Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Probably a truism - there are other radically right-wing groups, usually small, but who don't get the same regular publicity that Westboro do, but occasionally get an article.

It may be a truism, but the point is that these do represent the extreme edge of fundamentalism, and I suspect that there are other groups who agree with them, but don't want the problems. My point is that I don't think it is just one small group of nutters - it is a whole set of groups, who reflect the ideal of hard fundies.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

The fundamental problem is with the fixation of many religious structures on controlling the bodies of their members. The only way out of this cul de sac is routine, universal civil (or if necessary, uncivil) disobedience on their/our part. Finally, I believe this is starting to happen.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Alternatively, people could leave the churches whose teachings about the body they disapprove of and start up churches that teach what they really believe about how they should live. I'm not sure why this doesn't happen more often.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Hmmm. I'm more of the view that 'the Church' is a human creation.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Yeah, I just can't get into the Anglo-Catholic mindset on this. Guys like Rowan Williams put unity above all, even though the Catholic Church has been emphatic that the Anglican church has broken away, and Anglican orders are null & void. If Williams et all respect Rome so much, why don't they listen to what the Vatican has to say?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you've misunderstood Rowan Williams' own position. FiF are largely the more Roman than the Romans lot; Williams was trying to accommodate FiF, rather than Rome itself.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Alternatively, people could leave the churches whose teachings about the body they disapprove of and start up churches that teach what they really believe about how they should live. I'm not sure why this doesn't happen more often.

---

I think it's because it's a big deal to up and leave. Churches are more than places where you go to be with people who believe the same as you. They're families. Leaving a family is a big decision.

And starting something new is also a massive commitment - one that most people aren't willing to take on. Anyone with a bit of humility is probably aware too, that if they did manage to get that one bit right, they'd probably just get something else wrong instead, and maybe their old church got that bit really right. So there's the choice between known semi-wrongness and potential different semi-wrongness. People tend to stick with what they know.

There's also the danger of the "church of one". I think most people are aware that there's a lot of diversity in the church. If everyone left their church because they disagreed with one single belief, we'd end up with one church for every one person. Unity is bigger than agreement.

---

Such wise words. Thank you.

Regarding the OP, my university experience (30+years ago) was rather different. It was taken as read, in the Christian circles I moved in, that homosexuality was a sin; so much so that it was simply never talked about. Ever. I didn't know anyone who was openly gay, either inside or outside my Christian circles. Though I do remember one friend who, with hindsight, may have been gay and I often wonder where and how she is now.

One reason why it's so much the hot issue still is that it's - arguably - so identifiable. You either experience same sex attraction or you don't. I did say arguably .

--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE]Yeah, he was, but only 'cause unity matter so much to him that he was willing to abandon his LGBT friends and allies. In keeping the traditionalists onboard no matter the cost, he put unity above all. I could understand that if he was a member of the Catholic Church: I don't remotely understand it when he's a member of a relatively small protestant denomination.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
as far as Rowan Williams, I and most Anglo-Catholics are concerned we are members of the Catholic Church, just not in communion with the Bishop of Rome because of choices made down the centuries by said Bishops. There is one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which we are all members by our baptism. The unity of the church is a desire clearly expressed in scripture and it is right that it be pursued, schism is not something to be taken lightly. I do believe Rowan Williams erred as Archbishop in allowing the pursuit of unity to become a justification for continuing the oppression of gay people within the church - the requirement to let the oppressed go free trumps the unity of the church any day - but I can understand where he was coming from.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

The unity of the church is a desire clearly expressed in scripture

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by arethosemyfeet

quote:

---

The unity of the church is a desire clearly expressed in scripture

---

Really? Where?

There was no church 'in scripture' - just groups of people in various towns seeking to follow The Way.

In fact it could be argued that taking the Pauline era model there shouldn't be ANY centrally organised 'churches' at all.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
. The evangelical wing - of whom I am a part - has always considered scripture as paramount. While there has always been an "accepted" view of scripture, this has always been modifiable by further insights, by a clearer understanding of what the whole tenor of scripture is really saying.

Then we come to the issue of homosexuality, and suddenly the approach of searching, learning, exploring more is gone. The bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and anyone who disagrees is undermining the core truth of Christianity. Anyone who want s to reinterpret it is mislead, starting from a non-Christian position.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Really? Where?

There was no church 'in scripture' - just groups of people in various towns seeking to follow The Way.

In fact it could be argued that taking the Pauline era model there shouldn't be ANY centrally organised 'churches' at all.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
From the inside, I know that we really did love you as you. I also know that we hurt and rejected you, and I am sorry for that.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And I do think the love, care and tolerance of others - especially Others - is even more clearly expressed.

...

Then we come to the issue of homosexuality, and suddenly the approach of searching, learning, exploring more is gone. The bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and anyone who disagrees is undermining the core truth of Christianity. Anyone who want s to reinterpret it is mislead, starting from a non-Christian position.

...

the care, the passion for people. That seems to be no more.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
But the evangelical bent with its emphasis on The Word and living according to scripture can be clearly traced back through the centuries to puritanism - so why are people so surprised, shocked, amazed (whatever) at the judgmentalism on show at the moment about homosexuality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
See, I think the more relevant comparison is with the inquisitors who genuinely thought they were saving people's souls by torturing them. It's not that evangelicals think don't care that they're hurting gay people, it's that they think it's ok because they're trying to save them from something worse. I'm honestly not sure which is more terrifying.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
For "member" and "small" I think you meant "leader" and "largest". It's also worth remembering that as far as Rowan Williams, I and most Anglo-Catholics are concerned we are members of the Catholic Church, just not in communion with the Bishop of Rome because of choices made down the centuries by said Bishops. There is one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which we are all members by our baptism. The unity of the church is a desire clearly expressed in scripture and it is right that it be pursued, schism is not something to be taken lightly. I do believe Rowan Williams erred as Archbishop in allowing the pursuit of unity to become a justification for continuing the oppression of gay people within the church - the requirement to let the oppressed go free trumps the unity of the church any day - but I can understand where he was coming from.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Since gay people have learned to their cost to stay away from churches the misinformation is generally never challenged with any level of facts or truth and so churches have become breeding grounds for fearmongering and lies about gay people.
[...]
Evangelicals do not seem to have any interest in knowing whether their efforts to discourage homosexuality actually work, nor do they seem to have any interest in evaluating whether the harm done to homosexual people in general by their efforts are sufficiently balanced by the number of people they have saved from being gay (if any).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
But the evangelical bent with its emphasis on The Word and living according to scripture can be clearly traced back through the centuries to puritanism - so why are people so surprised, shocked, amazed (whatever) at the judgmentalism on show at the moment about homosexuality.

Indeed, why is anyone surprised at hearing Ms Leaf on the radio speaking about how wrong it is for women to be bishops?

I've tried and tried to get to a position where I can see evangelicalism in a positive light but I always come back to the evos I've known who've been, to a man and woman, judgmental, prudish, mean-spirited and generally un-Christian in their behaviour and attitude towards anyone they've decided is somehow sinful.

I know this is likely to cause a storm of protest but I can only speak as I've found.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Oh, I get the "the Catholic Church is all Christians" position, no worries. But that position would hold that, if the Anglican Communion split, the church would be preserved.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The church would still exist, certainly, but it would be further marred by division. Anglo-Catholics would like to see unity with Rome and Constantinople, we're just not, for the most part, willing to do it on their terms as is the only current option. The discrepancy here, which I think you're alluding to, is that some are willing to make far bigger compromises to keep Anglicanism together than they would be to re-join with either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I do think misinformation is a key factor - on this issue Christian groups seem to have rumour-mongered a truly stunning amount of misinformation / lies / slander about gay people and this gets preached from pulpits as gospel truth on a regular basis - and since gay people have learned to their cost to stay away from churches the misinformation is generally never challenged with any level of facts or truth and so churches have become breeding grounds for fearmongering and lies about gay people.

---

quote:

---

“There is a war against the Bible in America and a war to marginalize the millions of Americans who believe the Bible,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “HRC is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in outside monies to undermine what Scripture teaches and to insult, denigrate and target those who hold to Scripture. For an organization that claims tolerance, HRC employs deceptive tactics and outright lies to attack those who respectfully disagree with them. This is hardly tolerance.”

---

So what is this horribly insulting and denigrating statement they're talking about.

this.

Shocking, isn't it? A mother sharing her loving thoughts about her gay son coming out to her, under the title "We Are All God's Children". Why must the HRC be so hateful?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Crœsos,

To be fair to them, the content they seem to be objecting to is not present in that particular ad that you link to, and is probably somewhat vaguely present by implication in one or more of the other ads that are part of the ad campaign that HRC is running. The HRC youtube channel only has one other ad in that series so far (they may have aired ads in the state without posting them on youtube), and that ad does imply that Christians have sometimes fallen short of being completely loving toward gay people. (Although one might still rather justifiably ask how that statement of the obvious is an insult to bible-believing Christians!)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
One might also ask where in either ad is the claim that Christians routinely physically assault homosexuals, which the AFA also has on its list of objections.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Unity of Rome with Constantinople? In dreams!

---

quote:

---

Constantinople haven't forgotten 1453, blaming inaction by most of Italy, and the Papal States in particular, for its fall.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

If Williams were serious about corporate unity with Rome as a matter of principle, he'd have apologized to all the Church of England's female priests, had Synod strip them of their office, and get on the phone to the Vatican to arrange a mass ordination.

But no, gay people, and only gay people are expected to pay the price, and for what? The unity of one protestant church amongst many? On its own terms, this bizarre mix of realpolitik and dogma makes no sense.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
CofE unity with Rome? Don't assume that all ACs see this as something to be wished for - we don't.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
CofE unity with Rome? Don't assume that all ACs see this as something to be wished for - we don't.

---

Indeed - or at least not while it exercises the Petrine ministry as it does at present.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
[...] I could happily exist in a RCC led by Pope Francis. [...]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
[...] I could happily exist in a RCC led by Pope Francis. [...]

---

An organization that continues to exclude half the human race from ordination because of their gender.

An organization that considers gay people to be suffering from an "objective disorder" due to their being "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil."

An organization that would force every female person (not woman, age is irrelevant) to carry a child to term, even in cases of rape.

None of these dogmas has been changed by Francis, nor will they be, since the Church claims its teaching on these matters to be infallible. He's just a PR man. The words you will never, ever hear from him: "The Church's teaching was wrong. I'm so, so sorry. I think of the lives we destroyed and I weep. How can we begin to atone?"

Callan, yeah, I agree about the realpolitik, which makes the position as bankrupt theologically as it is morally.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Byron, is not a child conceived after a rape as much a child as one conceived in a loving marriage? Why traumatise a rape victim even more by having her undergo an abortion?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, but if - if- you think of the foetus as in some sense a human being in its own right, it's not only the victim/ mother who has to be considered, is it? In fact, you might argue that since the foetus is not able to speak for itself, it deserves especial consideration and protection. But that all depends on whether or not you accept the intial premise about the status of the foetus.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I'd like to hear an authoritative RC view on the 'infallibility' of such pronouncements, especially the one on abortion. In practice, the acceptance and pastoral care of gay people in the RCC can be very positive; there are many voices calling for the ordination of women who haven't yet been silenced despite decrees of previous popes.

Never say never about God's church. Or any part of it.

---

Sure. Some millennia soon they're bound to change.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Without espousing any of the views attributed to me by Horseman Bree, I adhere to my opinion that upon conception, and perhaps even before then, the foetus becomes a human and that to abort is to kill a human.

---