Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-06-2003, 07:12 PM | #11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On a sailing ship to nowhere, leaving any place
Posts: 2,254
|
Quote:
|
|
08-06-2003, 08:16 PM | #12 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Gilead
Posts: 11,186
|
Quote:
|
|
08-07-2003, 04:09 AM | #13 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 279
|
I just goes to show that Christians use their brains and not the Bible in most cases.
|
08-07-2003, 05:09 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: umop apisbn
Posts: 568
|
Smart choice for them. With the way attitudes in society are heading, it's eventually going to be a matter of survival for them. Basically, they're going to have to accept homosexuality, or become irrelevant.
After all, the church is primarily a social institution. To pretend it can't be affected by changes in that society is ridiculous. |
08-07-2003, 05:57 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bicester UK
Posts: 863
|
Concerning the row in the Episcopalian church, it is important to realise that the debate is not merely about homosexuality, it is about the very nature of Anglicanism.
Since its inception, when Henry VIII had the hots for Anne Boleyn, Anglicanism has been a kind of half way house between Protestantism with its emphasis on scriptural authority and Catholicism and its hierarchical authority based on the apostolic succession, contonued revelation and papal infallibility etc. Anglicanism has never resolved whether the authority for its belief is primarily scriptural, hierarchical (since they also claim apostolic succession), or latterly democratic with the development of representative Synods. The argument over Gene Robinson is simply bringing that old tension into the open. What is the status of a decision by the hierarchy and the representative institutions which contradicts scripture? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|