists. They define themselves as Christians as you do. I accept that. I think you are all wrong as I expect you think I am wrong, do you think I am an honorary Christian?
No I accept their self definition as Christian.
As to your other sideswipe it is a polygamous straw man or perhaps more correctly, men.
But if they have worshipped in an Anglican Church all their lives and in some cases serves that Church all their lives, why on Earth would they want to run off to another church?
To get married of course.
-
And you find that acceptable. Wow.
-
Nope. You read that in. As I explained those abusing same sex marriage were antitheists merely using it as a weapon to stick one on the church.
As I also pointed out there is no such thing as 'same sex marriage' - the law merely extended civil marriage to a wider group of couples. There is only marriage, which is governed by the law of the land.
-
And you find that acceptable. Wow.
Well yes. Since the Anglicans stick to that interpretation of marriage then to expect someone to do something against their beliefs would mean a heartless soulless event......like a shotgun marriage but with the priest at the end of the barrel.
Only people with hearts of stone would want to enforce that wouldn't they?
If you want someone whose doing it because they are so contracted....go to a registry office.
-
As I also pointed out there is no such thing as 'same sex marriage'
so people of the same sex do not get married then?
-
so people of the same sex do not get married then?
Quote mining. Whyare so wedded to dishonesty?
-
then to expect someone to do something against their beliefs would mean a heartless soulless event.
Yes but they've changed their minds on so many other things in relation to their religion that it just sounds mean spirited and prejudiced to hold to the old ways on this one particular issue.
It's almost like they are indeed prejudiced against pipe smoking chaps.
-
Yes but they've changed their minds on so many other things in relation to their religion that it just sounds mean spirited and prejudiced to hold to the old ways on this one particular issue.
It's almost like they are indeed prejudiced against pipe smoking chaps.
You mean the pipe smoking chaps for whom until recently gay marriage was not even an issue?
-
You mean the pipe smoking chaps for whom until recently gay marriage was not even an issue?
So when slavery was abolished you would have denigrated Wilberforce for pipe smoking?
-
So when slavery was abolished you would have denigrated Wilberforce for pipe smoking?
Keep up...pipe smoking is a great thing.
-
so people of the same sex do not get married then?
yes they do - it is called marriage and is identical to a opposite sex couple. So if there is no 'opposite sex marriage' then there is no 'same sex marriage'. And that is the case there is only marriage.
-
Well yes. Since the Anglicans stick to that interpretation of marriage then to expect someone to do something against their beliefs would mean a heartless soulless event......like a shotgun marriage but with the priest at the end of the barrel.
Only people with hearts of stone would want to enforce that wouldn't they?
If you want someone whose doing it because they are so contracted....go to a registry office.
I gave up my vocation to the church and walked away from it because I couldn't have been able to act according to my conscience on this issue. Plenty of priests have stuck it out in the hope that one day the church will change its mind and celebrate marriage equality. Some have had to leave at personal cost. Walking away from the church was like walking away from a marriage for me (I know, I've done both).
-
So when slavery was abolished you would have denigrated Wilberforce for pipe smoking?
Campaigning for marriage is like campaigning for slavery....Hasn't anybody told you anything?
-
Campaigning for marriage is like campaigning for slavery....Hasn't anybody told you anything?
lying again, Vlad!
-
I gave up my vocation to the church and walked away from it because I couldn't have been able to act according to my conscience on this issue. Plenty of priests have stuck it out in the hope that one day the church will change its mind and celebrate marriage equality. Some have had to leave at personal cost. Walking away from the church was like walking away from a marriage for me (I know, I've done both).
Well, there are some things in Anglicanism that I like, but in relation to gays and lesbians, there seems to be this moral vileness, which I still find surprising. I know that there are various reasons offered for it, for example, that it's Biblical, or that it's a way of staying connected with the African churches, but really, in the face of the hurt caused to LGBT people, well, the C of E place themselves outside civilized values. What's odd is that they can't see this self-caused damage.
-
lying again, Vlad!
No just making a joke. Keep up, know which way the traffic is going, Brain in gear, engage.
-
No just making a joke. Keep up, know which way the traffic is going, Brain in gear, engage.
you lie so often that's where the traffic godely
-
Trent,
Two words: Britney Spears.
As I'm not one to miss an opportunity for a quirky irrelevance, can I just mention here that, rather pleasingly, "Britney Spears" is an anagram of "presbyterians"?
Thank you.
Oh, and shouldn't we call "gay marriage" by what it actually is - equal marriage? It's helpful too to clarify what its opponents really argue for - ie, unequal marriage.
-
Ok, I really know I shouldn't...
Newsthump has a Julian Clary moment.
http://newsthump.com/2017/02/16/church-of-england-gay-vote-in-chaos-after-members-use-wrong-the-passageway/