Arrest me and throw away the key

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, I'm going home...

I thought you might reply, and I had other business.

But marriage isn't meaningless if it lacks a sexual component, consider all the old married people beyond their sexual prime...

If we were to say that one must continuously be in union, then no marriage would ever be valid.

However, if we were to say that the marriage ought to be consummated, as I'm sure these old folks did in their prime, then one could say that sex is an essential part of marriage, while allowing the old folks to take a mutually agreeable break.

You've gone from claiming the Bible contain's God's definition of morality to making assumptions about "hidden" definitions of morality, i.e., you're playing God.

Still doesn't answer my original question.

Does Christianity affirm marriage as the only acceptable form of sexual expression? I asked you this, and you have been unable to show another form of expression held up to be acceptable.

All you can show is that because of an argument from silence, that Jesus says nothing about it, it therefore ought to be right. All one could infer from your argument is that it may be neutral, or it may not be.

Other books clarify this in a better way.

But after saying that he made an exception to allow the breaking of a marriage, his reason is irrelevant.

And for the reason specified, infidelity breaks the marital union, not the divorce. The divorce, as you have explained already, protects the innocent party.

So there's another reason for divorce, not just infidelity. But Jesus said ONLY infidelity!

Well, do you accept the exeception given by Christ as a valid reason? Then we can move on to this point.

Secondly, need infidelity be confined to adultery? One could make a case that unfaithfulness can also result in the betrayal of the trust between a man and a woman in the form of beatings.

Lust precedes marriage except in some "arranged" marriages common back then... How do you get around that?

What is there to get around? You lust after someone, the appropriate response is to get married if the feeling is mutual. If not, then you must deal with the lust.

But you're making it with your assumptions about hidden meanings.

Hardly takes any insight to see.

Does the bible condone or condemn sex outside of marriage?

I'm not a Christian so I don't accept the notion that we are sinners by virtue of our existence. If nature is fallen,
then the creator of nature is fallen...

But we are not of the same substance of him. We are in his image, but not of the same substance. So it is not necessary to say that because nature is fallen, that the creator must also be so.

Secondly, if we are not sinners from the start, where does our sinfulness come from?

But the reason God threw Adam and Eve out of the garden was because they procreated, that's what the figleafs and apple meant.

Read the story. They were thrown out for disobeying a direct command from God and listening to the serpent. They wanted to be gods themselves, and this was the sin that through them out of the garden.

But lust is sinful too according to you

Should you not also gouge your eye if it causes you to sin? Not my declaration, but from Christ.

(read what Paul said about why marriage is allowed, it had nothing to do with procreation.

So now I can appeal to Paul? Would you find him authoritative?

He does so appeal to procreation!

1 Cor 7:2-9

But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yup, murder is immoral even if your God says it isn't. If he says it is immoral, score one for God.

Suppose we took the argument that man is just another kind of animal.

Rather smarter, and more clever, but that is all. Why should we treat other men differently than we do animals?

Why do human beings have worth and value?

So what? That isn't proof of anything, the Jews viewed themselves as the children of God. They were the sons and daughters of God, nothing new there. Besides, anybody can claim to be the son of God...

Not in the sense you mean, but he claimed to be God himself.

He claims the authority to forgive sins committed against others. No one else has that authority but God.

Don't you mean the son of God? They're the son of God, they're loony, they're lying, or they're talking in parables or using symbolism. Probably a couple more, but we have no proof to support any of these possibilities.

But bear with me.

These are the possibilities.

He could be a lunatic. He could be lying. As for parables and symbolism, they can neither deny, nor confirm his claim. Only the first two work.

Now, if he is a liar, then by what authority would he be doing miracles? Healing people? How do you explain that?

If he were a lunatic, why would he compel people to leave their jobs and follow him? Wouldn't they just ignore him?

Why would the authorities consider him to be such a threat to them, if he were a lunatic?

If we are to accept the veracity of the Bible, wouldn't that mean accepting the veracity of both what Jesus said and your interpretations of what he said? Granted...

Intepretations can be contested. I only ask you to accept the events of Jesus' ministry here on earth. I will try to stay away from events that seem rather unclear.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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?

You're playing semantics here. ALL of the members of the Anglican Communion are autonomous. The Anglican Communion is a community of equals. I can't believe that you don't understand the concept. I think you're just looking for points to argue over.

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."

As Boris said above, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said that he doesn't believe that homosexuality is a sin, so you're argument is just air here.

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

When we no longer suffer from bigotry, pride, hate, intolerance, and pettiness perhaps we will be. Until then the "Tower of Babel Law" is still in effect.

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.

You did leave some time ago though right? Presumably your information about what is going on in the Canadian church is third hand then. There was never an issue of whether you could be an Anglican. For that matter you could drive across the border and become an Episcopalian.

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.

I have no idea how buildings are purchased in Canada! Could it be that the buildingx actually do belong to the diocese? Heck, I don't even know who Ingham is! This has nothing to do with the discussion.

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.

How does this relate to the discussion?

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?

Doctrines of most churches get voted on one way or another, If it's not by a broadly based committee selected from a wide base within the church then it's by a narrowly based committe selected by a power elite. You may believe that the latter is better than the former, but in my opinion experience shows that that is not true. The wider based process is better at filtering out the vagaries of human weakness.