Anglicans exclude the US Episcopalians over gay bishops

[Owlswing]

Sorry Matt, which era would that be?  As far as I'm aware, the era we are in is 'Anno Domine'; in other words, the era of Christ.  As Christ taught, his teachings are for all humanity and for all time.

So you consider that because it is "Anno Domini" all religions except Christianity are to kow-tow to what Christianity says?

"Anno Domini" is just a way of designating a period o time, nothing more. 

Get this and get it good - Christians are rapidly becoming a world-wide minority and views like yours are acceleratring its decline.

[Owlswing]

Oy maybe you should just sod off! The faith is still kept in some places, but not in the Anglican communion.

Your comments are contradictory to your avatar which shows two men kissing!

[Owlswing]

Then they should be applauded.

Hear! Hear!

[Hope]

It's also worth noting that the thread title is actually incorrect.  ECUSA has not been excluded, but barred from Anglican decision-making bodies for a period of 3 years (http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/01/statement-from-primates-2016.aspx - see Para 7).  Furthermore, it has not been barred on the grounds of gay bishops - there are gay bishops within the Church of England and several other Anglican Provinces.  The meeting had been called to debate the Anglican approach to  the on-going issue of gay marriage and the meeting stated that changes in ECUSA's Canon on marriage 'represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage. Possible developments in other Provinces could further exacerbate this situation.' (Para 2 from the website referred to above)

[Hope]

Your comments are contradictory to your avatar which shows two men kissing!

And two men kissing doesn't automatically mean that they are homosexual, Matt.  Kissing like this is often cultually normal - both male/male and female/female.

[ad_orientem]

Your comments are contradictory to your avatar which shows two men kissing!

Not at all. The Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul greeting each other with a holy kiss, the two apostles who were spiritual brothers a d preached the gospel in Rome together.

[Owlswing]

It's also worth noting that the thread title is actually incorrect.  ECUSA has not been excluded, but barred from Anglican decision-making bodies for a period of 3 years (http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/01/statement-from-primates-2016.aspx - see Para 7).  Furthermore, it has not been barred on the grounds of gay bishops - there are gay bishops within the Church of England and several other Anglican Provinces.  The meeting had been called to debate the Anglican approach to  the on-going issue of gay marriage and the meeting stated that changes in ECUSA's Canon on marriage 'represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage. Possible developments in other Provinces could further exacerbate this situation.' (Para 2 from the website referred to above)

This does not justify the Anglican homophobia it merely reinforces its attachment to it.

[Owlswing]

Not at all. The Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul greeting each other with a holy kiss, the two apostles who were spiritual brothers a d preached the gospel in Rome together.

So it is OK for two men to have a snog as long as it is between two saints? As long as the snog is holy (small "h" I notice!).

Two men wearing dresses!

[ippy]

No small wonder that virtually 50% of the UK doesn't have anything to do with religions, faiths nor any of these kind of beliefs, they're so pointless all of them, hurry up and die all of them, these pathetic beliefs.

It's the business of the so called gay people no one else, why does anybody want to know about other normal peaceable people in this way, why this need to categorise people that are happy living their lives in their own peaceable way/

ippy 

 

[Rhiannon]

It's also worth noting that the thread title is actually incorrect.  ECUSA has not been excluded, but barred from Anglican decision-making bodies for a period of 3 years (http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/01/statement-from-primates-2016.aspx - see Para 7).  Furthermore, it has not been barred on the grounds of gay bishops - there are gay bishops within the Church of England and several other Anglican Provinces.  The meeting had been called to debate the Anglican approach to  the on-going issue of gay marriage and the meeting stated that changes in ECUSA's Canon on marriage 'represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage. Possible developments in other Provinces could further exacerbate this situation.' (Para 2 from the website referred to above)

No it isn't incorrect. 'Excluded' and 'barred' mean the same thing; the title box doesn't allow room for explaining what they have been excluded from but the link given does.

[Shaker]

Sorry, Gordon, there is homophobia and a belief that same-sex relationships are wrong, perhaps even bad for society.

On what basis? There are innumerable same-sex relationships and have been since ... well, since for ever for all practical intents and purposes so if they're "bad for society" there should be evidence for this assertion. What/where is it?

Is it hiding with the "good reasons" why "homosexuality has been viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures" for which you allegedly had two A4 pages of notes, supposedly written up and posted by you but which nobody else can ever remember seeing and can't be found in a search?

[Hope]

So you consider that because it is "Anno Domini" all religions except Christianity are to kow-tow to what Christianity says?

Never said anything about anyone kow-towing to anyone else; just pointing out that Christ's teachings are for all humanity and for all time.

Get this and get it good - Christians are rapidly becoming a world-wide minority and views like yours are acceleratring its decline.

Oddly enough, Matt, Christianity remains the largest global religion - something like 30% of the population.  Unaffiliated, which includes secular/non-religious/agnostics/atheists are about 17%.  Neo-Pagans make up about 0.01%  (2012 figures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations).  As for "views like yours are acceleratring its decline", the figures from Christian sources suggest that it is the evangelical views that I can be said to hold which are slowing the decline of Christianity in Europe.

[Shaker]

Oddly enough, Matt, Christianity remains the largest global religion - something like 30% of the population.  Unaffiliated, which includes secular/non-religious/agnostics/atheists are about 17%.  Neo-Pagans make up about 0.01%  (2012 figures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations).  As for "views like yours are acceleratring its decline", the figures from Christian sources suggest that it is the evangelical views that I can be said to hold which are slowing the decline of Christianity in Europe.

You do realise, of course, that absolutely none of this in any way contradicts Owly's statement?

[Hope]

No it isn't incorrect. 'Excluded' and 'barred' mean the same thing; the title box doesn't allow room for explaining what they have been excluded from but the link given does.

To exclude someone is to stop them being invcolved in anything to do with an organisation; barring is generally used to refer to partial exclusions.  As for the link given, it makes several mistakes, when one looks at the actual statement on the Anglican Communion website that I've linked to.

[Hope]

You do realise, of course, that absolutely none of this in any way contradicts Owly's statement?

Well, if you want to regard figures that pretty well diametrically oppose Matt's statement as non-contradictory, that's up to you. 

[Shaker]

Well, if you want to regard figures that pretty well diametrically oppose Matt's statement as non-contradictory, that's up to you.

Which figures?

[Rhiannon]

To exclude someone is to stop them being invcolved in anything to do with an organisation; barring is generally used to refer to partial exclusions.  As for the link given, it makes several mistakes, when one looks at the actual statement on the Anglican Communion website that I've linked to.

If I'm barred from a pub that doesn't mean I'm allowed in to play pool. Stop the smoke and mirrors - we can all see through it.

[Hope]

This does not justify the Anglican homophobia it merely reinforces its attachment to it.

Rather than reinforcing an attachment to homophobia, it reinforces the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.  If that's homophobia, then you seem to be adding yet another meaning to the existing diversity of meanings of the term.

Much is made about the deep pain that the issue has caused, but interestingly, the media (and some folk here) seem only to deal with the pain caused to those who feeel that homosexuality is acceptable, ignoring the pain caused to others, quite possibly a majority, who hold different beliefs.

[Hope]

Which figures?

The wikipedia figures I quoted.

[Gordon]

Never said anything about anyone kow-towing to anyone else; just pointing out that Christ's teachings are for all humanity and for all time.

So you keep asserting, which is as I said earlier is grandiose presumption on your (and Christianity's) part: and wrong since Christianity doesn't speak for me (and no doubt others too).

I don't want to be considered a member of your club even by default, and nor does your club have any claim over me.

[Shaker]

The wikipedia figures I quoted.

... and which don't actually refute Owly's statement.

Oh dear. I see I'm going to have to hold your hold and walk you through this one, one baby step at a time

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely this sorry shower deserves to be in its death throes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35318392

What a wasted opportunity.

It should have been the other way around - to embrace fairness and equality (and the US Episcopal Church who are taking a lead in this respect) and to exclude those parts of the Anglican communion that refuse to accept that people should be treated equally regardless of their sexuality.

Here was an opportunity for the Anglican leadership to show some moral leadership - they have failed abysmally. History will not look kindly on this shameful moment.

[Rhiannon]

Rather than reinforcing an attachment to homophobia, it reinforces the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.  If that's homophobia, then you seem to be adding yet another meaning to the existing diversity of meanings of the term.

Much is made about the deep pain that the issue has caused, but interestingly, the media (and some folk here) seem only to deal with the pain caused to those who feeel that homosexuality is acceptable, ignoring the pain caused to others, quite possibly a majority, who hold different beliefs.

Bollocks. Nobody is telling you that your relationship is a sin and will exclude you from both the church and from God. That this has come as a result of 'prayer' is nauseating in the extreme, but let's face it, it gives the self-righteous a lovely puffed- up 'doing God's will' moment to get off on.

[Shaker]

Much is made about the deep pain that the issue has caused, but interestingly, the media (and some folk here) seem only to deal with the pain caused to those who feeel that homosexuality is acceptable, ignoring the pain caused to others, quite possibly a majority, who hold different beliefs.

A majority of which group? Not this society in general as there was stonking majority support for equal marriage.

To be honest, if a few swivel-eyed cranks want to bleat and bitch and whine about supposedly feeling "pain" because an inclusive and tolerant measure is made law, going against their petty, narrow-minded and very definitely wrong-side-of-society-culture-and-history idiot beliefs, bollocks to them. It's only the high-pitched whine of a small child who didn't get its way, after all.

[wigginhall]

It looks as if they have caved in to the African churches, who may have been threatening to split, unless the US church was suspended.   Some of these African churches seem to support imprisonment for gays, and it makes me wonder how much further this might go - over women priests, for example, or divorced people.   The African tail is wagging the dog - and the conservatives are winning.