|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: TEC suspended (... maybe?)
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, you are insisting that their view is bigotry! Yes, you disagree and yes you believe you have a strong case from your own perspective; but your charge of bigotry is not one that facilitates understanding or dialogue. It is in itself a bigoted view perhaps?
They support the criminalisation of homosexuality and equate homosexuality with paedophilia. I'm comfortable calling it bigotry.
So, everyone - every single person - who says 'I believe that marriage is a voluntary union between one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others,' is as you describe them?
And, as far as the members of GAFCON are concerned, you KNOW that they each subscribe to that view of criminalisaing homosexuals and equating it with paedophilia? Every one, every member and supporter, and all the Bishops from whatever country they come, including Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali?
It's a bit of a blanket judgment, don't you think?
[ 16. January 2016, 09:37: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, you are insisting that their view is bigotry! Yes, you disagree and yes you believe you have a strong case from your own perspective; but your charge of bigotry is not one that facilitates understanding or dialogue. It is in itself a bigoted view perhaps?
They support the criminalisation of homosexuality and equate homosexuality with paedophilia. I'm comfortable calling it bigotry.
I have come across the first,in Uganda, recently. It used to be the law here as well, though and Russia , which last i say was not Anglican, seems to be headed the same way. Do you have any evidence of the second charge?
[ 16. January 2016, 09:50: Message edited by: beatmenace ]
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's a bit rich for Welby to apologise for the pain caused.
A bit? It's a bloody insult.
Having seen the look of him on the news, i think he might end up resigning.
I actually hope not because i don't really think there is really anyone else better qualified to sort this one.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
I have come across the first,in Uganda, recently. It used to be the law here as well, though and Russia , which last i say was not Anglican, seems to be headed the same way. Do you have any evidence of the second charge?
Just a couple of weeks ago the head of so-called "Anglican Mainstream" was claiming that the laws passed in Uganda were there to protect children, and Ugandan leaders have said much the same thing. As to whether all of GAFCON supports that, I've certainly not heard them condemn it. The very fact that allowing gay people to marry is deemed more worthy of condemnation than advocating life imprisonment of gay people and accusing them of preying on children tells me enough.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.
The latest cry of no one was killed by the TEC carries with it the overt implication that GAFCON and ACNA are murderous zealots.
In actual fact, most people (unlike the Westboro people - surprised they haven't been referenced yet in the 'lets pile on as much shit onto the traditionalists as we can' call to arms!) - most people are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - and their neighbours too - who happen to believe in traditional morality.
And want to enforce their view on the TEC which doesn't share it
That's why it's bigotry. It's not just "I believe in Traditional View X", it's "And you must do as well".
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Yes, must, not should.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Full Canterbury Communique just released.
From the Communique: "We will develop this process so that it can also be applied when any unilateral decisions on matters of doctrine and polity are taken that threaten our unity."
Aka the nuclear option? That sure doesn't sound like the voluntary meeting of autonomous churches that most of the Anglicans here have been describing. Like the other non-A's here, I don't have a dog in this fight. But this statement really struck me. "We are going to change the nature of our communion such that we can tell one of our members what to do whenever they piss us off." Definitely looks like a power grab to this outside observer.
Might this also carry the implied warning that this can be turned around and used on the originators of this, somewhere down the road?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Having seen the look of him on the news, i think he might end up resigning.
I actually hope not because i don't really think there is really anyone else better qualified to sort this one.
Gene Robinson?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.
The latest cry of no one was killed by the TEC carries with it the overt implication that GAFCON and ACNA are murderous zealots.
In actual fact, most people (unlike the Westboro people - surprised they haven't been referenced yet in the 'lets pile on as much shit onto the traditionalists as we can' call to arms!) - most people are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - and their neighbours too - who happen to believe in traditional morality.
This thread, sad to say, is one where most of you are also like that latter description, but, in discussing TEC, the recent meeting and its decision, have perhaps assumed that the only correct position is the one that is opposed to ++Justin's and therefore only TEC is to be supported.
I'm actually coming increasingly to the conclusion that the issue of homosexuality and same sex marriages and whatever else related is not the issue at all. Instead it is a lynch pin; something to hang an agenda upon. Now I know this might be straying into the realm of paranoia, but we have had over a decade of debates, meetings, convocations, consultations, conversations - you name it, we have done it, and still it comes down to one thing: get TEC out by any means necessary, or have them reverse their decisions they made in good faith and make them publicly repent to the rest of the world wide Anglican Communion. The fact that other provinces are not suspended or asked to publicly repent to the rest of the communion for their corruption, their entanglements with genocide, their polygamy, their insistence upon the use of lay presidency, their lack of liturgy, their silence and complicity with power, their doctrinal errors ...... and the list could go on and on and on....seems a tiny bit strange. Why does this particular issue serve as the the one single issue in all of that to be the one that should enact this response and activity? Might it be because it is easy to detect?
I actually think Mousethief is right; it is an attempt to make a hostile take over and a grab at power and influence so that the Communion can be directed towards a global Anglican church. I think they genuinely believe they can be the ones to keep such a thing together and be the ones to call themselves the 'genuine' Anglicans. I don't believe for one moment that they are capable of keeping it together. I think if they got what they wanted the nature of the beast means they would end up turning on each other. It would be nothing more than the beginning of the end because the issue is not homosexuality of any of its related issues; it is about the core of the Anglican communion and as such is a nothing more than a mirror of what else is going on in the modern world today.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
it is about the core of the Anglican communion and as such is a nothing more than a mirror of what else is going on in the modern world today.
Which is...?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
See every post I've made above regarding the Communion.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, you are insisting that their view is bigotry! Yes, you disagree and yes you believe you have a strong case from your own perspective; but your charge of bigotry is not one that facilitates understanding or dialogue. It is in itself a bigoted view perhaps?
Thanks, Mudfrog. I agree with you. I think that it is important to accept that people are divided on this issue everywhere. Even where SSM is accepted by the majority, there is still a very large majority that does not agree.
I understand that many people want to demonize these people because they are seen as harming the innocent. But surely anyone can see that proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Sorry, I meant a large minority does not agree. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The idea that TEC not electing (and we are talking about election) bigoted Bishops is the same as GAFCON trying to force its bigotry on TEC is ridiculous. A more pertinent question in that comparison would be where are the liberal, LGBT-friendly Bishops in the GAFCON provinces? Or even in the CofE? Either silenced or their appointments avoided. The CofE has been deprived of an excellent Bishop in Jeffrey John to appease these vile views.
The allegation of colonialism against TEC is a bit of a rich one to level at a black descendant of slaves being bullied by an English public school boy.
What public school boy? And TEC is a large and complex organization, and is more than Bishop Curry (who appears to me to be a more interesting and articulate PB than we've seen in some time)-- we are looking at an encounter between two groups of visions of Anglicanism, complicated by first-third world factors and (unnecessarily, but maybe it's me) by the work of some very negative factions.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
What public school boy?
Archbishop Justin, who permitted and facilitated this travesty of justice, including inviting a schismatic sect to join the meeting as a full participant.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Thanks, Mudfrog. I agree with you. I think that it is important to accept that people are divided on this issue everywhere. Even where SSM is accepted by the majority, there is still a very large majority that does not agree.
I understand that many people want to demonize these people because they are seen as harming the innocent. But surely anyone can see that proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm.
I have a modest amount of time, though not much, for the view that same sex and opposite sex marriage might be different things and need different names, and such a view can be held honourably (even if it does sound an awful lot like complementarianism). Pretending that calling loving relationships marriage is worse than homophobia is not a credible position whatsoever and can only stand if you think there is something fundamentally wrong with being gay which is a position rooted in bigotry, akin to the curse of Ham.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
What public school boy?
Archbishop Justin, who permitted and facilitated this travesty of justice, including inviting a schismatic sect to join the meeting as a full participant.
o it was rhetoric. I had spent a few minutes looking on the web for something about this. Given that he's not the first Abp of Canterbury who's tried to square the circle, I don't know if I would have personalized it thus. In any case I would have blamed his corporate management background more than his schooling, over which he really didn't have much choice-- and in any case, the public schools of Britain and Ireland have produced quite a variety of products over the year (Elf Aquitaine less so).
At this point, he is likely trying anything which might work.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I understand that many people want to demonize these people because they are seen as harming the innocent. But surely anyone can see that proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but I'm pretty sure that the traditional marriage view take the line that it's not what you see that's important but whether you're right. According to most traditionalists, as I understand it, the sincerity with which a view is held is no defence if that view is wrong.
If the proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm, and they are wrong, as they are, then they are doubly condemned.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
What public school boy?
Archbishop Justin, who permitted and facilitated this travesty of justice, including inviting a schismatic sect to join the meeting as a full participant.
o it was rhetoric. I had spent a few minutes looking on the web for something about this. Given that he's not the first Abp of Canterbury who's tried to square the circle, I don't know if I would have personalized it thus. In any case I would have blamed his corporate management background more than his schooling, over which he really didn't have much choice-- and in any case, the public schools of Britain and Ireland have produced quite a variety of products over the year (Elf Aquitaine less so).
At this point, he is likely trying anything which might work.
My issue is less with his methods than with his goals - he clearly thinks it's worth throwing LGBT Anglicans overboard to keep in with GAFCON.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If the proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm, and they are wrong, as they are, then they are doubly condemned.
I see.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's a bit rich for Welby to apologise for the pain caused.
A bit? It's a bloody insult.
Having seen the look of him on the news, i think he might end up resigning.
I actually hope not because i don't really think there is really anyone else better qualified to sort this one.
With slight reluctance, I agree.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by fletcher christian quote:
I'm actually coming increasingly to the conclusion that the issue of homosexuality and same sex marriages and whatever else related is not the issue at all. Instead it is a lynch pin; something to hang an agenda upon. Now I know this might be straying into the realm of paranoia, but we have had over a decade of debates, meetings, convocations, consultations, conversations - you name it, we have done it, and still it comes down to one thing: get TEC out by any means necessary, or have them reverse their decisions they made in good faith and make them publicly repent to the rest of the world wide Anglican Communion. The fact that other provinces are not suspended or asked to publicly repent to the rest of the communion for their corruption, their entanglements with genocide, their polygamy, their insistence upon the use of lay presidency, their lack of liturgy, their silence and complicity with power, their doctrinal errors ...... and the list could go on and on and on....seems a tiny bit strange. Why does this particular issue serve as the the one single issue in all of that to be the one that should enact this response and activity? Might it be because it is easy to detect?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Thank you: you have summarised far better than I ever could my feelings about this whole, shameful episode.
The icing on this poisonous cake, of course, is the hypocritical statement from the ABofC about the treatment of LGBTI people by the Church of England which, coming so hot-on-the heels of the grubby treatment of TEC and Canada, seems almost calculated to highlight that in all probability he is speaking tongue-in-cheek with this so-called apology.
I've been CofE all my life, and I've devoted (still do) hours of my time to its music: I'll continue to do the latter but as for considering it 'my' church, forget it. Welby, Sentamu and the other grubby apologists for institutional homophobia don't represent me and, IMO, only bring the CofE I grew up with into disrepute with this shabby behaviour.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
What public school boy?
Archbishop Justin, who permitted and facilitated this travesty of justice, including inviting a schismatic sect to join the meeting as a full participant.
o it was rhetoric. I had spent a few minutes looking on the web for something about this. Given that he's not the first Abp of Canterbury who's tried to square the circle, I don't know if I would have personalized it thus. In any case I would have blamed his corporate management background more than his schooling, over which he really didn't have much choice-- and in any case, the public schools of Britain and Ireland have produced quite a variety of products over the year (Elf Aquitaine less so).
At this point, he is likely trying anything which might work.
My issue is less with his methods than with his goals - he clearly thinks it's worth throwing LGBT Anglicans overboard to keep in with GAFCON.
Ah. My reading of it is different. I thought that he was trying to emulate what happened in Canada, keeping the subject on the table long enough, avoiding a firm conclusion as discussion continued as the surrounding society shifted its views, so that it come to an inevitable resolution. This was an untidy and sometimes painful process- those who know me IRL are aware of my experience with this (I still think of having been denounced at Vestry as a Tool of Satan is perhaps something I should put in my curriculum vitae). Continuing face-to-face discussion makes it difficult for the more traditionally-minded to walk out, as it makes it more difficult for the other side to play its own politics. The regrettable absence of the African bishops at Lambeth (the most serious Bad Thing which I ascribe to Gafcon) retarded the process considerably.
I hadn't seen Abp Welby's statement as throwing LG&c Xians overboard, but a (possibly necessary unpleasant) political manoeuvre as part of this approach. Whether or not it's a theologically supportable approach is another thread, likely in Dead Horses.
It's a delicate balance between moving carefully with a view to engaging one's opposition or pushing to a resolution which crystallizes a long-standing divide. My analysis might be considered too optimistic or too cynical, but I worked on the fringes of political life for a while and this has perhaps warped my perspective.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
hypocritical...condemned...shameful...shabby...grubby apologists...public schoolboy...
You see, you just can't argue your position without personal attacks on people who have been placed in leadership and who hold (or may hold) a different view to you.
Bigotry, rudeness and hate-speech, work both ways you know...
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mudfrog: Bigotry, rudeness and hate-speech, work both ways you know...
Yet in Canterbury, only one side excluded the other side.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I saw Welby's apology as stating that he was terribly sorry for all the hurt that the church caused and that the church really did condemn homophobia and gays and lesbians shouldn't be criminalised, treated differently, persecuted or be left out of church life.......and then I thought, wait he forgot a bit: ....but you can't be ordained and we'd really rather you just went away somewhere else.
But hey, let's be real, that's just a tangent to to the real show.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
hypocritical...condemned...shameful...shabby...grubby apologists...public schoolboy...
You see, you just can't argue your position without personal attacks on people who have been placed in leadership and who hold (or may hold) a different view to you.
Bigotry, rudeness and hate-speech, work both ways you know...
Oh yes, it's terrible how we're so intolerant of bigots. Bullshit. Jesus had no problem with stern rhetoric for oppressors in positions of religious authority.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.
Well I don't think this - it is entirely possible to believe something about the nature of marriage without going on to believe that homosexuals should therefore be imprisoned and murdered.
Just as it is entirely possible to believe that only ordained Priests should administer the Eucharist without at the same time believing that all other Christian groups who remember the Lord's Supper in a different ways should be imprisoned and murdered.
The point here is that some of the Anglican Primates have in the past expressed support for draconian laws against homosexuals. And the Anglican church in many countries has a poor record for standing against oppression of minorities including homosexuals.
Understandably, I think, homosexuals and minorities have experienced being left out by their church see it in terms of oppression and discrimination. I think they're entitled to do that without other in a privileged position (often outside the church under discussion) engaging in unhelpful "hitting down" of those people who genuinely feel the church has made them feel second-class Christians.
See what I did there, Mudfrog? I don't agree with SSM in church, I'm in the Anglican church, but I still see the validity of another argument without resorting to vindictive counter-claims that the excluded are being oppressive.
quote:
Mudfrog continued in another thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
They support the criminalisation of homosexuality and equate homosexuality with paedophilia. I'm comfortable calling it bigotry.
So, everyone - every single person - who says 'I believe that marriage is a voluntary union between one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others,' is as you describe them?
This was a particularly odd thing to write, particularly as a response some saying that those who want to murder and imprison homosexuals are bigots. You might like to consider whether you are actually responding to the words written or only the ones that appear in your head.
quote:
And, as far as the members of GAFCON are concerned, you KNOW that they each subscribe to that view of criminalisaing homosexuals and equating it with paedophilia? Every one, every member and supporter, and all the Bishops from whatever country they come, including Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali?
I have nothing kind to say about Michael Nazir-Ali, however I did once meet Bishop Mouneer Anis, the Anglican Primate for the Middle East. I did not get the sense that he subscribes to the criminalisation of homosexuality, although I suspect he might believe in equating it with paedophilia.
I genuinely found Bishop Anis to be a nice person. I don't know if that answers your question.
quote:
It's a bit of a blanket judgment, don't you think?
I think one can be judged by the company you keep. So if you decide to voluntarily associate with people who think it is acceptable to make vicious comments about minorities, then it isn't a great surprise when people associate you with them.
In Bishop Anis' case I think that's unfortunate - although I also think he is a difficult (and rather stupid) position within the Anglican Communion hierarchy. In contrast, I think Michael Nazir-Ali is a complete arse who nobody should give the time of day to.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.
The latest cry of no one was killed by the TEC carries with it the overt implication that GAFCON and ACNA are murderous zealots.
In actual fact, most people (unlike the Westboro people - surprised they haven't been referenced yet in the 'lets pile on as much shit onto the traditionalists as we can' call to arms!) - most people are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - and their neighbours too - who happen to believe in traditional morality.
And want to enforce their view on the TEC which doesn't share it
That's why it's bigotry. It's not just "I believe in Traditional View X", it's "And you must do as well".
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ah, so they want the Canadians consigned to the Outer Darkness™ too?
So sayeth the CBC. Warned we are.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why would any LGBT person become an Anglican after this? I suppose there are always a few masochists.
From ignorance and insensitivity, I came understood the issue as one of human rights and the core of Christian love. Inescapable. I had introduced a motion at a vestry meeting almost a decade ago, spoke to it at the annual general meeting, and we voted, exact wording not remembered, which declared our unequivocal support, deploring discrimination and desire for marital equality. I believe this sort of behaviour is why we might be on warning. I am happy to be on warning.
The question arises how to cultivate a Christian response when others condemn us so thoroughly. I am at the point in my thinking (have been for a years years) where I think we might be better by disengaging. Along the lines ignoring the bad behaviour of misbehaving child, and only paying attention if they stop their tantrums.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Looking again at the statement by this kangaroo court, sorry, Primates' Meeting, it is actually about as weak as it could possibly be while still putting some sanctions on TEC. They're suspended from representing the Communion and from its decision making for the next three years- but how much of that would they actually be doing in that period? I don't know. It left out the ACC and generally didn't go far enough for the Archbishop of (no discussing)Uganda(with other men, please)or some of the other GAFCON crowd.
But then, you ask, why do it at all? Exactly. The classic compromiser's attempt to do only a little bit of injustice, which leaves everybody unsatisfied.
Did Welby go along with this? I'd have thought so, from what I know of him (nothing that's not in the public domain). But of course we don't know for sure how he voted, do we, and if he had voted against, would he actually have been able to stop it? He's not a Pope. His past form is what we should assess him on.
I find myself coming back to something I believe +Pete said on these boards once, to the effect that 'I'm not an Anglican; I'm CofE'. I suspect for different reasons, I have come more and more to see myself as primarily CinW (CofE formerly). It's nice to be in communion with other churches of a CofE ancestry and I'd certainly be saddened if the CinW and the CofE fell out with each other. But what do we need an Anglican Communion for? Would the bottom fall out of my spiritual and ecclesiastical world if the Church of Uganda - or for that matter TEC- went its own way? Nope.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
I must have missed the part in the Canterbury Communique where the "ignorant Third World former colonies" were told that they had to go away and repent for three years before they'll be able to return as full members of the Anglican Communion. Maybe you can point me to it?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
I must have missed the part in the Canterbury Communique where the "ignorant Third World former colonies" were told that they had to go away and repent for three years before they'll be able to return as full members of the Anglican Communion. Maybe you can point me to it?
I must have missed the bit where TEC were told to go away and 'repent'.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
Really, I must have missed TEC and ACoC trying to restructure the entire communion to force Uganda and Nigeria to agree with them. You'll have links, I presume?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's why it's bigotry. It's not just "I believe in Traditional View X", it's "And you must do as well".
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
And when, pray tell, did TEC say that?
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Might this also carry the implied warning that this can be turned around and used on the originators of this, somewhere down the road?
At the risk of introducing a tangent, this also doesn't seem to occur to the theocrats in the United States who wish to break down the wall of separation between church and state. Today you're on the up side. But the whole nation is turning areligious, and karma is a bitch.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Why does this particular issue serve as the the one single issue in all of that to be the one that should enact this response and activity? Might it be because it is easy to detect?
Worldwide religious Zeitgeist. It's the shibboleth of the moment. The moment will pass, but not before it does a lot of damage to a lot of lives.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I understand that many people want to demonize these people because they are seen as harming the innocent. But surely anyone can see that proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm.
One word: suicide.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
Really, I must have missed TEC and ACoC trying to restructure the entire communion to force Uganda and Nigeria to agree with them. You'll have links, I presume?
Nobody is trying to 'force' TEC to do anything. They've broken the rules, and they've been suspended. They've got three years to reflect on their choices, then they'll be permanently planked. If you're a member of an organization, and majority of members have decided on a certain policy, then you basically have two choices.
Neither are TEC trying to 'force' Uganda and Nigeria to change their policies. But neither do I see TEC acknowledging their right to determine their own cultural policies, or indeed their right to maintain a traditional doctrinal position.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Nobody is trying to 'force' TEC to do anything. They've broken the rules, and they've been suspended.
What rules? Who came up with these rules? When did TEC or anyone else agree to be bound by them? As for the claim that nobody is trying to force TEC to do anything, what exactly would trying to force them look like if this wasn't it? Archespicopal stormtroopers assaulting Washington National Cathedral?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
Really, I must have missed TEC and ACoC trying to restructure the entire communion to force Uganda and Nigeria to agree with them. You'll have links, I presume?
Just to clarify this point, my comment relates to the charge of bigotry against traditionalists in the AC, against which I'm suggesting that it is a matter of the kettle calling the pot black, and that the actions and words of the 'progressives' might possibly be construed as cultural imperialism on the part of America and her allies.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Once again, this whole question is reduced to doctrinal abstraction, as if those of inconvenient sexuality were a creation of TEC's policies, and had been unjustly wished on the rest of the Anglican Communion.
Tell me this: how many people will be actually harmed by TEC's approach to sexuality? And how many by the support of the Ugandan and Nigerian churches for the policies of their governments, which would wish to erase homosexuality and those of that sexuality from the face of the earth?
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
the charge of bigotry against traditionalists in the AC
Bigotry is the expression in action of determined prejudice, i.e. decision in advance of, or in the absence of, evidence. Traditionalists condemn themselves all the time from their own mouths, by their determined lack of love. That is bigotry.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Just to clarify this point, my comment relates to the charge of bigotry against traditionalists in the AC, against which I'm suggesting that it is a matter of the kettle calling the pot black, and that the actions and words of the 'progressives' might possibly be construed as cultural imperialism on the part of America and her allies.
Whereas the apologism for the bigotry of some Africans might well be construed as patronising cultural relativism.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Nobody is trying to 'force' TEC to do anything. They've broken the rules, and they've been suspended.
What rules? Who came up with these rules? When did TEC or anyone else agree to be bound by them? As for the claim that nobody is trying to force TEC to do anything, what exactly would trying to force them look like if this wasn't it? Archespicopal stormtroopers assaulting Washington National Cathedral?
Nobody is trying to force TEC to change, because nobody has any real expectation that they will. And as to the membership rules, you'll have to ask the Abp - presumably, they are more in the nature of an implicit understanding, rather than a written declaration. But they do seem to exist, otherwise TEC wouldn't have been excluded.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Nobody is trying to 'force' TEC to do anything. They've broken the rules, and they've been suspended.
What rules? Who came up with these rules? When did TEC or anyone else agree to be bound by them?
Herein lies the problem. Those rules were just this week invented.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Whereas the apologism for the bigotry of some Africans might well be construed as patronising cultural relativism.
It's only patronizing when you think you automatically know best.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
Cynic that I am I trust none of the churches which pressed for the US Episcopalians to be excluded or punished will ask that same church for financial aid over the next three years?
On a more elevated level as someone from another tradition engaged in formal dialogue with Anglicans I wonder how this will impact on the ecumenical scene.
--------------------
"Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accompanied alone; therefore we are saved by love." Reinhold Niebuhr.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
I know, it's disgraceful the way Peter Jensen wants to lecture Desmond Tutu about how homosexual relations are sinful. A clear example of white privilege.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Whereas the apologism for the bigotry of some Africans might well be construed as patronising cultural relativism.
It's only patronizing when you think you automatically know best.
Interesting* how you slipped the adverb in there. Your evidence that TEC thinks it automatically knows best would be?
_______
*where by "interesting" I mean "straw man" and/or "moving the goalposts."
[ 16. January 2016, 17:28: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Nobody is trying to force TEC to change, because nobody has any real expectation that they will. And as to the membership rules, you'll have to ask the Abp - presumably, they are more in the nature of an implicit understanding, rather than a written declaration. But they do seem to exist, otherwise TEC wouldn't have been excluded.
That doesn't follow in the slightest. If the rules exist, why did GAFCON try to create them a few years ago when they demanded an Anglican Covenant (which even the CofE rejected)? I've seen a lot of commentary that says the Primates can't force TEC to withdraw from e.g. the Anglican Consultative Council, they simply don't have that authority. The ABC is trying to create rules and structures on the hoof in the hope that nobody will spot they're a paper tiger.
And just because GAFCON won't succeed in forcing TEC to fall into line with them doesn't mean they're not trying. Why all the demands and threats if they're not trying to force a change?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Tell me this: how many people will be actually harmed by TEC's approach to sexuality?
I would think that anyone would know the conservative answer to this. You don't have to agree with a point of view to understand it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think the best idea for the Anglican Church in Canada would be to not wait and leave now with our American cousins. There is no going back.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
