It bothers me that people not only choose to believe in bigtry, but also choose to associate themselves with those who do
This is fine. The US churches blessing homosexuality are kinda crazy I reckon. The bible says gayness is a sin - I don't get why anyone would want to go against that and maintain the religion. If you're gonna take a religion for yourself, have some balls and pick one that you believe in totaly. Don't just pick and choose the bits you like like all the stupid new age hippies do. Hopefully the Anglican church can get rid of only a small part of the US wing, keeping the majority and staying anti-gay. At least they'd be being honest about what their religion says then.
Yeah, spec, let's keep religions dogmatic. I mean, getting rid of the Spanish Inquisition already was a bit of a cop-out by the Catholics, and then accepting evolution as a possible way of Creation... I mean, really. Religions should never try to learn or progress, or adapt in the light of new developments.
Of course, learn, adapt - but the bible hasn't exactly had a new version released has it? There is no "Part 3" created in the modern age by someone worthy of doing so it there? The whole things a few thousand years old now, the words are clear. Religion should not be altered by the society it's part of. It should remain free of popular trends and influences, otherwise it's just another club and means little. That's why I always think religious hardliners are more admirable than religious liberals. At least the hard liners are sticking to their guns, as opposed to saying "well I like this bit of the bible but this part seems a bit bad in light of our 21st century ways so we'll ignore it". Embrace it or abandon it, don't pick and choose.
On the contrary, this is a tiny fraction of the church that is splitting off becuase they believe that bigotry is what religion should be about. Beyond that, eligion is intensely personal. A hundred people who attend the same church will believe in a hunred different religions, but those are similar enough to allow them to get along. Given that a religion is the average of the beliefs of it's adherents and that those adherents are constantly changing, then by it's very nature the religion itself will change. In this case, the Anglican church is changing as it's membership's beliefs and values change. A small fraction of the church doesn't agree with those changes and is choosing to alogn themselves with a more radical faction. I certainly won't say that they shouldn't be allowed to do so, or to helieve what they wish, but that doesn't mean that I don't think less of them for it.
All of Africa and most of Europe splitting off is a tiny fraction? I've been keeping up with the whole thing a very little bit for a while and my understanding of it has always been that parts of the US anglican would split off, and the rest would stay unified as ever.
That was my understanding of the situation also. Interestingly enough on a global scale it's the more liberal churches that seem to be falling in membership while the more conservative churches seem to grow.
Well yeah, but the conservative churches tend to be in areas with problems, like africa. Religion serves the weak and uneducated well, so it makes sense that it would thrive in most of Africa.
There is nothing admirable in doggedly sticking to narrow-mindedness, bigotry and hate. Otherwise why don't we give a big thumbs-up to the white supremacists in the Southern US? Or how about those fundamentalist Muslim terrorists? At least they still know how to believe. Religion should serve humanity, not the other way around. You appear to suggest that true faith is blind, unquestioning and rigid. There are many fundamentalist nutters out there ready to commit the grossest atrocities for their faith, who would wholeheartedly agree. That is no more admirable than any other form of blind, callous stupidity. "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." -- 1 Corinthians 13:1-2
Fundamentalist churches provide a more exciting answer to people the world over, especially young people. Which is more fun to hear: "God says to be generally good in which ever way you feel right, we can't tell you what that is you must decide for yourself" OR "Don't be gay or you'll go to hell and be tortured for all eternity, gay people need to be wiped of the face of the earth as they are a stain on humanity" Many young people are attracted to this certainty, its a simplistic view which appeals in a confusing world.
I think the point spec. was making is that if you blindly follow the book, you're an idiot, but if you don't, why do you need it at all? You'd be a hypocrite to claim to be a Christian but not actually follow the rules...
Which rules? The Old testament ones about smiting every living thing in their villave and making burnt offerings unto the lord? How about the actual words of Christ when he said "love your enemies as you love yourself"? Or perhaps the one about "Should a man strike you, do not strike him back, but rather turn the other cheek so that he may strike you again"? And then there is that thorny bit about "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven". What would Jesus say to a Homosexual person? Obviously I can't know that, but based on what he consistently said to everyone else, love your fellow man, worship the lord, and you shall be saved. I certainly don't think Jsus would condone the words of the Archbishop. My closing thought on this comes not from the bible, but from my grandmother. She once said "I wouldn't want anyone to go to hell and I can't believe God is less forgiving than I am"
Well the Bible says he is in parts, so I guess he is. Elthomsono pretty much got my point. If you don't subscribe to the whole thing then you should be smart enough to be repulsed by the vulgarity in parts of it, the horrific acts and the brutality. If you do subscribe to the whole thing then that stuffs all fine. What's admirable is that he sticks to his religion because he believes in it truly, instead of changing it as he pleases to suit his lifestyle - ffs why do gays even want to be part of the church, why would anyone want a god that hates and rejects you for being the abomination he created you as? I just reckon people should either follow the Bible totaly or abandon it. You can't really claim to be a Christian imo if you just pick and choose the bits you like and reject the bits you don't like. If the thing is actually divine word then rejecting half of what god says because you disagree with him is pretty frickin' stupid, given that you believe he's all powerfull. If the thing isn't devine word and it's ok to reject, why on earth bother worshiping it?
There are a lot of less favourible bible quotes too, and many that have absolutely no bearing on today's lifestyle. Give Evil Bible a look. Perhaps he'd react similarily to the way his father did to the sodomites... See that's a sentiment I can appreciate, and it's one from your gran, not some thousand year old dogmatic book
This is my personal belief on the issue and not flame bait. At the moment I have a NASTY head cold so I hope I am clear but if not please bear with me. Many people are born with a genetic predispositions to certain problems: cancer, diabetes, depression, addiction... This makes those problems "natural" to them but it does not make them the right way to be. This also does not make them less valuable as a person in the eyes of God nor should it do so in the eyes of his followers. I see these as conditions to be overcome. The problem for the church comes when people say that they want to celebrate the problem rather than set it right. That is their choice and God has given us the freedom to make choices. If someone's nature leads them to homosexuality and they choose to stick with that then I, as someone who is attempting to follow Christ, am to love them just as I am call to love all of his creation. However, loving someone doesn't mean agreeing with and supporting everything they do (nor does disagreeing mean hate and bigotry).
So you believe that homosexuality is a problem akin to cancer? Or is it someone else's belief that you chose to go along with because it's easier than thinking for yourself?
So you believe that homosexuality is a perfectly normal and good for people? Or is it someone else's belief that you chose to go along with because it's easier than thinking for yourself? Is that a valid question or an attack on a person?
Yes, I do believe that homosexuality is good for people. Admittedly it's not normal as defined as representing a majority of the population, but then neither is being a redhead. As for celebrating it, everyone should be proud of who they are, and accepting of who the people around them are.