Arrest me and throw away the key

[Boris Godunov]

For the record, the current Archbishop of Canterbury personally believes that homosexuality is not a sin. He has expressed this is in numerous writings.

In fact, it's official church doctrine dating from 1991. The bishops released "Issues in Human Sexuality," a tract that said stable same-sex relationships were acceptable.

Also:

2002-JUL: Comments by the Archbishop of Wales, Rowan Williams: He attacked the current ban which prevents sexually active homosexuals from ordination. He noted that the church has accepted stable same-sex relationships within the laity but not the clergy. He said: "If the Church's mind is that homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful, then it is intrinsically sinful for everyone. It is that unwillingness to come clean that can't last. It is a contradiction." He also stated that the Bible does not necessarily support a ban on committed same-sex partnerships.

Williams is the current Archbishop of Canterbury. Also:

Williams has admitted ordaining as a priest a sexually-active homosexual.

2003-JUN-23: Archbishop of Canterbury supports appointment of gay bishop: The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said that he had no objection to the appointment of Jeffrey John, 50, as suffragan (assistant) Bishop of Reading, outside London, England. John is open with his homosexual orientation, and is celibate. After a firestorm of opposition, John withdrew his acceptance.

That enough of his thoughts on the matter?

(You're welcome, Doc S)

[St Leo]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Or so Canadians would have Americans believe. Its far more common than you might think. Especially in the East (coast), smaller cities of Southern Ontario and the praries, and more rural parts of BC. In other words, everywhere except Toronto, Montreal, the Ottawa Valley and Vancouver.

In other words, everywhere except in Canada.

[Agathon]

For the record, the current Archbishop of Canterbury personally believes that homosexuality is not a sin.

I bet the way you do it is.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi If pedophiles want to protest on the street against the regulations in place, they are welcome to do so.

But they are not allowed to produce videos of child pron, as that harms the children who do not consent to them.

Nothing to do with free speech. I do not have the right to free speech, if by that speech, I must harm someone in order to do this.

According to you, they also aren't allowed to write fiction or, for that matter, to collect quotations from pedophile fiction.

[Ben Kenobi]

1) Where did Jesus condemn homosexuality as sinful?

In the passage that I already quoted. Jesus clarifies that the only proper expression of sexuality is in marriage between a man and a woman.

All other forms are sinful in different ways.

Ergo, homosexual acts are also sinful.

2) What is your logical explanation as to why it is sinful

Logic and sin are one thing.

If one accepts Christ as the Son of God, then his teachings on sin ought to be authoritative.

From this preposition, it logically follows from the argument above that homosexuality is sinful.

However, one can challenge this preposition in a variety of ways, so I am unsure if you will find this to be 'logical' in the sense that you are using the term.

[Ben Kenobi]

Great thing about not having that whole religious guilt complex is that I get pleasure from lots of different sources.

And religion opens up sensitivity in areas where most people are callous, so that they can enjoy other pleasures.

So I still see no reason why I would be happier giving up all these other pleasures for a one night stand.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So I still see no reason why I would be happier giving up all these other pleasures for a one night stand.

Who said anything even about a one-night stand? To you, sex outside of marriage is sin, even if in an emotionally fulfilling, monogamous relationship.

But what's good for you isn't good for everyone, and what's bad for you isn't bad for everyone. If you don't trust yourself to engage in a sexual relationship responsibly, then I'm glad you don't.

And I don't think religion opens up any thing that is foreclosed to the non-religious.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Dr. Strangelove:

Well, I don't have the time today, but perhaps on Thursday when I'm not working, I will.

I'm pretty sure I could dig up the statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury since just about everything in print can be found online in one form or another.

Boris just took care of this, see below.

Yeah, but he's not affirming the actions taken by PECUSA either. Just because he wants to keep everybody together in one boat is quite different from support for the investiture.

He doesn't have to affirm it! PECUSA is an autonomous church within the Anglican Communion. If the AC were concerned that there needed to be some sort of statement clarifying a conflict between members then it would do so. The AC does not make policy for individual member churches.

And I think it's funny. The groups that adhere to the tradition of the church are labelled the 'dissidents'. Rather odd terminology, don't you think?

Wouldn't it be better to call the groups endorsing this change the radicals?

No, because we're upholding the ancient Christian tradition of brotherly love, a tradition often sacrificed ever since the Church got official status within the Roman empire and began lusting after imperial power. It's time to get back to basics.

Yes, I am not an Anglican,

(You got that right.)

however that does not automatically render me uninformed. Remember we are going through many of the same things here in Vancouver, as the Episcopalians are going through in the US.

What do you mean we? After all, you're not only not an American Anglican (Episcopalian), you're also not a Canadian Anglican. AFAIK the Canadian church did not join in the call to boot out PECUSA. You're in no position to speak for Candian Anglicans.

You are right that there is no grassroots movement to kick you out because the grassroots would rather see you folks revise your decision rather than splitting their church.

Bishops are elected in PECUSA by a joint diocesean body of lay and clergy. Any diocese that doesn't want a gay bishop can simply not elect one! I suspect the process is similar in most of the other members of the AC. No one is shoving gays doen their throats. That's what makes the whole hullaballoo such a farse.

However, I think that they would prefer to see you out rather than having to deal with this problem in their own churches and seeing the same divisions erupt there.

See above.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

In the passage that I already quoted. Jesus clarifies that the only proper expression of sexuality is in marriage between a man and a woman.

All other forms are sinful in different ways.

Ergo, homosexual acts are also sinful.

He didn't say that, he was talking about divorce, not expressions of sexuality. He pointed out that since God created or sanctioned "marriage" between the male and female he created, let no man break what God has made. And even after he said that he still allowed for divorce... So he contradicted himself or at least made an exception that allowed for people to dis-solve marriage... How do you explain that?

Lust is a sexual expression and yet we've already agreed that lust by itself is not sinful, the situation matters, i..e., a spouse lusting for another = adultery. A single person lusting for their future wife is not... In that passage Jesus is not identifying moral and immoral expressions of sexuality, just giving a rationale regarding divorce. We could go a bit further, masturbation is a lustful expression of sexuality, are you saying that is sinful too since it can happen outside of marriage?

Logic and sin are one thing.

If one accepts Christ as the Son of God, then his teachings on sin ought to be authoritative.

And that's the "Bible says so" argument.

From this preposition, it logically follows from the argument above that homosexuality is sinful.

Only if we accept that Jesus has the authority and that he identified homosexuality as sinful... You can't prove either... But even if we assume the first, you still need to prove the second and you haven't.

However, one can challenge this preposition in a variety of ways, so I am unsure if you will find this to be 'logical' in the sense that you are using the term.

I don't find it logical to argue that "A" is sinful because some guy said so, especially when he didn't even say it. You asked why murder is immoral and I explained why, can't you do the same wrt homosexuality? I'll assume by that answer you can't offer a logical argument to support your position... Instead you fall back on what Jesus said about divorce...and he didn't even consistently apply what he said because after saying man should not break what God had affirmed - marriage - he allowed for divorce anyway...

C'mon Ben, I know you have a logical mind... Why are you, to quote a TV preacher I respect, parking your brain outside the church before entering?

[Berzerker]

No, because we're upholding the ancient Christian tradition of brotherly love, a tradition often sacrificed ever since the Church got official status within the Roman empire and began lusting after imperial power. It's time to get back to basics.

That's how Thomas Jefferson describe himself wrt Christianity, he called himself a "primitive Christian". It was when Christianity went from being outside of the state to being the state's official religion that it lost it's connection to Jesus. What's the saying? Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely...

[Ben Kenobi]

To you, sex outside of marriage is sin, even if in an emotionally fulfilling, monogamous relationship.

True, but that is not how you put the question.

Getting laid doesn't speak of craving emotional fulfillment after all.

But what's good for you isn't good for everyone, and what's bad for you isn't bad for everyone.

True, not everyone desires to be married.

If you don't trust yourself to engage in a sexual relationship responsibly, then I'm glad you don't.

Responsibly I assumes means to wear the proper protection. I'd rather wait for someone that I care about, to defer pleasure for a better time.

And I don't think religion opens up any thing that is foreclosed to the non-religious.

Foreclosed? If that were the case, then none of us could enter. There has to be something that religion touches in order to draw us in. Sadly some people are not sensitive to these things, so what works for some will not work for others.

I don't know your own experiences, but if you have known some religion, and not found unique pleasures there, then I can see why you have gone the way you have.

[Ben Kenobi]

He didn't say that, he was talking about divorce, not expressions of sexuality.

Which is an expression of sexuality, unless you see marriage as merely a legal contract.

He pointed out that since God created or sanctioned "marriage" between the male and female he created, let no man break what God has made. And even after he said that he still allowed for divorce... So he contradicted himself or at least made an exception that allowed for people to dis-solve marriage... How do you explain that?

In what occasion does this exception apply? In the case where the bond has been broken by marital infidelity. Yes, Christ wants marriage to not be broken by men, but through infidelity, the guilty partner has already broken the union. The divorce recognises the breach which has already occurred, rather than the divorce constituting the breach.

Lust is a sexual expression and yet we've already agreed that lust by itself is not sinful, the situation matters, i..e., a spouse lusting for another = adultery. A single person lusting for their future wife is not...

No we haven't. We merely agreed that lust can be sinful when thought, and not only when acted upon.

I don't really see the difference between the first and the second context. The second context seems to apply only to a single person who has not promised himself in marriage. If he has already promised himself, then he's not single anymore. It applies to the situation where one person lusts after the other, without the return for the affection. So to say that he lusts after his 'future wife' could be applied to anyone he lusts after.

In that passage Jesus is not identifying moral and immoral expressions of sexuality, just giving a rationale regarding divorce. We could go a bit further, masturbation is a lustful expression of sexuality, are you saying that is sinful too since it can happen outside of marriage?

If we have already said that it is sinful to lust after someone in your thoughts, then you would be correct in this assessment here, that the masturbation would be sinful in this aspect.

And that's the "Bible says so" argument.

Well, I don't see any other way to categorically define sin, without reference to God. If there is no God, then there can be no sin.

Only if we accept that Jesus has the authority and that he identified homosexuality as sinful... You can't prove either... But even if we assume the first, you still need to prove the second and you haven't.

Divorce is an expression of sexuality, in that it represents the regulation of such expression, and the severance of a former union. To assume that it does not assumes that divorce has nothing to do with the sexual union, an is merely the dissolution of a contract. If one assumes that divorce does have something to do with the sexual union, then it must be like hacking off a limb.

I don't find it logical to argue that "A" is sinful because some guy said so, especially when he didn't even say it.

Does he affirm marriage as the sole realm for sexual expression? If so, then it would seem logical that all other forms would be sinful. That's the argument, and you have not addressed his affirmation of marriage.

You asked why murder is immoral and I explained why, can't you do the same wrt homosexuality?

That's a different term. Immoral! = Sin.

I can make the argument along Kantian lines, that because homosexuality is not universaliseable, it cannot be a moral action. Ergo, homosexuality is immoral.

C'mon Ben, I know you have a logical mind... Why are you, to quote a TV preacher I respect, parking your brain outside the church before entering?

Well, I hope this is a better attempt than before.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's how Thomas Jefferson describe himself wrt Christianity, he called himself a "primitive Christian". It was when Christianity went from being outside of the state to being the state's official religion that it lost it's connection to Jesus. What's the saying? Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely...

Primitive Christians affirmed miracles, and the direct action of God upon the world. I'm not sure that I have ever seen Jefferson preach this intervention of God.

[Ben Kenobi]

He doesn't have to affirm it! PECUSA is an autonomous church within the Anglican Communion. If the AC were concerned that there needed to be some sort of statement clarifying a conflict between members then it would do so. The AC does not make policy for individual member churches.

So then you are already out.

If the Anglican communion means anything, then it will have some authority over the individual congregations. Yet you folks say you are autonomous.

How do you reconcile the two?

No, because we're upholding the ancient Christian tradition of brotherly love, a tradition often sacrificed ever since the Church got official status within the Roman empire and began lusting after imperial power. It's time to get back to basics.

But Apostle Paul says that while we are not to judge those outside the church, we are supposed to expel the immoral brothers inside. We do this through brotherly love, because we acknowledge the damage that sin does to him. We want to see his relationship with Christ restored, so in a desperate measure, you have to exclude him so that he recognises just how far off the path he has trod.

Discipline does not mean a lack of love, but rather, confirms the love that you have for one another.

Hebrews 12:8

"If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons."

AFAIK the Canadian church did not join in the call to boot out PECUSA. You're in no position to speak for Candian Anglicans.

No, but I speak of we, as we ought to be, one in Christ, rather than our individual denominations and divisions.

Don't forget, I was baptised in the Anglican church, and by your own tenets I have just as much of a right to be there as you have. It is through my own actions that I left, and not though expulsion by the Anglicans.

Yes, the Canadian church did not call to boot out PECUSA, but that doesn't mean that they are not suffering under Ingham.

You may be surprised, but the faithful parishes that have left the Diocese of New Westminister have been threatened by Ingham to be stripped of their parishes, the buildings, and the rest, since he claims that they are under his authority, and not those of the individual congregations.

So which is it Doc? Who owns your buildings? In theory, you say the congregations, yet you affirm an order above the individual congregations, you give them authority, and you give them jobs.

Any diocese that doesn't want a gay bishop can simply not elect one! I suspect the process is similar in most of the other members of the AC. No one is shoving gays doen their throats. That's what makes the whole hullaballoo such a farse.

Not a farce when faithful Anglicans are threatened to be stripped of their buildings, when they refuse to pay their fees to the diocese of a renegade who refuses to repent.

Secondly, if all your doctrine of the church can be voted upon, what does this mean for your church? Are you not built on sand?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Getting laid doesn't speak of craving emotional fulfillment after all.

I doesn't? It does for me. I have sex for phsyical and mental reasons. To physically connect with someone like that and exchange pleasure is an emotionally fulfilling thing.

Responsibly I assumes means to wear the proper protection. I'd rather wait for someone that I care about, to defer pleasure for a better time.

Nope, I meant emotional repsonsibility. That's a big part of sex.

There has to be something that religion touches in order to draw us in.

"Opiate of the masses," as it were.

I don't know your own experiences, but if you have known some religion, and not found unique pleasures there, then I can see why you have gone the way you have.

I knew your religion for a time. And no, no unique pleasures. I found I could meditate and get more mental fulfillment than reading the Bible could ever give me (especially since I realized, as I was reading, that it was a bunch of hooey).