Archbishop Welby's statement

[Hope]

It wasn't that long ago that society would have demanded his resignation as a result of this. Isn't it a good thing that society has moved on, Hope?

Society might have required his resignation; not sure that the church would have - after all, its not his fault that he's illegitimate.  So, yes, good that society has caught up with the church in this instance.

[Hope]

I can see why it's a big deal for him, but does it really justify the headlines it is getting?

No, that's the point.  It was the media who brought the issue to his and our attention in the first place - and for what purpose?

[Hope]

Also the man is the top guy in a large religious organisation but he has a flawed past, he is human just like you and me.

He has admitted to having a flawed past - but he did that long before this news broke.  What flaw has it exposd?

But ( always a but ) compare this to the other headline we all have read about, Mr Cameron is a dirty tax avoiding swindler, but then again, he is only human, a lying cheating tax avoiding human, but ( three buts, should be a law against it ) that is only my human opinion.

Interestingly, Gonners, he has done nothing that the law doesn't allow him to do and the broadsheet financial pages encourage us all to do if we have the money to do it with.

[Hope]

Damaging to society, apparently.

Not that he's ever scrupled to state exactly why he thinks this is the case, of course ...

I have explained in detail why I believe this - but since I was suspended for a week (iirc) for doing so some years back, I'm not going to repeat what I said.

[Brownie]

Gossip and scandalmongering from the press, whatever next?
However this thread has thrown up a point, ie that there was great stigma attached to illegitimacy in the not too distant past.  Even if children were later legitimised, for example by adoption, there were many who looked down on them.

The Church (any branch), certainly should not have done so but in practice it did, eg some clergy would not baptise a baby who was illegitimate.  Of course we know that wouldn't have affected the child in any way but it was horrible to be singled out like that.  That was something that changed before people's attitudes changed.

I remember a congregation of nuns with whom I was familiar at one time, who did quite a lot of social work, who would not permit someone to join their community and become a nun if they were not born legitimately.  Almost unbelievable, most of the nuns thought so too but the rules were the rules.

When I was growing up, a child who was adopted was looked at a bit sideways by many adults - including teachers - as if there was something shoddy about them.  If they did anything wrong it was always the fault of their birth mother (something 'born in them'), and they were expected to be grateful for having a good home, something every child is entitled to.

I've seen attitudes change drastically and rejoice in it.
-----------------------------------

Thread has moved on to David Cameron.  I can't see that he has done anything wrong, frankly.  I really like Corbyn but was sorry to see and hear him, last night on the news, putting his oar in.  He'd have done better to be above all of it and say nothing.  Until proved otherwise, Cameron is 'not guilty' in my view.

[SusanDoris]

I don't disagree at all, but this whole thing has been a media concoction from the word go - apparently the Torygraph approached Welby after carrying out research into his family background.

Why, goodness only knows.

Apparently (according to a news item - can't remember which paper) his half-sister  had thought  for some time That AofC was the image of her father.

[floo]

Apparently (according to a news item - can't remember which paper) his half-sister  had thought  for some time That AofC was the image of her father.

There does appear to be a resemblance.

[Hope]

Thread has moved on to David Cameron.  I can't see that he has done anything wrong, frankly.  I really like Corbyn but was sorry to see and hear him, last night on the news, putting his oar in.  He'd have done better to be above all of it and say nothing.  Until proved otherwise, Cameron is 'not guilty' in my view.

But if the media took this position all the time, we would only have a newspaper once a week, Brownie.   In part its the 'needs' of 24 hour news broadcasting that has encouraged the media to investigate so much.  That is something that society has required of the media.

[Brownie]

But if the media took this position all the time, we would only have a newspaper once a week, Brownie.   In part its the 'needs' of 24 hour news broadcasting that has encouraged the media to investigate so much.  That is something that society has required of the media.

I'm quite happy with a newspaper once a week Hope, the Sunday Times, and I only read sections of that which interest me .  Of course I sometimes see the news on TV and bits pop up on the internet.

It was my husband who told me about the A of C before anything I'd heard on the news, he'd seen it somewhere.  His comment was, ''What's that got to do with anyone else?''

It distresses me when the media print scandal for the sake of it, or try to make a fairly ordinary story seem scandalous, I really distrust the press.  I know I wouldn't like it about me or my family but thankfully we are not important enough to make the news.
However, something I hadn't realised before all this came up, Justin Welby comes from quite the upper echelons of society and it has not been uncommon (particularly in the past), for there to be a 'cuckoo in the nest'.  They didn't seem to think much of it.

I agree with floo that he does look like his biological father, from the picture I saw last night.  Ah well, tomorrow's chip paper.

[Shaker]

Society might have required his resignation; not sure that the church would have - after all, its not his fault that he's illegitimate.  So, yes, good that society has caught up with the church in this instance.

When can we expect the church to catch up with society then?

[Shaker]

I have explained in detail why I believe this

Where? Or rather, having trodden this wearily mendacious path before more than once, what excuse will you come up with this time for not specifying where?

but since I was suspended for a week (iirc) for doing so some years back, I'm not going to repeat what I said.

Presumably rewording your comments to stay within the terms of the house rules would do the trick.

[Hope]

When can we expect the church to catch up with society then?

But society has only just caught up with the church on this issue.  Are you nsuggesting that the church has got to lower its sights to be on a par with society?   

[Hope]

Presumably rewording your comments to stay within the terms of the house rules would do the trick.

Going on the basis of my recent suspension, where I used slightly more moderate language anyway, I doubt it.  The problem is that it is hard to moderate the words 'I believe that homosexual relationships are wrong' in such a way as fits the current house rules.  In view of that, I shall refrain from the topic henceforth.  Everyone knows my views and my reasoning (note, the claim that I use Biblical material to support my view is correct only to the extent that it comes within the wider orbit of my arguments)

[floo]

But society has only just caught up with the church on this issue.  Are you nsuggesting that the church has got to lower its sights to be on a par with society?   

Some members of the Christian church couldn't be much lower that is for sure!

[Hope]

Some members of the Christian church couldn't be much lower that is for sure!

Suggesting, in the context, that sociey is even lower, Floo!!

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

  In view of that, I shall refrain from the topic henceforth. 

Well as you now have more time on your hands perhaps you could answer my response to your questions here?

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11801.100

msg 110.

Feel free to ignore the bit about you horrible views about your homosexual people. We all know where you stand on this.

Would be good of you to finally identify a non naturalistic element of life along with how you know it to be non naturalistic.

[Hope]

Would be good of you to finally identify a non naturalistic element of life along with how you know it to be non naturalistic.

Have done this several times, Stephen.  The most obvious one is healing miracles.  I acknowledge that those who do not believe in such things like to call on the highly unscientific concept of spontaneous healing in order to discredit the idea of miracles - but then, some of them are somewhat hypocritical.

As I pointed out in a previous post, I won't have more time on my hands - if anything, I'll be restricted to evenings and some weekends in my use of this forum for some months.

[Shaker]

Have done this several times, Stephen.  The most obvious one is healing miracles.  I acknowledge that those who do not believe in such things like to call on the highly unscientific concept of spontaneous healing in order to discredit the idea of miracles - but then, some of them are somewhat hypocritical.

So you're still acting as though you haven't seen/read, or at any rate understood, the BBC article on spontaneous healing to which I've now linked twice in the recent past and which lays out, clearly and simply, what's already known about the phenomenon and directions for future research.

[Shaker]

But society has only just caught up with the church on this issue.  Are you nsuggesting that the church has got to lower its sights to be on a par with society?   

No. Obviously you're having comprehension issues as I'm saying precisely and exactly the opposite; that the church has a very long way indeed to go in order to catch up with society, which does what the church doesn't and takes equal rights seriously and enshrines it in law with appropriate sanctions.

Take women's equality for example. We have and have had female pretty much anything you can think of - GPs, surgeons, politicians, even a female prime minister (unfortunate in that specific case, but there we go) for many decades, yet it took the C of E until 1994 to ordain women as priests and we've had female bishops for all of just over a year.

[Shaker]

Going on the basis of my recent suspension, where I used slightly more moderate language anyway, I doubt it.

No you didn't.

The problem is that it is hard to moderate the words 'I believe that homosexual relationships are wrong' in such a way as fits the current house rules.

The phrase "I believe that homosexual relationships are wrong" doesn't as far as I'm aware contravene any R & E house rule and is perfectly permissible. Loathsome, pernicious and obnoxious to any fair-minded individual, but perfectly permissible - perhaps Gordon can chip in here. If I recall correctly, your recent suspension arose out of your suggestion that trentvoyager should see his doctor not because he is ill in any way but because he is gay.

In view of that, I shall refrain from the topic henceforth.

Naked cowardice, as I see it.

Everyone knows my views and my reasoning (note, the claim that I use Biblical material to support my view is correct only to the extent that it comes within the wider orbit of my arguments)

I don't. That's to say, I know your views, but not what you think of as your "reasoning" for holding those views. Biblical material is obviously irrelevant to anyone who does not regard the Bible as authoritative on anything. You prate and prattle and insult other forum members with your talk of disorder and damage to society, but never bother to substantiate these charges with evidence.

So it goes - nothing new about that. It's simply more cowardly question-dodging when you are faced with being asked to answer points that you clearly cannot.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Have done this several times, Stephen.  The most obvious one is healing miracles.  I acknowledge that those who do not believe in such things like to call on the highly unscientific concept of spontaneous healing in order to discredit the idea of miracles - but then, some of them are somewhat hypocritical.

As I pointed out in a previous post, I won't have more time on my hands - if anything, I'll be restricted to evenings and some weekends in my use of this forum for some months.

And how do you know they have a non naturalist explanation. This is the point you always dodge.

[Shaker]

At least now we know where Hope lives - Dodge City.

[Hope]

And how do you know they have a non naturalist explanation. This is the point you always dodge.

The term is one that has been created to explain something that science is unable to explain.  Furthermore, I'd argue that even miracles have naturalistic explanations but such that go beyond the mere scientifically natural.  I don't believe that nature is restricted to what science can encompass.

[Hope]

At least now we know where Hope lives - Dodge City.

In view of the ways in which you and others have dodged the matter of what 'natural' means - is it all-encompassed by science, or is that only part of nature - I'd suggest that you probably live closer to the centre of that city than I do.

[Shaker]

The term is one that has been created to explain something that science is unable to explain.

Or "Something not yet explained, so it behoves us to hang fire, not speculate, keep investigating and await further data" as rational people put it. 

Furthermore, I'd argue that even miracles have naturalistic explanations but such that go beyond the mere scientifically natural.

One of the words in the phrase "scientifically natural" is redundant.

I don't believe that nature is restricted to what science can encompass.

If science can't "encompass" X, how can you be aware that there is such a thing as X in the first place? What methodology are you using in order to be able to claim that there is such a thing as X at all?