Established Religion Is So Evil ...

[Forster Keys]

Lino? Isn't that a type of flooring?

It took me a while to figure out what you were saying.

LINOs, RINOs and DINOs, oh my!

I should have capitalised it.

[Forster Keys]

It took me a while to figure out what you were saying.

LINOs, RINOs and DINOs, oh my!

It's an acropun. I'm impressed I must say.

Getting to your post longer post. Mean to answer all in order but that really was good.

Why thank you.

[AiliailiA]

It's an acropun. I'm impressed I must say.

Getting to your post longer post. Mean to answer all in order but that really was good.

Why thank you.

Next time buddy. I have every 4-letter acronym which ends in -INO written out on paper already. Twenty three reloads for my 10-gauge acropun gun.

A surprising number of them have been used already though. It could create some confusion, so probably better if we don't.

[Forster Keys]

Why thank you.

Next time buddy. I have every 4-letter acronym which ends in -INO written out on paper already. Twenty three reloads for my 10-gauge acropun gun.

A surprising number of them have been used already though. It could create some confusion, so probably better if we don't.

A 10 gauge? Bah. You're a Punster In Name Only.

[Jafas United]

And I wonder (wrt the thread subject) whether an Established church being pulled into the future actually influences other churches. Churches all to some extent compete with each other (for congregation) and the Established one has a certain advantage if it teaches "moral rules" which are closer to the civil law.

It does. And I guess that's why religion is so successful in the United States than compared with Europe. You guys have never had a state 'monopoly' on religion, which has allowed for various splinter churches to spring up and has allowed churches to compete for congregation. Whereas in Europe, most countries at some stage had an official religion, which the meddling of church and state, I think, has turned many Europeans off religion and is the reason why Europe in general is quite secular.

Though European Churches seem to be creating their own moral code. As seen in the consecration of the lesbian Bishop. Something which would be unthinkable in many Lutheran churches across the world, but Swedish Lutherans have decided to reform the Reformation, so to speak.

OK. That's a fair while. If there is any "church follows state" effect it should be noticeable by now.

Lutheran Church membership in Finland is still around 80%, but only about 5% attend mass regularly. While there may be no 'official' state religion in Sweden and Finland, the Lutheran Church in both countries still has a special part in the way the state is run. It's complicated, really.

Practising is for Catholics.

You could say that! And even they're beginning to slacken off.

"Dear, are you all right in there?"
"Yes dear, I'm just practising for when we have children"

I could continue that, but my PC warning meter seems to be faulty. I gets touchy.

[Horsefish]

such as in Nazi Germany where Clemens August Graf von Galen, the Bishop of Münster, helped to expose and end the Nazis' mass euthanasia project.

Opposition from religious figures in Nazi germany was due to individual beliefs and actions rather than a wider church policy, for the most part they didn't rock the boat.
[/offtopic]

[Vestr-Norig]

At least the Norwegian Church is pretty liberal, though, not as liberal as the Swedish. Maybe a bit too liberal, I think. And sadly, they have just decided to separate the Church from the state. Yeah, thats right, Norway doesn't have a state-religion anymore. Damn liberals

[Holy Nordic Empire]

The Church of Sweden, which is a Lutheran church, is very liberal. Homosexuals are allowed to may in their churches and the Bishop of Härnösand (which is about 5 hours north of Stockholm) is lesbian. I guess though, the CoS had to reform to conform with the minds of a very secular and liberal nation.

That being said the Lutheran Church of Finland, which I was born into is still quite conservative, when it comes to homosexuality. Perhaps in time that will change, but we're still doing better than most American churches.

The political correctness and humanism of the Swedes disgust me. You are not doing better than anyone and especially not better than the conservative American churches who seem to be the only one left to defend the true words of the Bible.
A lesbian bishop... should I laugh or cry? The church of Sweden is not Lutheran, it's satanic.

[Old Tyrannia]

such as in Nazi Germany where Clemens August Graf von Galen, the Bishop of Münster, helped to expose and end the Nazis' mass euthanasia project.

Opposition from religious figures in Nazi germany was due to individual beliefs and actions rather than a wider church policy, for the most part they didn't rock the boat.
[/offtopic]

I must respectfully disagree. See Mit brennender Sorge, a papal condemnation of the Nazi ideology. Also, this could be regarded as an on-topic discussion if one compares the conduct of the unestablished Lutheran and Catholic churches to that of the pro-Nazi Reich Church. Whilst obviously one cannot compare the role of the Church of England to that of the Reich Church, it could be worth considering that independant religious organizations, unassociated with the government, do play a role in combating totalitarianism by giving the State competition for the 'hearts and minds' of the people. Just another argument for the church not being considered subordinate to the State.

[Johz]

I believe the CoE is a church denomination in its own right, but it falls under the banner of the wider Anglican church. Thus you have Tutu who is an Anglican in South Africa, but obviously not part of the Church of England. The Anglican church probably stemmed, then, from the Church of England during the colonial period.

But in England they are one and the same.

Doesn't the Archbishop of Canterbury have some official capacity in terms of being (for want of a better expression) the head of the entire Anglican ministry?

Baring of course the CoE as Liz runs that right?

The Archbishop of Canterbury is both a CoE institution and an Anglican one. I know Rowan Williams has been referred to as an outsider, coming from (iirc) the Church of Wales.

[Horsefish]

I must respectfully disagree. See Mit brennender Sorge, a papal condemnation of the Nazi ideology. Also, this could be regarded as an on-topic discussion if one compares the conduct of the unestablished Lutheran and Catholic churches to that of the pro-Nazi Reich Church. Whilst obviously one cannot compare the role of the Church of England to that of the Reich Church, it could be worth considering that independant religious organizations, unassociated with the government, do play a role in combating totalitarianism by giving the State competition for the 'hearts and minds' of the people. Just another argument for the church not being considered subordinate to the State.

The only trouble with your first source is you cannot be sure if the church would've condemmed the Nazis if it wasn't for the Nazis breaking the agreement signed with the church. There is also the whole Catholic church not condemming the holocaust despite becoming aware of it in 1942, helping Nazis escape Europe, and the bishop who condemned those who took part in the bomb plot in 1944 (his name escapes me atm).

Of course your partly right though, this was mainly true for the established, larger churches not the smaller denominations and the attitude of ignoring what the Nazis were doing and just getting along with your daily busnieuss bescause it didn't affect you was certainly not limited to the church, it was the widespread attitude of the civillain population of Germany.

[Forsher]

.
The Church of England is one of the most tolerant and progressive Christian Churches.

This is the Church that so many people emigrated to get away from. In the US, still wary of it when it came time to do the Constitution.

The CoE has gotten better.

Has it been a drag on the political liberalization of Britain? ... doesn't look that way.

Anybody who knows much about the Church of Sweden, etc, is invited to give other examples.

Or counter-examples.

Maybe Establishment of the Church isn't actually such an evil after all?

I think it's more letting things take there natural course rather than Establishment.

[Old Tyrannia]

I must respectfully disagree. See Mit brennender Sorge, a papal condemnation of the Nazi ideology. Also, this could be regarded as an on-topic discussion if one compares the conduct of the unestablished Lutheran and Catholic churches to that of the pro-Nazi Reich Church. Whilst obviously one cannot compare the role of the Church of England to that of the Reich Church, it could be worth considering that independant religious organizations, unassociated with the government, do play a role in combating totalitarianism by giving the State competition for the 'hearts and minds' of the people. Just another argument for the church not being considered subordinate to the State.

The only trouble with your first source is you cannot be sure if the church would've condemmed the Nazis if it wasn't for the Nazis breaking the agreement signed with the church. There is also the whole Catholic church not condemming the holocaust despite becoming aware of it in 1942,

Source?

helping Nazis escape Europe,

Source?

and the bishop who condemned those who took part in the bomb plot in 1944 (his name escapes me atm).

Source?

Of course your partly right though, this was mainly true for the established, larger churches not the smaller denominations and the attitude of ignoring what the Nazis were doing and just getting along with your daily busnieuss bescause it didn't affect you was certainly not limited to the church, it was the widespread attitude of the civillain population of Germany.

I do agree that the Church could have done more, but I still feel that the prescence of the Catholic and other non-Nazi churches was more to the benefit than the detriment of Germany.

[Machiavellionia]

Opposition from religious figures in Nazi germany was due to individual beliefs and actions rather than a wider church policy, for the most part they didn't rock the boat.
[/offtopic]

I must respectfully disagree. See Mit brennender Sorge, a papal condemnation of the Nazi ideology. Also, this could be regarded as an on-topic discussion if one compares the conduct of the unestablished Lutheran and Catholic churches to that of the pro-Nazi Reich Church. Whilst obviously one cannot compare the role of the Church of England to that of the Reich Church, it could be worth considering that independant religious organizations, unassociated with the government, do play a role in combating totalitarianism by giving the State competition for the 'hearts and minds' of the people. Just another argument for the church not being considered subordinate to the State.

Having just finished an AS module in Anti Semitism, Hitler, and the German People, including a large section on responsibility for the Holocaust, the Catholic Church on the whole avoided condemning the Nazi machine, including the Genocide, until it looked like the war was going bad for Germany. Many Catholics were largely anti-Semitic, and while the Pope didn't actively condone this, he didn't try and stifle it either. I agree with the view aired earlier that men like Galen in stopping the T4 program and other religious protesters like Pastor Niemoller were independent, rather than a mouthpiece for religious organs. On the whole, the established churches only voiced criticism when they looked safe.

[Disserbia]

Anyone who argues that the established religion is evil does not get time of day from me. People can argue that religion is used for one thing or another, and they may be partially true, however to presume that an entire population or group has the same motives in joining that group is extremely ignorant.

[Johz]

The Church of Sweden, which is a Lutheran church, is very liberal. Homosexuals are allowed to may in their churches and the Bishop of Härnösand (which is about 5 hours north of Stockholm) is lesbian. I guess though, the CoS had to reform to conform with the minds of a very secular and liberal nation.

That being said the Lutheran Church of Finland, which I was born into is still quite conservative, when it comes to homosexuality. Perhaps in time that will change, but we're still doing better than most American churches.

The political correctness and humanism of the Swedes disgust me. You are not doing better than anyone and especially not better than the conservative American churches who seem to be the only one left to defend the true words of the Bible.
A lesbian bishop... should I laugh or cry? The church of Sweden is not Lutheran, it's satanic.

Ah ah ah no.

The two points we're addressing are these: Is a homosexual a sinner, and can a homosexual speak words of truth?

For a start, sin is a choice based on our own free will, right? Otherwise the Lord's Prayer with lines such as "lead me not into temptation" makes no sense. We are agreed? Good.

Homosexuality then, cannot be a sin, as it is not a choice. See nature for proof of that: homosexuality is everywhere. Therefore homosexuality cannot be a sin, as it is a choice.

So homosexuality is not a sin. But, I hear you cry, what about the Bible? (as an aside, please don't use the Kjv if you're going to quote the Bible at me. I'm sure you weren't going to thought.) Well go ahead and read the thing. I'm not going to go into the whole sex thing, because that's not what homosexuality is about. However, you would do well to note that the verses never mention attraction, merely whether one should be having sex.

Okay, so gays aren't sinners. But then neither are women, and Paul doesn't like them preaching, right? Wrong. He was actually discussing a very particular instance, where, for the morale of one church, this advice was necessary. But that has nothing to do with gay people. So why shouldn't they preach? Well... Hmm... Okay, maybe they can preach.

The only real reason why gays shouldn't be allowed preaching rights that I can see is if you haven't read the first argument and still think homosexuality is a sin.

Well so what? You're a sinner. Paul went around stoning Christians before moving on to become the Christian equivalent of Terminator. (except without the killing.) Since when did god let sin stop us from recieving redemption?

[Jafas United]

The Church of Sweden, which is a Lutheran church, is very liberal. Homosexuals are allowed to may in their churches and the Bishop of Härnösand (which is about 5 hours north of Stockholm) is lesbian. I guess though, the CoS had to reform to conform with the minds of a very secular and liberal nation.

That being said the Lutheran Church of Finland, which I was born into is still quite conservative, when it comes to homosexuality. Perhaps in time that will change, but we're still doing better than most American churches.

The political correctness and humanism of the Swedes disgust me. You are not doing better than anyone and especially not better than the conservative American churches who seem to be the only one left to defend the true words of the Bible.
A lesbian bishop... should I laugh or cry? The church of Sweden is not Lutheran, it's satanic.

I for one, am all for this. Don't get me wrong, there are many problems existing in Sweden which I'm not happy about, but this is a step in the right direction. Yes, it goes against Luther's teachings, but Christianity changes. If it didn't, we'd still be stoning women for adultery and burning witches at the stake. Her sexuality should be a private matter, it doesn't mean she wouldn't be just as effective of a Bishop as her heterosexual counterparts.

Also, to clarify, I'm Finnish, but I am very involved and interested in all things Swedish.

[Horsefish]

I do agree that the Church could have done more, but I still feel that the prescence of the Catholic and other non-Nazi churches was more to the benefit than the detriment of Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(history) It seems like it may have been a mor eindividual action acting under the churches nose, but it's a summary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... is_to_flee It seems it was due to diplomatic pressure as well as personal concenrs too fo the whole refusal to condem the holocaust, although the last paragraph reveals there was no apology or explanation until 50 odd years later.
I've found refernece to a cardinal in my history textbook but he's not named.

I don't think the presence of the churches was of a benefit to Germany, but it also wasn't detrimental. As an organisation it adopted pragmatic co-operation with the government, much like the other organisations.

[Jafas United]

Also, Ailiailia, I guess the settles it that the Church of Sweden is more progressive than the Anglican Church.

[Disserbia]

I do agree that the Church could have done more, but I still feel that the prescence of the Catholic and other non-Nazi churches was more to the benefit than the detriment of Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(history) It seems like it may have been a mor eindividual action acting under the churches nose, but it's a summary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... is_to_flee It seems it was due to diplomatic pressure as well as personal concenrs too fo the whole refusal to condem the holocaust, although the last paragraph reveals there was no apology or explanation until 50 odd years later.
I've found refernece to a cardinal in my history textbook but he's not named.

I don't think the presence of the churches was of a benefit to Germany, but it also wasn't detrimental. As an organisation it adopted pragmatic co-operation with the government, much like the other organisations.

Just because Pius XII had particular affinities towards certain groups and was more scared of communism than the nazis doesn't mean that that was the attitude of the church as a whole. If you look at how Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) reacted while working under Pius XII, actively advocating for the Jews of Hungary and doing everything in his power to save them, including converting them at the last second, you can see that there were differing attitudes within the church. Also in the second Vatican council its pretty clear that the church condemned what happened during the Holocaust if not in so many words. At least in the case of John XXIII and Paul VI it effected them enough to make them realize that they needed to take a look at what was going on in the world and the role of the church within it.

[Disserbia]

The only trouble with your first source is you cannot be sure if the church would've condemmed the Nazis if it wasn't for the Nazis breaking the agreement signed with the church. There is also the whole Catholic church not condemming the holocaust despite becoming aware of it in 1942,

Source?

helping Nazis escape Europe,

Source?

and the bishop who condemned those who took part in the bomb plot in 1944 (his name escapes me atm).

Source?

Of course your partly right though, this was mainly true for the established, larger churches not the smaller denominations and the attitude of ignoring what the Nazis were doing and just getting along with your daily busnieuss bescause it didn't affect you was certainly not limited to the church, it was the widespread attitude of the civillain population of Germany.

I do agree that the Church could have done more, but I still feel that the prescence of the Catholic and other non-Nazi churches was more to the benefit than the detriment of Germany.

You should read Pius XII, the Holocaust, and the Cold War by Michael Phayer. He also has a shorter article of the same title in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, V12 N2, Fall 1998. Its extremely telling. Pius XII's motivations where not anti-semitic though, he believed that communism was a bigger threat to the catholic church than was totalitarianism in any form. This was before modernization when the Catholic church only cared about Catholics. The vatican ratlines directly aided the escape of Eichmann and Pavelic to South America. The more you know...

[Holy Nordic Empire]

[spoiler][spoiler]

The political correctness and humanism of the Swedes disgust me. You are not doing better than anyone and especially not better than the conservative American churches who seem to be the only one left to defend the true words of the Bible.
A lesbian bishop... should I laugh or cry? The church of Sweden is not Lutheran, it's satanic.

I for one, am all for this. Don't get me wrong, there are many problems existing in Sweden which I'm not happy about, but this is a step in the right direction. Yes, it goes against Luther's teachings, but Christianity changes. If it didn't, we'd still be stoning women for adultery and burning witches at the stake. Her sexuality should be a private matter, it doesn't mean she wouldn't be just as effective of a Bishop as her heterosexual counterparts.

[/spoiler][/spoiler]

Also, to clarify, I'm Finnish, but I am very involved and interested in all things Swedish.

Christianity changes? Do you consider Christianity as a "designer-religion" you can change so it fits into the sick mind of self-centred people? Who can change the words of the Bible? No one! Not even a socialist government like the swedish. A step in the right direction? It's a step towards dechristianization of the people.

[Holy Nordic Empire]

The political correctness and humanism of the Swedes disgust me. You are not doing better than anyone and especially not better than the conservative American churches who seem to be the only one left to defend the true words of the Bible.
A lesbian bishop... should I laugh or cry? The church of Sweden is not Lutheran, it's satanic.

Ah ah ah no.

The two points we're addressing are these: Is a homosexual a sinner, and can a homosexual speak words of truth?

For a start, sin is a choice based on our own free will, right? Otherwise the Lord's Prayer with lines such as "lead me not into temptation" makes no sense. We are agreed? Good.

Homosexuality then, cannot be a sin, as it is not a choice. See nature for proof of that: homosexuality is everywhere. Therefore homosexuality cannot be a sin, as it is a choice.

So homosexuality is not a sin. But, I hear you cry, what about the Bible? (as an aside, please don't use the Kjv if you're going to quote the Bible at me. I'm sure you weren't going to thought.) Well go ahead and read the thing. I'm not going to go into the whole sex thing, because that's not what homosexuality is about. However, you would do well to note that the verses never mention attraction, merely whether one should be having sex.

Okay, so gays aren't sinners. But then neither are women, and Paul doesn't like them preaching, right? Wrong. He was actually discussing a very particular instance, where, for the morale of one church, this advice was necessary. But that has nothing to do with gay people. So why shouldn't they preach? Well... Hmm... Okay, maybe they can preach.

The only real reason why gays shouldn't be allowed preaching rights that I can see is if you haven't read the first argument and still think homosexuality is a sin.

Well so what? You're a sinner. Paul went around stoning Christians before moving on to become the Christian equivalent of Terminator. (except without the killing.) Since when did god let sin stop us from recieving redemption?

The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry. Further, for me to openly condemn homosexuality theologically makes me no more a "gay basher" than I am an "adultery basher", "premarital sex basher", "kidnapper basher" or a "murderer basher". If you disagree, your argument is with God's Bible.

The homosexual community has two ways of promoting their personal choices of being homosexual through the religious forum. First, some will claim the Bible actually promotes and condones homosexuality. Second, others try to get the Bible banned from public use by categorizing it as hate literature.

For any to use the Bible to condone rather than condemn homosexual activity in the theological arena just proves such a one has absolutely no idea what the Bible actually teaches. For anyone to suggest the Bible says homosexual activity is acceptable to God, is nothing short of willful blindness. So to set the record straight once and for all, here is what the Bible teaches on the subject.

Anyone who has heard of the cities of "Sodom and Gommorah" knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality. Gen 19:5-8 "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'" The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the "eternal fire". Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

If the homosexual community chooses to practice homosexuality in privacy, that is there free choice. But let such persons know for certain that the Christian Bible condemns all such practices and God will judge them unfit for the kingdom of heaven if the continue to practice and openly promote homosexual sex.

[Johz]

Ah ah ah no.

The two points we're addressing are these: Is a homosexual a sinner, and can a homosexual speak words of truth?

For a start, sin is a choice based on our own free will, right? Otherwise the Lord's Prayer with lines such as "lead me not into temptation" makes no sense. We are agreed? Good.

Homosexuality then, cannot be a sin, as it is not a choice. See nature for proof of that: homosexuality is everywhere. Therefore homosexuality cannot be a sin, as it is a choice.

So homosexuality is not a sin. But, I hear you cry, what about the Bible? (as an aside, please don't use the Kjv if you're going to quote the Bible at me. I'm sure you weren't going to thought.) Well go ahead and read the thing. I'm not going to go into the whole sex thing, because that's not what homosexuality is about. However, you would do well to note that the verses never mention attraction, merely whether one should be having sex.

Okay, so gays aren't sinners. But then neither are women, and Paul doesn't like them preaching, right? Wrong. He was actually discussing a very particular instance, where, for the morale of one church, this advice was necessary. But that has nothing to do with gay people. So why shouldn't they preach? Well... Hmm... Okay, maybe they can preach.

The only real reason why gays shouldn't be allowed preaching rights that I can see is if you haven't read the first argument and still think homosexuality is a sin.

Well so what? You're a sinner. Paul went around stoning Christians before moving on to become the Christian equivalent of Terminator. (except without the killing.) Since when did god let sin stop us from recieving redemption?

The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry. Further, for me to openly condemn homosexuality theologically makes me no more a "gay basher" than I am an "adultery basher", "premarital sex basher", "kidnapper basher" or a "murderer basher". If you disagree, your argument is with God's Bible.

The homosexual community has two ways of promoting their personal choices of being homosexual through the religious forum. First, some will claim the Bible actually promotes and condones homosexuality. Second, others try to get the Bible banned from public use by categorizing it as hate literature.

For any to use the Bible to condone rather than condemn homosexual activity in the theological arena just proves such a one has absolutely no idea what the Bible actually teaches. For anyone to suggest the Bible says homosexual activity is acceptable to God, is nothing short of willful blindness. So to set the record straight once and for all, here is what the Bible teaches on the subject.

Anyone who has heard of the cities of "Sodom and Gommorah" knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality. Gen 19:5-8 "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'" The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the "eternal fire". Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

If the homosexual community chooses to practice homosexuality in privacy, that is there free choice. But let such persons know for certain that the Christian Bible condemns all such practices and God will judge them unfit for the kingdom of heaven if the continue to practice and openly promote homosexual sex.

Gralp? Did you read what I wrote? At least go through your post and recognise which quotes are condemning homosexuality itself (ie none) and which quotes condemn homosexual acts (ie all of them). We can discuss with others how to interpret the second lot of verses, but that's not necessary, we shall just take them at their face value for the moment.

As I said before, this does not mean that homosexuality itself is a sin. How can it be? In the same way that being a woman is not a sin, or even being born with an extreme debilitating illness. (Jesus himself told his disciples that.) So in the same way that anything that is not a choice is not sinful, so homosexuality itself cannot be sinful.

If homosexuality is not sinful, and the aforementioned lesbian bishop does not practise homosexual acts, I am at a loss to see how you can have a theological problem with the issue.

[Terruana]

I think the archbishop of Canterbury trying to force parliament not to pass any laws legalizing gay marriage means the CoE still isn't a force for good, no matter how tolerant it is.
One of the things I really hate about my country is that people seem to think religious figures like the Archbishop deserve a say in the law-making process. They don't. He runs the church, not the country. Until he gets elected as an MP, he has no right to tell the government what they can and can't do.