Anglicans exclude the US Episcopalians over gay bishops

[ad_orientem]

That's the sum total of your thoughts for people murdered because they are gay - or even because they are suspected of being gay.

As I say, decent and humane.

Who said I condoned murder? But this just shows the weakness of your arguments, that you associate condemnation of homosexusl acts with mudering homosexuals. Maybe I should start equating homosexuality with paedophilia.

[Aruntraveller]

I know there are gay Anglicans....The question is can axe grinding antitheists and antichristian pagans be friends with Anglicans? After all they can hardly be said to extend the hand of friendship around here.

Well this gay atheist is friends with some gay Anglicans and many more heterosexual ones.

I'm not sure where I fall on the Vlad continuum when it comes to all the axe grinding paganism - although in the past I have come across grinding pagans but that is perhaps another story.

[Aruntraveller]

Who said I condoned murder? But this just shows the weakness of your arguments, that you associate condemnation of homosexusl acts with mudering homosexuals. Maybe I should start equating homosexuality with paedophilia.

So you categorically condemn the archbishops in Africa who are currently supporting the laws that are leading to the murder of gay (and other "mistaken for gay") people?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whenever will you spend a little time to study what secularism's all about Vlad?   

You still haven't got it, why do you think secularists want to stop anyone having and practicing their chosen religion? When you find out why, could you let me know how and why we want to do this only I know a lot of secularists and I don't know any Stalinists.

ippy

I'm not talking about secularism Ippy but secular humanism. It is because you insist on them being the same as each other that leaves the way open for a nasty bit of antitheism to pollute the mix. Thus secularists begin to think of secular humanism as having the superior moral view, rather than being prepared to be informed by people of religion. In that respect a secular humanist society ends up with as many ayatollahs or inquisitors or witchfinder generals as any theocracy................

[Rhiannon]

- although in the past I have come across grinding pagans but that is perhaps another story.

 

[Gordon]

Thus secularists begin to think of secular humanism as having the superior moral view, rather than being prepared to be informed by people of religion.

Just how are these 'people of religion' more qualified than, say, someone who isn't a person of religion?

[Bubbles]

Just because Rhiannon has a bunny avatar 

Oops! The grinding pagans bit didn't come out 

[Rhiannon]

Just because Rhiannon has a bunny avatar 

Oops! The grinding pagans bit didn't come out 

That's a shocking thing to say.

Clearly it's a hare.

[Bubbles]

That's a shocking thing to say.

Clearly it's a hare.

Oops! Sorry 

🌹

[Bubbles]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/15/justin-welby-says-sorry-to-lgbti-community-for-hurt-caused-by-church

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sorry but as many here are a forum antitheist I have to suspect  motives.
A recently created moral issue/concern such as should the definition of marriage be changed has no obvious right to be considered a moral claim does it....Antitheists have yet to demonstrate it is more than a disingenuous antitheist ruse to knock the church and to demonstrate that their new found ''gay Anglican friends'' are not in fact imaginary.

Well frankly I can't make head nor tail of the bulk of this post. Are you trying to say something in which case perhaps some clearer English would help.

But on the final bit.

Well my gay Anglican friends aren't new found - there is one couple in particular I have been friends with for nigh on 10 years. Both very active Anglicans - first in a civil partnership then got married last summer.

I must admit I'm never talked to them directly about the conflict between the official views of their religion and their personal views. I know from many of their 'shares' and 'posts' on Facebook that there is a considerable conflict and I can't imagine how difficult it must be to be openly gay and a member of an organisation that so clearly doesn't want you to have full equality with heterosexual people. Must be very hard.

[ProfessorDavey]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/15/justin-welby-says-sorry-to-lgbti-community-for-hurt-caused-by-church

You shall be judged by your deeds not your words. I hardly think a few mealy mouthed words are going to counter the deeds - namely sidelining the US episcopal church with its more enlightened views and shacking up with the African churches with their hard line bigotry.

Sad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just how are these 'people of religion' more qualified than, say, someone who isn't a person of religion?

Why do you think they are not qualified at all?

How can someone who believes the prime motivation for human existence is Darwinian not become a social Darwinian,
or a materialist avoid the descent into acquisitive materialism?

[Rhiannon]

You shall be judged by your deeds not your words. I hardly think a few mealy mouthed words are going to counter the deeds - namely sidelining the US episcopal church with its more enlightened views and shacking up with the African churches with their hard line bigotry.

Sad.

This all started with Rowan Williams selling out Jeffrey John in order to maintain the Anglican  Communion. As soon as that happened the African bishops knew they were in the ascendency.

I didn't understand what Williams did then, and I still don't.

[Shaker]

Who said I condoned murder? But this just shows the weakness of your arguments, that you associate condemnation of homosexusl acts with mudering homosexuals. Maybe I should start equating homosexuality with paedophilia.

Nobody would be surprised.

[Shaker]

How can someone who believes the prime motivation for human existence is Darwinian not become a social Darwinian

Can you point to anybody who actually believes this? No, you can't, because you're committing the howling category error of mistaking a fact (human existence comes about through a biochemical process that some rather behind-the-times people call Darwinian) for a belief about the purpose of individual lives. The is of human biological evolution does not lead to any ought. Which is not to say that beliefs about the latter are not held, because they are, but on the whole anybody who ties a belief system to evolutionary biology tends not to understand evolution very well (or at all); rather that such stances are chosen for quite different reasons, not because there's a line from evolution to them. There isn't. You can't get there from here.

or a materialist avoid the descent into acquisitive materialism?

Aaaaaaaaaaand there we go again - conflating a philosophical view (matter-energy is all there is) with a behaviour built upon entirely different foundations.

Speaking of acquisitive materialism, have you ever seen the Vatican?

0/10.

[Shaker]

This all started with Rowan Williams selling out Jeffrey John in order to maintain the Anglican  Communion. As soon as that happened the African bishops knew they were in the ascendency.

I didn't understand what Williams did then, and I still don't.

He was an honourable, decent but torn man backed into a corner, I think, and chose the unity-at-any-price route. It was a principled decision, but a temporising and a short-sighted one that - perhaps deliberately, perhaps not - averted its eyes from what seemed to be looming on the horizon.

[Rhiannon]

He was an honourable, decent but torn man backed into a corner, I think, and chose the unity-at-any-price route.

And that exactly why I don't understand - because he is a very decent man - better than the church deserved.

[ad_orientem]

Nobody would be surprised.

I stopped taking you seriously long ago.

[Shaker]

I stopped taking you seriously long ago.

I'm gutted.

Oh, wait, no I'm not.

[Rhiannon]

I stopped taking you seriously long ago.

I still think you're a bigot.

[Shaker]

I still think you're a bigot.

You should get him on Jews and Judaism, your eyebrows will be on the back of your head.

[ad_orientem]

So you categorically condemn the archbishops in Africa who are currently supporting the laws that are leading to the murder of gay (and other "mistaken for gay") people?

You've come to a false conclusion again. I don't believe in the death penalty. Apart from that, laws don't cause people to attack gays.

[Shaker]

And that exactly why I don't understand - because he is a very decent man - better than the church deserved.

Fully agree. But as the big cheese at the time he saw no other option than to maintain overall unity at the expense of - let's be blunt - decency and morality, knowing how much clout Africa has.

[Shaker]

You've come to a false conclusion again. I don't believe in the death penalty. Apart from that, laws don't cause people to attack gays.

The laws stem from the climate of bigotry and prejudice rather than vice versa. The one feeds into and gives rise to the other. In a social climate where it's seen as legitimate and permissible and even praiseworthy to attack gay people both verbally and literally/physically in the vilest of ways, how difficult do you think it is to pass laws denying them their civil and human rights? Look up 'Nuremburg Laws.' (Yes, yes, I know about Godwin ...).