Anglican church against gay marriage

[Othelos]

So gay couples can't experience the same joy as straight couples? Sounds a whole lot of BS to me.

Joy is not something that comes from being in rebellion and hating God. One can derive happiness, and satisfaction and call it joy, but joy springs eternal. Those who reject God reject and the joy and peace that he specifically gives, try to find contentment in other things. Ultimately those who hate God so much that they to not want to be like him, will suffer the torment of being away from God and all he is and represents--goodness, joy, peace, etc.

I understand what you're saying.

But I can speak from experience that leaving religion was one of the most positively liberating things I've ever done, and I feel way more at peace and have more joy now than I did back then. I finally feel comfortable with the multiplicity and diversity of human existence, and like my life has real meaning, not like something is being forced on me.

[Scanzian Freehold]

(So, put purely and simply, an unquestionable, self-perpetuating control system, free from any necessity or benefit of free will, which the divine has also apparently instilled in us for no real purpose...)

Are you deliberately being obtuse? If you really want to continue this, I will be happy to reiterate and expound.

No, I am trying to make a point that the way you're describing the word of your god is very oppressive, and smacks of the sin of pride; in that you assume what you believe is the only way to understand your god's word. God is, first and foremost, unknowable to the likes of man.

[Solansica]

Are you deliberately being obtuse? If you really want to continue this, I will be happy to reiterate and expound.

No, I am trying to make a point that the way you're describing the word of your god is very oppressive, and smacks of the sin of pride; in that you assume what you believe is the only way to understand your god's word. God is, first and foremost, unknowable to the likes of man.

If Jesus Christ is God, and He is true to His Word (the Scripture) then for Christian believers, God is who/what He is. He has revealed Himself in 2 ways, through revelation and through nature. Both testify to his knowability.

To a criminally insane convict, the mental institution is oppressive. To a three year old, to be told no is oppressive. To a teenager, everything a parent does "ruins" their life. If the Bible is true, we are the wayward ones, and God is not. If it is God that is the wayward one, if it even be a god, it is irrational to insist on claiming the Christian faith.

If Christianity be true, God is creator and master of the universe, we are not. He is an infinite, eternal and perfect being dealing with finite, temporal, and imperfect beings. He has set a standard of norms that we are to follow for the good of ourselves as individuals, as family, and as a society because it is so woven into the fabric of reality and speaks to who God is. Romans is quite clear that God's wrath is shown on those who suppress the truth of God in their unrighteousness. The punishment is to give us over to our own immoral sexual desires (to our own destruction). Those who have not encountered the grace of God will find this extremely oppressive. Those who have been saved by the grace of God will find this liberating.

This is what the church has held for 2000 years--a faith once and for all delivered to the saints. A segment withing the Anglican communion is trying to change this in open rebellion to the testimony of their Lord Jesus Christ and Scripture. You may call it what you will, but it is not Christianity.

[Othelos]

No, I am trying to make a point that the way you're describing the word of your god is very oppressive, and smacks of the sin of pride; in that you assume what you believe is the only way to understand your god's word. God is, first and foremost, unknowable to the likes of man.

If Jesus Christ is God, and He is true to His Word (the Scripture) then for Christian believers, God is who/what He is. He has revealed Himself in 2 ways, through revelation and through nature. Both testify to his knowability.

To a criminally insane convict, the mental institution is oppressive. To a three year old, to be told no is oppressive. To a teenager, everything a parent does "ruins" their life. If the Bible is true, we are the wayward ones, and God is not. If it is God that is the wayward one, if it even be a god, it is irrational to insist on claiming the Christian faith.

If Christianity be true, God is creator and master of the universe, we are not. He is an infinite, eternal and perfect being dealing with finite, temporal, and imperfect beings. He has set a standard of norms that we are to follow for the good of ourselves as individuals, as family, and as a society because it is so woven into the fabric of reality and speaks to who God is. Romans is quite clear that God's wrath is shown on those who suppress the truth of God in their unrighteousness. The punishment is to give us over to our own immoral sexual desires (to our own destruction). Those who have not encountered the grace of God will find this extremely oppressive. Those who have been saved by the grace of God will find this liberating.

This is what the church has held for 2000 years--a faith once and for all delivered to the saints. A segment withing the Anglican communion is trying to change this in open rebellion to the testimony of their Lord Jesus Christ and Scripture. You may call it what you will, but it is not Christianity.

it's really amazing how pretentious this issue is

[Scanzian Freehold]

No, I am trying to make a point that the way you're describing the word of your god is very oppressive, and smacks of the sin of pride; in that you assume what you believe is the only way to understand your god's word. God is, first and foremost, unknowable to the likes of man.

If Jesus Christ is God, and He is true to His Word (the Scripture) then for Christian believers, God is who/what He is. He has revealed Himself in 2 ways, through revelation and through nature. Both testify to his knowability.

To a criminally insane convict, the mental institution is oppressive. To a three year old, to be told no is oppressive. To a teenager, everything a parent does "ruins" their life. If the Bible is true, we are the wayward ones, and God is not. If it is God that is the wayward one, if it even be a god, it is irrational to insist on claiming the Christian faith.

If Christianity be true, God is creator and master of the universe, we are not. He is an infinite, eternal and perfect being dealing with finite, temporal, and imperfect beings. He has set a standard of norms that we are to follow for the good of ourselves as individuals, as family, and as a society because it is so woven into the fabric of reality and speaks to who God is. Romans is quite clear that God's wrath is shown on those who suppress the truth of God in their unrighteousness. Their punishment is to give us over to our own immoral sexual desires (to our own destruction).

This is what the church has held for 2000 years--a faith once and for all delivered to the saints. A segment withing the Anglican communion is trying to change this in open rebellion to the testimony of their Lord Jesus Christ and Scripture. You may call it what you will, but it is not Christianity.

You are entitled to your faith and your opinion. However, that very nature you mention does not interpret the same to everyone, for various reasons, possibly because man does not understand the complexity of god, (because by man's very nature he is NOT god,) or possibly for other reasons.
Biblical Literalism opens one up to a variety of additional arguments, both logical and emotional; the chief of which being that if god did not wish a thousand different versions of the bible to exist, god wouldn't have allowed printing presses, computers, and the like, OR in spite of this, every copy would be identical by god's words grace and power. That is most obviously not the case. If infallible as a the word of god, the bible would never contain printing or translation errors, (such as King James' famous "Voice of the Turtle".) That the entirety of the word of creation could be contained in a few pieces of paper is a nice idea, but kind of cheapens the whole grandeur that is creation. I submit to you that the bible has only ever been a starting point to find god's truth, and that assuming all things end with the book is a terrible insult to the word, creation, and its creator.
As to the Anglican church, and their censure of American churches seeking reform along both current and traditional moral arguments, it is their duty to hold to their best interpretation of their dogma; however, if god is telling the Americans to follow this path, (and who are we to say with certainty that god is not,) then perhaps we should wait and see if there is some divine judgement before we judge either side?

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Are you deliberately being obtuse? If you really want to continue this, I will be happy to reiterate and expound.

Sounds like a bunch of nonsensical, pretentious horseshit a gaggle of dirty, bronze age dirt farmers came up with to justify their own prejudices and knuckle dragging ignorance.

Dude, we get it. You hate gay people, and you don't want them to be equal citizens. You can't hide behind nature, because the shit occurs in nature, so now you hide behind unfalsifiable, spiritual hokum. Just drop the pretenses and admit you just plain don't gays.

Going to go on the bolded here, and say that is not remotely how this went down at all, and the iron age certainly isn't bronze.

[Risottia]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35318392
So basically, against a tide of shifting public opinion, the Anglican church dug in their heels and reinforced their stance against gay marriage.
And you know what? I'm glad. Because the more the Anglican church fights the uphill battle against everybody else, the more people will leave. The more people leave the Anglican church, the more will either join the Catholic church ...

I don't really see why anyone who leaves the Church of England because of that Church's opposition to equal marriage should join another Church that opposes it too.

Anyway, it's always lovely to see how backwards and hateful some religious leaders can get.

[The Nihilistic view]

It's a sin according to the religion. You can't change that and can either accept that as part of the religion and follow it or not accept it like myself and think the religion is nonsense. Once one decides one can pick and choose things it's no different to me saying "my religion forbids me from paying taxes as gods chosen.", ignoring inconvenient things laid down for thousands of years has no more validity to be respected as a religion than my new BS addition. You accept it warts and all (how you then act is a different matter) or you don't. In my case it's just one of many reasons why I decided a long time ago I don't believe. People in the middle are kidding themselves if Christianity is true that they would be accepted at the end of times or whatever. It's hell all the way for you.

One reason why even if it turns out I'm wrong I'm quite happy to be on the wrong side since I don't want to be supporting a god that creates you in his image then tells you not to act on how he made you and fucks you for it once you inevitably cave in or commit suicide due to hating yourself for most of your life and trying to repress how he made you which he must also partly be. That's just sick, cruel and sadistic.

Point about the OP it's odd you think Catholicism is better than Anglicanism in this. It's not and it's just generally shitter mostly in how it treats people over a raft of things.

[The Flutterlands]

You sound like you've just said that gay couples, since to you they're in 'rebellion', hate God. If that's the case then you've just lost the argument.

It is the thesis of the Book of Romans. Mankind is in hatred rebellion against God, His Nature, and HIs Commands. No one (not even myself, btw) is without fault before God. No one. Sexual immorality and the social disruption that it brings to our lives are the punishment we earn for that rebellion. The Good News is that while we were still enemies of God, he sent his son to redeem us. It is by repenting of our errant ways by the grace of God that we find transformation from ourselves.
I would post the Epistle to the Romans (it is too long) , but I would encourage you to read it. Here is a link.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NLT

The thing is I don't get how anyone truly hates God, unless one is a misotheist. Not even athiests hate God since they simply don't believe in his existence due to a lack of evidence of him. The Episcopal Church is not in rebellion against God. They're simply interpreting his word a different way. And if they are in rebellion then fine! I've said this before, but again, if your and Jack Chick's version of God is correct then fuck going to heaven! I don't want to spend eternity with some tyrant who judges you for who you love, marry, and have sex with and throws you into a lake of fire for it.

[The Nihilistic view]

Huh. I thought they were alright with it or something. Oh well.

They are ok with people being gay as long as they don't marry and are celibate. To the point of allowing gay bishops.

I can't see how the religion could go any further than that personally but it's one of the most advanced out of the major strains of Christianity that I know of on this, certainly one of the least militant. Mostly seems to avoid the issue these days unless it's directly forced to. I had to go to chapel three times a week at school for five years and can honestly say not once was the subject of homosexuality brought up once by any of the chaplains or Bishops or other church ministers that spoke or lead services. Adolescents would to me seem to be the most crucial target audience for such teachings I would have thought. Obviously there could well be others out there who preach about it all day but I have never come across one. One of the Chaplains was even my PSHE Y10 teacher. He covered everything perfectly fine without his religious beliefs getting in the way at all. Seemed a pretty good guy with some interesting stories from his time as a Royal Navy Chaplain from the Falklands and GW1. Never felt any of it or lack of it made me feel any different to believing or not believing just that Anglican clergy seem pretty decent guys most of the time.

[Aelex]

The Episcopal Church is not in rebellion against God. They're simply interpreting his word a different way. And if they are in rebellion then fine! I've said this before, but again, if your and Jack Chick's version of God is correct then fuck going to heaven! I don't want to spend eternity with some tyrant who judges you for who you love, marry, and have sex with and throws you into a lake of fire for it.

Wait, why do you even consider yourself christian if you don't care about faith and are happy to be in apostasy if it mean that you can be in a church more "accepting"?

[The Flutterlands]

The Episcopal Church is not in rebellion against God. They're simply interpreting his word a different way. And if they are in rebellion then fine! I've said this before, but again, if your and Jack Chick's version of God is correct then fuck going to heaven! I don't want to spend eternity with some tyrant who judges you for who you love, marry, and have sex with and throws you into a lake of fire for it.

Wait, why do you even consider yourself christian if you don't care about faith and are happy to be in apostasy if it mean that you can be in a church more "accepting"?

Because a God who cares so much about who you love, marry and have sex with to the point that he's willing to throw you into a lake of fire for all eternity simply for loving and having sex with the wrong person (ie. person of the same gender) is not a God worth my time or worship. Otherwise I'm happy to give him my worship, which I am, cause I believe that the sort of God I've mentioned is not the Christian God, and certainly not a God of love, by any means.

[United Marxist Nations]

Wait, why do you even consider yourself christian if you don't care about faith and are happy to be in apostasy if it mean that you can be in a church more "accepting"?

Because a God who cares so much about who you love, marry and have sex with to the point that he's willing to throw you into a lake of fire for all eternity simply for loving and having sex with the wrong person (ie. person of the same gender) is not a God worth my time or worship. Otherwise I'm happy to give him my worship, which I am, cause I believe that the sort of God I've mentioned is not the Christian God, and certainly not a God of love, by any means.

So, wait, are you seriously suggesting that adultery and fornication aren't sins? Refusal to even acknowledge sin is all I can interpret this as, which would pretty much make you not a Christian at all, as the whole point of Christ was to redeem the sinful (i.e. humankind).

[The Flutterlands]

Because a God who cares so much about who you love, marry and have sex with to the point that he's willing to throw you into a lake of fire for all eternity simply for loving and having sex with the wrong person (ie. person of the same gender) is not a God worth my time or worship. Otherwise I'm happy to give him my worship, which I am, cause I believe that the sort of God I've mentioned is not the Christian God, and certainly not a God of love, by any means.

So, wait, are you seriously suggesting that adultery and fornication aren't sins? Refusal to even acknowledge sin is all I can interpret this as, which would pretty much make you not a Christian at all, as the whole point of Christ was to redeem the sinful (i.e. humankind).

I understand the sins of lust, adultery and fornication, all being outside of marriage and hurtful to oneself and to his/her spouse and thus hurting the sacred bond between the two that God has brought together. Which is why I believe that homosexual intercorse, like hetrosexual intercourse, should only be within the realms of marriage. That being said, I don't think that it's fair that a loving couple should be excluded from the Sacrament of Matrimony and denied it's wondrous fruits simply because of their gender and sexual orientation and I don't see any logical reason why they should be that can't also be applied to the old and infertile. This is my issue with the stance of homosexuality and marriage.

[United Marxist Nations]

So, wait, are you seriously suggesting that adultery and fornication aren't sins? Refusal to even acknowledge sin is all I can interpret this as, which would pretty much make you not a Christian at all, as the whole point of Christ was to redeem the sinful (i.e. humankind).

I understand the sins of lust, adultery and fornication, all being outside of marriage and hurtful to oneself and to his/her spouse and thus hurting the sacred bond between the two that God has brought together. Which is why I believe that homosexual intercorse, like hetrosexual intercourse, should only be within the realms of marriage. That being said, I don't think that it's fair that a loving couple should be excluded from the Sacrament of Matrimony and denied it's wondrous fruits simply because of their gender and sexual orientation and I don't see any logical reason why they should be that can't also be applied to the old and infertile. This is my issue with the stance of homosexuality and marriage.

Human logic is not always sufficient to understand the ways of God. Nevertheless, Christ Himself maintained that marriage is between a man and a woman, as has the Church and its fathers throughout millennium.

[The Flutterlands]

I understand the sins of lust, adultery and fornication, all being outside of marriage and hurtful to oneself and to his/her spouse and thus hurting the sacred bond between the two that God has brought together. Which is why I believe that homosexual intercorse, like hetrosexual intercourse, should only be within the realms of marriage. That being said, I don't think that it's fair that a loving couple should be excluded from the Sacrament of Matrimony and denied it's wondrous fruits simply because of their gender and sexual orientation and I don't see any logical reason why they should be that can't also be applied to the old and infertile. This is my issue with the stance of homosexuality and marriage.

Human logic is not always sufficient to understand the ways of God. Nevertheless, Christ Himself maintained that marriage is between a man and a woman, as has the Church and its fathers throughout millennium.

But Christ was speaking on the matter of divorce, which was the subject at hand brought up by the Pharisees, not on the matter of who can marry who.

[United Marxist Nations]

Human logic is not always sufficient to understand the ways of God. Nevertheless, Christ Himself maintained that marriage is between a man and a woman, as has the Church and its fathers throughout millennium.

But Christ was speaking on the matter of divorce, which was the subject at hand brought up by the Pharisees, not on the matter of who can marry who.

And the Church Fathers have taken that to refer to all marriages, otherwise Christ would not have specified "one man and one woman", and there would presumably not be multiple passages against homosexual activity.

[The Nihilistic view]

So, wait, are you seriously suggesting that adultery and fornication aren't sins? Refusal to even acknowledge sin is all I can interpret this as, which would pretty much make you not a Christian at all, as the whole point of Christ was to redeem the sinful (i.e. humankind).

I understand the sins of lust, adultery and fornication, all being outside of marriage and hurtful to oneself and to his/her spouse and thus hurting the sacred bond between the two that God has brought together. Which is why I believe that homosexual intercorse, like hetrosexual intercourse, should only be within the realms of marriage. That being said, I don't think that it's fair that a loving couple should be excluded from the Sacrament of Matrimony and denied it's wondrous fruits simply because of their gender and sexual orientation and I don't see any logical reason why they should be that can't also be applied to the old and infertile. This is my issue with the stance of homosexuality and marriage.

So why should somebody who is not married be denied the wonderful fruits of intercourse? If you are going to disregard some parts why not others?

[Angleter]

But Christ was speaking on the matter of divorce, which was the subject at hand brought up by the Pharisees, not on the matter of who can marry who.

And the Church Fathers have taken that to refer to all marriages, otherwise Christ would not have specified "one man and one woman", and there would presumably not be multiple passages against homosexual activity.

It also pronounces against polygamy and concubinage, both of which the OT could actually be construed as condoning.

[Archbishop Cranmer]

Shame the apostate, Episcopal church wasn't permanently removed.

Give their place to the ACNA and/or REC.

[The Flutterlands]

Shame the apostate, Episcopal church wasn't permanently removed.

Give their place to the ACNA and/or REC.

I fail to see how a change in tradition equals denying the presence of God and divinity of Jesus.

[Archbishop Cranmer]

Shame the apostate, Episcopal church wasn't permanently removed.

Give their place to the ACNA and/or REC.

I fail to see how a change in tradition equals denying the presence of God and divinity of Jesus.

It's not just a matter of the Episcopal church blessing gay marriage, I'd like to see them removed from the communion.

It comes down to the lack of authority shown towards the 39 Articles of religion by the TEC, among other doctrinal issues such as Female "priests" and "bishops", incompatible with orthodox Anglicanism.
Through I have no problem with celibate male Homosexual priests. In fact the level of faith they show amazes me.

[Kannap]

Shame the apostate, Episcopal church wasn't permanently removed.

Give their place to the ACNA and/or REC.

I fail to see how a change in tradition equals denying the presence of God and divinity of Jesus.

It doesn't.

[Constantinopolis]

Shame the apostate, Episcopal church wasn't permanently removed.

Give their place to the ACNA and/or REC.

I fail to see how a change in tradition equals denying the presence of God and divinity of Jesus.

Well, as it just so happens, they also have priests and bishops that deny the presence of God and divinity of Jesus.

Some people may think this is unrelated to the gay marriage issue, and perhaps it is, but you have to admit, ecclesiastical acceptance of same-sex marriage and actual apostasy (such as the views of this "bishop") have a strong tendency to go hand in hand. I don't think it's just a coincidence.

[The Flutterlands]

I fail to see how a change in tradition equals denying the presence of God and divinity of Jesus.

Well, as it just so happens, they also have priests and bishops that deny the presence of God and divinity of Jesus.

Some people may think this is unrelated to the gay marriage issue, and perhaps it is, but you have to admit, ecclesiastical acceptance of same-sex marriage and actual apostasy (such as the views of this "bishop") have a strong tendency to go hand in hand. I don't think it's just a coincidence.

In that case, priest and bishops who deny the divinity of Christ and the existence of God should be fired from their job. I'm glad my priest isn't like that.