Anglicans exclude the US Episcopalians over gay bishops

[ProfessorDavey]

Why would any LGBT person be an Anglican after this?

As much as they are a bunch of lily livered moral cowards who will undoubtedly rue this day as a shameful moment when they failed to grasp the moral high ground and sided with the wrong side, at least they are discussing it.

Don't forget that many other christian churches - catholic, orthodox, many of the evangelical churches aren't even prepared to have the debate, so mired in immoral dogma that they can't even recognise a moral wrong if it slapped them around the face.

[Rhiannon]

The terrible thing is that they are discussing it because they used to be more tolerant, not less.

[Hope]

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.

Oddly enough, Rhi, the Church of England and many other denominations regard a variety of relationships and other behaviours to be wrong, and tell them this.  it doesn't mean that they feel excluded.  I wonder whether the feeling that homosexuals claim to have is actually a guilty conscience.

[Owlswing]

Yes, individual churches can be good - my old pp was a master of tolerance - but he still had to swear obedience to his bishop, including on the gay issue. When I joined the church in my early twenties it was known to accommodate all - the 'broad church' - and it was known that if you wanted to get a gay relationship blessed certain priests would do it - indeed certain priests had their own relationships blessed. The Jeffrey John debacle changed the church into a conservative shell in which the fear of loss of power (which is why Canterbury ties itself in knots to please Africa) matters more than justice, equality and love.

Very close to where my cousin lives in the South West there were two churches about five miles apart - when the support or condemn gays argy-bargey started the congregations of the two churches just did a swop - thgose from the "no gays" church swapped with the "no gays" from the "gays are OK" church and peace still reigns there. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Oddly enough, Rhi, the Church of England and many other denominations regard a variety of relationships and other behaviours to be wrong, and tell them this.  it doesn't mean that they feel excluded.

I think that is for the people who are the target of the 'telling off about their relationships' to say whether they feel excluded or not, not the church nor you or I. Wouldn't you agree Hope.

[Shaker]

Oddly enough, Rhi, the Church of England and many other denominations regard a variety of relationships and other behaviours to be wrong, and tell them this.  it doesn't mean that they feel excluded.  I wonder whether the feeling that homosexuals claim to have is actually a guilty conscience.

No. More like a dislike of twattishness, one that I certainly share.

[Owlswing]

Oddly enough, Rhi, the Church of England and many other denominations regard a variety of relationships and other behaviours to be wrong, and tell them this.  it doesn't mean that they feel excluded.  I wonder whether the feeling that homosexuals claim to have is actually a guilty conscience.

Sarcasm does not become you but it is to be expected from you.

I think it is the Anglicans that are suffering the guilty consciences.

[Rhiannon]

Oddly enough, Rhi, the Church of England and many other denominations regard a variety of relationships and other behaviours to be wrong, and tell them this.  it doesn't mean that they feel excluded.  I wonder whether the feeling that homosexuals claim to have is actually a guilty conscience.

Bullshit, and you know it.

The guilt exists only in the slime you've allowed to accumulate around your beliefs about homosexuality. I know you are incapable if feeling it but the guilt lies wholly with you and those who think like you.

[ProfessorDavey]

Very close to where my cousin lives in the South West there were two churches about five miles apart - when the support or condemn gays argy-bargey started the congregations of the two churches just did a swop - thgose from the "no gays" church swapped with the "no gays" from the "gays are OK" church and peace still reigns there.

But isn't that a bit of a cop out - the same muddled approach that suggests that women Bishops are fine, but it is also fine for individual parishioners to demand not to be under the authority of a woman bishop.

You either believe in equality or you don't - kind of claiming you do while putting in place practices which suggest exactly the opposite really won't do.

[Rhiannon]

But isn't that a bit of a cop out - the same muddled approach that suggests that women Bishops are fine, but it is also fine for individual parishioners to demand not to be under the authority of a woman bishop.

You either believe in equality or you don't - kind of claiming you do while putting in place practices which suggest exactly the opposite really won't do.

Historically fudging was what Anglicanism was good at - it meant all could find a home there. Not any more.

[Owlswing]

But isn't that a bit of a cop out - the same muddled approach that suggests that women Bishops are fine, but it is also fine for individual parishioners to demand not to be under the authority of a woman bishop.

You either believe in equality or you don't - kind of claiming you do while putting in place practices which suggest exactly the opposite really won't do.

Yeah, but they are at peace within their groups but disgree between their parishes.

[Gordon]

I wonder whether the feeling that homosexuals claim to have is actually a guilty conscience.

I'm trying to work out if you are being deliberately offensive, or does it come naturally to you and your Christian compatriots!

[ProfessorDavey]

I wonder whether the feeling that homosexuals claim to have is actually a guilty conscience.

Guilty conscience about what Hope?!?

That's a bit like suggesting that in places where christians are discriminated against that their claims of feeling excluded by those societies represents a guilty conscience as they really know that christianity is actually wrong.

Is that what you think about christians objecting about being subject to discrimination in, for example, china Hope.

[OH MY WORLD!]

There goes Davey on his "moral train". Choo, choo!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVQJuswq8IA

[wigginhall]

I know some Piskies who wish they would just get kicked out, so they could stop discussing it.  In the US, it is settled, gay people can get married, the TEC ordains and marries gay people, so why don't the other Anglicans leave them alone to get on with it.   They are being asked to conform to others' cultural norms!

[Rhiannon]

There goes Davey on his "moral train". Choo, choo!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVQJuswq8IA

At least he understands what morality is.

[Hope]

As much as they are a bunch of lily livered moral cowards who will undoubtedly rue this day as a shameful moment when they failed to grasp the moral high ground and sided with the wrong side, at least they are discussing it.

Don't forget that many other christian churches - catholic, orthodox, many of the evangelical churches aren't even prepared to have the debate, so mired in immoral dogma that they can't even recognise a moral wrong if it slapped them around the face.

PD, most denominations have been having debates on this issue for almost as long as I've been alive; certainly long before it became a hot topic within society as a whole.  For some it went hand-in-hand with debates about cohabitation; for others it has been a stand-alone issue.

Following the government's decision to redefine the meaning of the word marriage, every denomination has had to debate the issue.   Each has been required to come to a decision as to their position in regards to the new legislation and whether or not they would hold gay weddings.  In some cases, where the denomination isn't run by a central board, as is the case with Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism and Methodism, each congregation has been asked to debate it themselves.  I suspect that not every single congregation did, but many such congregations I know of, did.

I'm not sure that the church will ever rue grasping the moral high ground and standing strong on this particular issue.

[Hope]

At least he understands what morality is.

No, he understands what he understands morality to be.

[Hope]

I know some Piskies who wish they would just get kicked out, so they could stop discussing it.  In the US, it is settled, gay people can get married, the TEC ordains and marries gay people, so why don't the other Anglicans leave them alone to get on with it.   They are being asked to conform to others' cultural norms!

The problem is somewhat more complex than that, wiggs.  The ECUSA what to remain within the communion so as to continue to have some influence on decisions the whole makes.

[Rhiannon]

PD, most denominations have been having debates on this issue for almost as long as I've been alive; certainly long before it became a hot topic within society as a whole.  For some it went hand-in-hand with debates about cohabitation; for others it has been a stand-alone issue.

Following the government's decision to redefine the meaning of the word marriage, every denomination has had to debate the issue.   Each has been required to come to a decision as to their position in regards to the new legislation and whether or not they would hold gay weddings.  In some cases, where the denomination isn't run by a central board, as is the case with Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism and Methodism, each congregation has been asked to debate it themselves.  I suspect that not every single congregation did, but many such congregations I know of, did.

I'm not sure that the church will ever rue grasping the moral high ground and standing strong on this particular issue.

If the church thinks that the moral high ground is where it resides it is deluded in its arrogance.

[Hope]

Sarcasm does not become you but it is to be expected from you.

I think it is the Anglicans that are suffering the guilty consciences.

What sarcasm, Matt?  As for the guilty feelings, why don't others who are told that what they are doing is unscriptural make the same fuss?

[wigginhall]

Dearie me, that 'moral high ground' phrase is beginning to look a bit thin.  In fact, it looks like the man who had so many holes in this clothes that people couldn't see them.

[Shaker]

I'm not sure that the church will ever rue grasping the moral high ground and standing strong on this particular issue.

The church couldn't grasp the moral high ground with a compass, an Ordnance Survey map and stout walking boots.

I agree that they won't rue being left by the side of the road - as the latest set of attendance figures released just a few days ago demonstrates, no doubt they'll enjoy the splendid isolation of being a gaggle of utterly irrelevant chuckleheads with a power base of fewer and fewer and fewer by the year.

[ProfessorDavey]

Following the government's decision to redefine the meaning of the word marriage

Government hasn't redefined 'the meaning of the word marriage' it has simply extended the scope of couples who are able to get married.

And even if it had done (which it hasn't) it is perfectly entitled so to do as marriage is, and always has been, a legal concept and in a civil context it is government who are custodians of changes to the law, and legal definitions.

And it's not just for civil marriage that is fundamentally a legal concept, it is to in religious marriage too. Even had an 'official' chat with a canon lawyer about the canon law that defines marriage within a christian church - nope, well I have.

[Hope]

If the church thinks that the moral high ground is where it resides it is deluded in its arrogance.

No more arrogant than the likes of PD, yourself and several others here who believe that the moral high ground is where you reside, Rhi.  I'll accept that the situational moral high ground may be where you reside, but then, it could shift its location at any time.  Will you shift your moral stance to match any such a shift, or will you have the guts to hold out for what you believe to be right?