More Anglicans support equal marriage than oppose it

[SusanDoris]

However Jesus was never asked about, or commented on, homosexuality or same sex marriage.

How do you know?

[Bubbles]

How do you know?

Because none of it was considered important enough to be written down.

So, as far as we know he didn't comment on it.

[Hope]

It did on women priests. And remarrying divorcees. And endorsing abortion in certain circumstances.

No, it didn't change its mind on the first two 'becase of its members', Rhi.  It changed its mind as a result of a willingness to read the Biblical basis of the faith.  It probably also reflected scholarship that - in the first example - pointed out that women had been involved in church leadership from the get-go, something that seems to have come to an end at about the same time as the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a state religion, though it seems to have been becoming less common for some time prior to that.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1988/issue17/1706.html

Since abortion isn't dealt with in the New Testament and barely in the Old Testament there is less teaching to go on and therefore more interpretation of more general passages is needed.  For me, my opposition to the current legislation is that there is no necessity for partners to discuss the issue with women being able to make their own decision alone.  Clearly, there are many occasions when there is no 'partner', for whatever reason that might be.  It is in these situations where the ethical concerns really cut in, as one needs to take into account the consensuality of the intercourse.  Clearly in the case of rape, there is no argument that a woman ought to be able to abort the foetus (and I take my hat off to those who choose not to); in the case of consensual intercourse where the couple involved should know the potential consequences, I find the ability of both a man and a woman to disregard their respective burdens of responsibility to be a serious black mark against our society.

[ad_orientem]

Because none of it was considered important enough to be written down.

So, as far as we know he didn't comment on it.

Ah! The argument from silence or something similar to it. However, Christ never was silent on the issue because he has spoken through the Church via the Holy Spirit for 2000 years.

[Shaker]

Ah! The argument from silence or something similar to it. However, Christ never was silent on the issue because he has spoken through the Church via the Holy Spirit for 2000 years.

And I have a bridge that you might be interested in.

[Bubbles]

Ah! The argument from silence or something similar to it. However, Christ never was silent on the issue because he has spoken through the Church via the Holy Spirit for 2000 years.

Which church? There are thousands of them, they all say something different and all claim to be led by Jesus.

IMO they make it up to suit themselves, they imagine what he might have said.



There is no reason I should believe your church more than any other, that makes such claims.

[Hope]

There was a Vicar on Five Live last night who kept saying that Jesus could not have made it more clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. No atheist on hand to pull him up on the fact that no direct or written record of any of Jesus's words exists. Also he sounded like a most intolerant, inflexible and humourless man.

Susan, what evidence do you have for asserting that "no direct or written record of any of Jesus's words exists"?  After all, the Gospels purport to be a written record, and no-one has yet provided any evidence to show that they aren't.  If, by 'direct' you mean that there is no extant copy of material written in Jesus' own hand, you would probably have to discount just about every document dated before about 1200 on this argument.  For instance, the earliest extant copy of Caesar's 'Commentarii de Bello Gallico' dates to the turn of the 1st and 2nd millennia - several centuries later than the earliest extant copies of any of the New Testament documents.  Furthermore, many of the Greek and Roman 'teachers', such as Socrates, probably didn't write stuff down themselves either, dictating their material to disciples or having it recorded 'after the event' by those same disciples.

[Shaker]

Susan, what evidence do you have for asserting that "no direct or written record of any of Jesus's words exists"? After all, the Gospels purport to be a written record, and no-one has yet provided any evidence to show that they aren't.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!

[Rhiannon]

No, it didn't change its mind on the first two 'becase of its members', Rhi.  It changed its mind as a result of a willingness to read the Biblical basis of the faith.  It probably also reflected scholarship that - in the first example - pointed out that women had been involved in church leadership from the get-go, something that seems to have come to an end at about the same time as the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a state religion, though it seems to have been becoming less common for some time prior to that.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1988/issue17/1706.html

Since abortion isn't dealt with in the New Testament and barely in the Old Testament there is less teaching to go on and therefore more interpretation of more general passages is needed.  For me, my opposition to the current legislation is that there is no necessity for partners to discuss the issue with women being able to make their own decision alone.  Clearly, there are many occasions when there is no 'partner', for whatever reason that might be.  It is in these situations where the ethical concerns really cut in, as one needs to take into account the consensuality of the intercourse.  Clearly in the case of rape, there is no argument that a woman ought to be able to abort the foetus (and I take my hat off to those who choose not to); in the case of consensual intercourse where the couple involved should know the potential consequences, I find the ability of both a man and a woman to disregard their respective burdens of responsibility to be a serious black mark against our society.

I'm sorry, Hope, but this is disingenuous on your part.

When the Church visited and eventually revised its positions on both female clergy and remarriage of divorcees, it did so because its membership demanded it. Yes, women priests can be justified through Biblical scholarship but so can the prohibition on them. Remarriage of divorcees is even more clear cut in terms of Biblical teaching. But as its membership realised that women would make pretty good priests and remarrying divorcees was actually a humane thing to do, so its position shifted.

This isn't a discussion about abortion so there isn't much there that is relevant, but nevertheless the CofE was opposed to it and revised its position. If it hadn't it's likely we would have had to wait far longer for legal abortion to become available.

[SusanDoris]

Susan, what evidence do you have for asserting that "no direct or written record of any of Jesus's words exists"?  After all, the Gospels purport to be a written record, and no-one has yet provided any evidence to show that they aren't.  If, by 'direct' you mean that there is no extant copy of material written in Jesus' own hand, you would probably have to discount just about every document dated before about 1200 on this argument.  For instance, the earliest extant copy of Caesar's 'Commentarii de Bello Gallico' dates to the turn of the 1st and 2nd millennia - several centuries later than the earliest extant copies of any of the New Testament documents.  Furthermore, many of the Greek and Roman 'teachers', such as Socrates, probably didn't write stuff down themselves either, dictating their material to disciples or having it recorded 'after the event' by those same disciples.

It's that l'il ol' negative proof fallacy again, isn't it?
May I remind you that Socrates is not credited with (a) being a god/supernatural/etc, and (b) starting a religion with or without a god?

[Shaker]

It's that l'il ol' negative proof fallacy again, isn't it?

Well, fancy that 

[Hope]

Which church? There are thousands of them, they all say something different and all claim to be led by Jesus.

The problem is with the English language, Rose.  For us, 'church' can mean a single congregation or a large organisation.

On the other hand, Greek used two words - 'ekklesia' and 'kuriakos'.  Interestingly, in secular usage, 'ekklesia' was used to refer to civic authorities and assemblies (Acts 19 has it used in 3 different verses, to refer to the assembly of craftsmen (v.31/41) and a civil court or council (v.39)

In other words, it means the gathering of people (in our case, followers of Jesus) in a single location.  The early translators, for whatever reason, chose not to differentiate between the umbrella term, kuriakos, and the locational term.

IMO they make it up to suit themselves, they imagine what he might have said.

Do you have eny evidence to back up that assertion?

There is no reason I should believe your church more than any other, that makes such claims.

Realistically, there is.  It will depend on whether what this or that 'ekklesia' is teaching actually reflects what Jesus taught.

[Rhiannon]

Which church? There are thousands of them, they all say something different and all claim to be led by Jesus.

IMO they make it up to suit themselves, they imagine what he might have said.



There is no reason I should believe your church more than any other, that makes such claims.

Here's what the Unitarians stand for.

https://www.unitarian.org.uk/pages/what-we-stand

[Hope]

It's that l'il ol' negative proof fallacy again, isn't it?

No, its simply asking for evidence in support of an assertion.  I realise that you and Shaker like to use the claim, because it - in your minds - exempts you from having to actually answer the question.

May I remind you that Socrates is not credited with (a) being a god/supernatural/etc, and (b) starting a religion with or without a god?

And of what relevance is that to the debate?  Are you saying that when you refer to 'direct' you aren't referring to material written in Jesus' own hand?  Dictation was something that was quite common in those days, and in these days of computers and printed documents, we are probably getting close to the same issue, as we seldom have any public evidence as to who has written a political speech, or even a scientific treatise.  After all, it is very easy to put someone else's name on a document if it will give it more clout, or put your own name on a document that has largely been researched and/or developed by an intern or student. 

[Aruntraveller]

Dictation was something that was quite common in those days, and in these days of computers and printed documents, we are probably getting close to the same issue, as we seldom have any public evidence as to who has written a political speech, or even a scientific treatise.  After all, it is very easy to put someone else's name on a document if it will give it more clout, or put your own name on a document that has largely been researched and/or developed by an intern or student. 

I don't quite know why you are trying to undermine your own argument.

[Outrider]

No, its simply asking for evidence in support of an assertion.  I realise that you and Shaker like to use the claim, because it - in your minds - exempts you from having to actually answer the question.

No, the assertion is that the New Testament is in some way a reliable account of actual events. Until and unless you and yours have provided sufficient evidence to support that (hint: you haven't done that yet) it can be dismissed as merely an assertion.

O.

[Shaker]

No, its simply asking for evidence in support of an assertion.  I realise that you and Shaker like to use the claim, because it - in your minds - exempts you from having to actually answer the question.

Try not to show yourself up to be an even bigger clown than you already are. In #31 you wrote:

... the Gospels purport to be a written record, and no-one has yet provided any evidence to show that they aren't.

and that is an absolutely textbook example of the negative proof fallacy. You could scarcely construct a clearer or more obvious example of it than that. Either you are still unaware of this even now, having been told more times than I can remember by several different posters, or seemingly like Alan Burns you simply don't give a shit. It's either some sort of mental blockage you have which means you're unable to process being corrected on this failure of reasoning on your part, or it's sheer apathy. Perhaps it's a bruised ego at your reasoning capabilities being shown up so often as defective, or you're just not bothered about presenting a coherent argument. Either way, it's the negative proof fallacy. It was the negative proof fallacy the first time you used it, it has been the negative proof fallacy every one of the uncountable times you've used it ever since and it'll remain the negative proof fallacy every time you use it in future, as you will for either one of the two potential reasons just outlined. Your bleating and whining can't and won't change that.

[ad_orientem]

Which church? There are thousands of them, they all say something different and all claim to be led by Jesus.

IMO they make it up to suit themselves, they imagine what he might have said.



There is no reason I should believe your church more than any other, that makes such claims.

It's quite easy once you know how and where to look. For a start you can discard Protestantism and all its various offshoots, including the one founded by a drunken German monk and the other founded by a randy English king, for they were not there from the beginning.

[Shaker]

It's quite easy once you know how and where to look.

It doesn't seem to be that easy considering that some people skip from one to another and then another more often than they change their socks. And of course, every one of them is the one true church and the absolute truth.

Until the next one.

[Hope]

I'm sorry, Hope, but this is disingenuous on your part.

When the Church visited and eventually revised its positions on both female clergy and remarriage of divorcees, it did so because its membership demanded it.

Rhi, my father and many other Anglican clergy were arguing for women's ordination long before the people in the pews began to push for it; ironically, just about every vote on it over the years was lost on account of the House of Laity's failure to support it.  One only has to look at the votes cast in the debate in 2012(?) where the Houses of Bishops and Clergy supported the motion and the House of Laity voted against it by, iirc, 3 votes.

Yes, women priests can be justified through Biblical scholarship but so can the prohibition on them.

There is nothing specific in the New Testament to support prohibition.  True, there is Paul's personal opinion that women oughtn't to be in leadership in a couple of specific places - remember that all his material was written to specific congregations and their specific contexts, and only later were they passed around to other congregations who would probably not have had exactly the same contextual issues.  That is why Pauline teaching has to be read in the light of Jesus' teaching and not the other way round.

Remarriage of divorcees is even more clear cut in terms of Biblical teaching. But as its membership realised that women would make pretty good priests and remarrying divorcees was actually a humane thing to do, so its position shifted.

Again, the issue of remarriage of divrcees was an issue of debate within the hierarchy of the church long before it became an issue with the laity.  As I noted before, the change in both these topics came to the fore as a result of scholarly study long before they became common discussion points amongst the laity.

This isn't a discussion about abortion so there isn't much there that is relevant, but nevertheless the CofE was opposed to it and revised its position. If it hadn't it's likely we would have had to wait far longer for legal abortion to become available.

Without trying to extend the debate, I remember my father - in a debate he initiated after a Sunday lunch (something he did on a regular basis when I was a child and then a teenager) - pointed out that the problem the Church hierarchy seemed to have was that the legislation originally failed to discriminate between 'no-responsibility' pregnancy (on the woman's part) - as in rape, etc. - and pregnancy where the woman was as responsible as the man.  They felt that this was a false amalgamation of ideas.

[Rhiannon]

It's quite easy once you know how and where to look. For a start you can discard Protestantism and all its various offshoots, including the one founded by a drunken German monk and the other founded by a randy English king, for they were not there from the beginning.

I'm sure St Peter was there at the beginning of the story.

[Outrider]

I'm sure St Peter was there at the beginning of the story.

As I recall, "In the beginning was The Word"...

... so Terry Christian, Katie Puckrick, Mark Lamarr and Amanda de Cadenet, surely?

O.

[ad_orientem]

I'm sure St Peter was there at the beginning of the story.

Aye! What's your point?

[Shaker]

As I recall, "In the beginning was The Word"...

... so Terry Christian, Katie Puckrick, Mark Lamarr and Amanda de Cadenet, surely?

O.

You forgot the fragrant Dani Behr ...

[Rhiannon]

Rhi, my father and many other Anglican clergy were arguing for women's ordination long before the people in the pews began to push for it; ironically, just about every vote on it over the years was lost on account of the House of Laity's failure to support it.  One only has to look at the votes cast in the debate in 2012(?) where the Houses of Bishops and Clergy supported the motion and the House of Laity voted against it by, iirc, 3 votes.
There is nothing specific in the New Testament to support prohibition.  True, there is Paul's personal opinion that women oughtn't to be in leadership in a couple of specific places - remember that all his material was written to specific congregations and their specific contexts, and only later were they passed around to other congregations who would probably not have had exactly the same contextual issues.  That is why Pauline teaching has to be read in the light of Jesus' teaching and not the other way round.
Again, the issue of remarriage of divrcees was an issue of debate within the hierarchy of the church long before it became an issue with the laity.  As I noted before, the change in both these topics came to the fore as a result of scholarly study long before they became common discussion points amongst the laity.
Without trying to extend the debate, I remember my father - in a debate he initiated after a Sunday lunch (something he did on a regular basis when I was a child and then a teenager) - pointed out that the problem the Church hierarchy seemed to have was that the legislation originally failed to discriminate between 'no-responsibility' pregnancy (on the woman's part) - as in rape, etc. - and pregnancy where the woman was as responsible as the man.  They felt that this was a false amalgamation of ideas.

Oh for goodness sake, Hope! Where did those women who wanted to be priests come from except the laity? It had to be the clergy that argued in their behalf but only once enough women stood up to be counted.

The same thing with remarriage and divorce - demand led to supply. The church doesn't waste it's time looking at issues unless it has to.

The problem that The CofE as a whole had finally with abortion was that unwittingly they gave the green light to universal abortion rights. Thank goodness that they did so, although some believe it is the memory of this that holds the church back from endorsing limited access to euthanasia.