MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
This doesnt invalidate what I said. I never said some things do change. They most assuredly do. But not everything does...nor should it.
Anglican schism seems imminent...
- Thread starter Che Guava
- Start date
This doesnt invalidate what I said. I never said some things do change. They most assuredly do. But not everything does...nor should it.
PrincepsAmerica
Nothingness made flesh
If everything is changing then when exactly are there ever "things". Without some eternal permanence you get nihilism/Buddhism.
Which religious institution was specifically "flat earthers"?
It has nothing to do with whatever is objectively true - it's just stating a reality - that the beliefs of every Christian church have changed significantly from that of the early church, and it is the illusion that the early church was exactly like the current one that gives a church's doctrine so much power in people. Why do you think theology is condemned by fundamentalists?
Oh, and saying that Buddhism is the same as nihilism is seriously lame.
I agree. The earth has never been flat. Sexual orientation is not a proper place to be drawing the line in the sand on leadership and sanctioned relationships. Only the religious institutions' correctness on these unchanging truths change, as they should when they are on the incorrect side of the truth.
Gabryel Karolin
Gammelgädda
If you have to change your truths then you make a mockery out of the whole idea of religion
"Homosexuality is a sin"
vs.
"Gods view on homosexuality is the same as happends to be held by the majority of the population in this time and/or place"
One former may be ignorant, but the latter is downright absurd.
PrincepsAmerica
Nothingness made flesh
The essential dogmas of the Catholic and Orthodox churches really haven't changed much. Unless you consider fuller explanation and addition to be "significant changes" in which case I don't think you're using a fair definition.
I don't see how that's different than many of the apologist responses to slavery, or male superiority to women, in which people often use the excuse that it needs to be recognized in its context of the time and place instead of saying that X is wrong or not.
Adding more to the doctrine is precisely innovation, because the beliefs were not considered heresy beforehand. You cannot say that the trinity was orthodox before it was well defined. It's just adding an additional layer to the mess of interpretation_X_at_any_given_time.
Except that slavery and male superiority aren't explicitly condemned or promoted by Scripture. There is scriptural backing however to the idea that homosexuality is a sin under Christian and Jewish law.
No, they're explicitly promoted; both in the Pauline letters, actually; the same place as the condemnation of homosexuality.
Yet both of these beliefs today would be considered "backward," and in the case of slavery, treated as an objective condemnation.
Gabryel Karolin
Gammelgädda
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're trying to say here. But I would say that regarding slavery we could say; we, as a society, were wrong, we are now more enlightened and have forbidden it, we have switched one truth for a better one. We can not say God was wrong and despite what is written has now changed his mind, these truths are timeless and absolute.
The problem, of course, was that He explicitly allowed slavery and endorsed it in some cases - you can't switch around truths like that! If we're enlightened enough to have forbidden it, then it is clearly part of the objective truth, of which the one who is supposed to be omniscient denies the objectivity of it!
I think I said objective too much
warpus
In pork I trust
Gay bishops.. who cares?
Do they have gay sex? I thought they're supposed to abstain?
Do they have gay sex? I thought they're supposed to abstain?
PrincepsAmerica
Nothingness made flesh
What are you talking about there was no doctrine before the Trinity was solidified. How was anything modified? Defining something that has gone on undefined or unexplained is not adding or changing. It may well be innovation, but as I said that doesn't really matter if there is no contradiction among the history of the Church's teaching as you were implying.
And I'm not going to go into specific examples with you, the primary body of belief, so much as it can be defined as a coherent whole has clearly been largely the same since before the schism, back to the when they were formally outlined in the Councils.
t Warpus, I think in the Anglican church the clergy are allowed to marry.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Never heard this one before. Whats your source on this?
warpus
In pork I trust
Gabryel Karolin
Gammelgädda
I think we are actually in agreement about this. Except the "clearly part of the objective truth", I don't believe there is such a thing.
What I wanted to say is that the church by changing its stance on issues clearly defined in the bible makes a mockery out of itself. And I stand by that.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Is it really so well defined? Anyone with a better theological background (that means 97% of you
) can correct me on this, but I had thought that views on homosexuality in scripture aren't as black and white as all of that. I hear some people reference liviticus, but that of course is no basis for rules in christianity, since the ruels of th OT went out with Jesus. In the NT, we have references in the letters to the Corinthians, and I think Romans, but no passages in which Jesus Himself actually condemns homosexuality, just his followers to thier congregations. This could lead us to beleive that it was His followers, but not Jesus himself, that forbid same-sex relationships.OTOH, I think I'm going to get corrected on this in a minute...!
I disagree that it is non-destructive, especially spiritually, which is what Christians should be primarily (but not exclusively) concerned with.
I don't hold that sexual orientation, or even sexual identity is inherently sinful. I do, however, hold that immoral sexual acts such as homosexual acts are sinful, as is the intention to have such an act. (Just as it is sinful to desire to commit any wrong) You're right to say that the idea of sexual identity didn't exist in its modern form in Paul or Jesus' day - which is why they never said "don't be gay". They just said "don't commit sexually immoral acts".
I'm not a fan of gold or pearls (Although I don't think wearing them is sinful - just my personal preference) but I don't recall a verse where Paul says wearing them is an inherently sinful act - do you have a specific verse on that? Women preaching I don't know about, so I defer to the majority, meaning that I don't condone it. And I don't think Paul accepted slavery - he never specifically condemned it anywhere, but there is a difference between non condemning something, and saying that it is perfectly acceptable.
Actually, yes, the Anglicans have ordained a non-celibate gay bishop. Meaning he lives with a gay partner, and presumably has gay sex.
One wonders how they can seriously preach anything at all out of the Bible while ignoring such huge passages in it.
"Yeah, it's good to live like God said in the Bible! God knows what he's talking about! Unless you happen to not want to wait until marriage to have sex, and you want to have gay affairs while being a leader in the church. In which case I'm sure God will understand you contradicting His divine commands. After all, the main message of the Bible isn't 'Love and obey God', it's 'Do what's fun!', right?"
Most Christians would agree that the moral laws given to the Israelites still stand on their own - you don't think it's OK to murder or steal just because Jesus died and the old laws went out the window, do you? Of course not, because those were just the ceremonial laws. And yes, these laws are backed up again in the NT in passages by Paul. Jesus himself never explicity talks about homosexuality, but he does condemn sexual immorality. (Of course, he never condemned pedophilia, or bestiality, or identity theft, or any number of arguably immoral acts, either, because obviously they were covered by the stuff he did condemn - sexual immorality, theft, covetousness, etc.)Is it really so well defined? Anyone with a better theological background (that means 97% of you
OTOH, I think I'm going to get corrected on this in a minute...!
warpus
In pork I trust
So he sins.. don't the straight Bishops sin too? What's the difference?
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
No, but I imagine that you enjoy a slice of ham, now and again, don't sell your daughters into slavery or stone your children if they get a little uppity? My point is that there seems to beat the very least a grey area.
Again, there seems to be a smidge of a grey area, since I don't think Jesus gave us a clear definition of 'sexual immorality' either. And doesn't Paul, in the same verse that he decries homosexuality, also say that 'fornicators' will also not get into heaven? (Corinthians 9:6). I guess what I am trying to say is that whether or not you beleive that homosexuality is a sin as defined by scripture, there is still enough of a grey area to allow for debate (unlike something like loving your neighbour, or not stealing), and thuss a nultitude of views. If the church splits over this issue, so be it, but I get a little irked when people start pointing thier fingers and yelling "HEATHEN!" at the Episcopalians too
