Anglican schism

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Not necessarily. I've certainly run across Christians for whom the mere admission of homosexual orientation constitutes sin.

Perhaps, but that's not the issue with the Anglicans in this case, IIRC. There have been openly gay priests before, but they were celebate, and the official church stance was that was ok. With Robinson, the issue that is most contentious was that he is "living in sin" with his partner.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Any attempt at some monolithich monotheist religion is bound to break up into a bunch of sects- nothing that can be done about it unless you can create some sort of theological orthodoxy and a mechanism for fiercely and streneously enforcing it at all costs- ain't going to happen.

actually no. while breaking up is inevitable, the kind of sharp lines well defined lines of Christian denominations is largely a Christian thing - while the Muslims have Sunnis and Shias, the groupings WITHIN sunni and Shia are nothing like the various Protestant sects. As for Judaism, while its hard to recognize some Reform Jews and say Szatmar Hasidim as the same religion, its hard to draw hard and fast lines along the spectrum - the trends are more organizational questions than anything else (there is a heavy block of Orthodox Jewish rabbis that make a distinction between all O Jews and reform and Con jews (as heretics, not as non-Jews of course), but lots of O laypeople, and a few O rabbis deny any such distinction)

[Heresson]

In Catholic church it is also about the deeds, not the preferences.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heresson
And St Paul (and Od Testament) did find homosexuality wrong.

Only if you believe Timothy was written by him and ignore the consensus among scholars that it wasn't.

[Last Conformist]

Odd Testament

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Heresson
Bkeela and Kuci...
You are iving proof of that You can be ignorant agnostics/atheists as well.

No, they just can't take something as pathetic as religion seriously. Trust me, it is very hard to give any kind of credit to it...

[Heresson]

Yeah, right.
All the humanitarian aid we owe to religion... All the brilliant religious art - architecture, paintings, sculpture, large part of poetry, literature, most of philosophy,
so many great people through history...
All the history of mankind since we can trace it well up to very recently, and even mostly today - it's all not worth a thing, of course.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


actually no. while breaking up is inevitable, the kind of sharp lines well defined lines of Christian denominations is largely a Christian thing - while the Muslims have Sunnis and Shias, the groupings WITHIN sunni and Shia are nothing like the various Protestant sects. As for Judaism, while its hard to recognize some Reform Jews and say Szatmar Hasidim as the same religion, its hard to draw hard and fast lines along the spectrum - the trends are more organizational questions than anything else (there is a heavy block of Orthodox Jewish rabbis that make a distinction between all O Jews and reform and Con jews (as heretics, not as non-Jews of course), but lots of O laypeople, and a few O rabbis deny any such distinction)

The sharp lines amongst several protestant sects are more organizational than doctrinal. The difference in doctrine between a Shiite and a Sunni is as large as those between a Catholic and a Protestant.

BUt I wouls agree that protestants are extra crazy when it comes to sect creation. Christianity's core belief's are so complex as to allow for more sect building.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Heresson
Yeah, right.
All the humanitarian aid we owe to religion... All the brilliant religious art - architecture, paintings, sculpture, large part of poetry, literature, most of philosophy,
so many great people through history...
All the history of mankind since we can trace it well up to very recently, and even mostly today - it's all not worth a thing, of course.

Hmmm, well a lot of that philosophy and those people have happened despite religion, we've finally been able to break free of it's constraints...religion is not the thing that empowers us, it is human creativity. We've had barely 100 years of relative secularism compared to millennia of religious dogma...it is hardly surprising that there are more achievements to marvel at over this time...sheerly because of the numbers game.

And besides, it doesn't make that dogma any more true...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The sharp lines amongst several protestant sects are more organizational than doctrinal. The difference in doctrine between a Shiite and a Sunni is as large as those between a Catholic and a Protestant.

BUt I wouls agree that protestants are extra crazy when it comes to sect creation. Christianity's core belief's are so complex as to allow for more sect building.

Just to clarify - i meant something different by organizational. I realize that the difference between say, anglicanism and presbytirianism is about rule by Bishops, vs more "democratic" rule by Presbyters, etc. But those are DEEP issues for the sects in question, with biblical roots. What I meant by organizational for Judaism is that the there is a continuum from say, "left wing Reform" to "right wing Reform" to "left wing conservative" to "right wing Conservative" etc and that at the margins the question for a borderline congregation ( of which ive been a member in the past) has mainly to do with whether you choose to pay dues to one organization or the other. Its arbitrary and the lines are drawn differently in the UK, Israel, etc than they are in the US. (The UK historically has a "liberal" movement that is more traditional than US Reform, and an establishment Orthodox movement - The United Synagogue - that is closer US Conservatives than US modern Orthodox are - and a tiny (and recently founded) Conservative movement.

[Odin]

The fundies are trying to take over the Lutheran church too, one a bastion of progessivism. A few months ago, the congregation of my hometown's church kicked out the pastor because he wan't a homophobe. Many congregations are leaving the ELCA (the main Lutheran organization in the US) because people think that the ELCA is too socially permissive.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Hmmm, well a lot of that philosophy and those people have happened despite religion, we've finally been able to break free of it's constraints...religion is not the thing that empowers us, it is human creativity. We've had barely 100 years of relative secularism compared to millennia of religious dogma...it is hardly surprising that there are more achievements to marvel at over this time...sheerly because of the numbers game.

And besides, it doesn't make that dogma any more true...

I was not pointing that there wouldn't be anything to marvel at without religion: we simply don't know how the world would look without it.
I was just pointing that a statesment "it is very hard to give any kind of credit to it...". It can be given credit to a lot of stuff. Amost entire ancient philosophy was done in connection to religion - Museion (and not only it!) was in fact a cult organisation. Similarily, the blossoming of Arabic science and culture had religious roots. And not much different in Christian world.
You can not say that world would have been better off without religion, because You don't know what would You get in return for the losses.

[Last Conformist]

The idea that organized religion enabled organized society on a wider scale does seem to have much for it. Cultic legitimization seems to've been of paramount importance for all early states.

[Ben Kenobi]

This schism means much to me, DanS, and is one of the reasons why I will be confirmed precisely one month from now.

The challenge is not just for the Anglicans, but for all the protestant churches over their authority in the church. Each church has it's own traditions, and how they are interpreted can be done in different ways. To vote on doctrine will lead to many other schisms over this issue, in a variety of churches.

I was baptised Anglican, and the Anglicans were my first impression of Christianity. So much of their service was compelling that I never went back to church until university.

One would hope that the conservative Anglican denominations would seek union within the Catholic church, but it seems that just the opposite has happened. They have retained control, and have managed to boot the liberal Anglicans out of the church. So we will see what happens to the countries with these liberal anglicans, whether they will remain out of the fold, or whether they will capitulate to rejoin their brethren.

[Ben Kenobi]

Anyway, it all comes of the problem of sexuality in Christianity. Ir may be questionabe if from the start, but for a very very long time, up to today, sexuality was dismissed as something dirty and sinful. I do not agree with that.

I agree with you here. The problem, is where does this idea that the material world is flawed, and dirty come from? It's not a Christian concept, but predates Christianity, going back to the Greeks.

On the other hand, Jesus did consider prostitution a sin, and yet I do not see anything wrong in that.

Do you understand why Christ believed prostitution to be a sin? It's what Paul gets into in his letter to the Conrinthians. Do you know that you are united to the prostitute when you sleep with her? Christ taught that the ideal union was between one man and one woman, and prostitution falls outside of this ideal, and is therefore sinful.

And St Paul (and Od Testament) did find homosexuality wrong. It's not a big problem with me, Old Testament I don't care about, and St Paul didn't have to be right in everything, but it's not what a decent Christian church can say.

Why is it indecent for a church to condemn sin? Isn't that the role, for the church to teach others how to lead a moral life apart from sin? You cannot do this without teaching what sin is, and to neglect this resposibility allows others to fall into sin.

On one side, I see ordaining a gay bishop as a progress to some extent, and on the other, I feel such decision does not come of Christian roots, and even if it does, it will soon be used by Christianity(all or just some denomination)-bashers as a comfortable attack opportunity.

Why do you feel the decision does not come from Christian roots, Heresson?