Anglican church against gay marriage

[Trumpostan]

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 or, better yet, abandon religion altogether, as either is an improvement on a wider variety of other issues.

Why can't "pro-gay Christians" accept that if the Bible is wrong on this one, it's moving the goalposts to defer to it on anything else?

Religion continues to poison everything, it seems. Ol' Hitch was right. Tired of people who want their fantasy books to be the source of legislation and morals. I mean you don't hear me saying we should have Hunger Games, and anyone who is against it is a blasphemer against the Capitol? I just don't think we should look to some past folks with dubious morals as a source of inspiration.

[Sanctissima]

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 or, better yet, abandon religion altogether, as either is an improvement on a wider variety of other issues.

Why can't "pro-gay Christians" accept that if the Bible is wrong on this one, it's moving the goalposts to defer to it on anything else?

Religion continues to poison everything, it seems. Ol' Hitch was right. Tired of people who want their fantasy books to be the source of legislation and morals. I mean you don't hear me saying we should have Hunger Games, and anyone who is against it is a blasphemer against the Capitol? I just don't think we should look to some past folks with dubious morals as a source of inspiration.

Eh, I wouldn't put too much weight behind the opinions of Hitchens. He was, after all, an ardent Islamaphobe. And anyone who demonized Mother Teresa as much as he did is a bit of a bigot.

[Zoice]

Religion continues to poison everything, it seems. Ol' Hitch was right. Tired of people who want their fantasy books to be the source of legislation and morals. I mean you don't hear me saying we should have Hunger Games, and anyone who is against it is a blasphemer against the Capitol? I just don't think we should look to some past folks with dubious morals as a source of inspiration.

Eh, I wouldn't put too much weight behind the opinions of Hitchens. He was, after all, an ardent Islamaphobe. And anyone who demonized Mother Teresa as much as he did is a bit of a bigot.

Being opposed to radical violent islamists isn't Islamophobia. And being opposed to cruel catholics that exploit celebrity to cause suffering isn't bigotry.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, I wouldn't put too much weight behind the opinions of Hitchens. He was, after all, an ardent Islamaphobe. And anyone who demonized Mother Teresa as much as he did is a bit of a bigot.

Being opposed to radical violent islamists isn't Islamophobia. And being opposed to cruel catholics that exploit celebrity to cause suffering isn't bigotry.

He was pretty ardently in favour of the Iraq War on an anti-Islam basis, and his criticism of Muslims by no means stopped at Wahhabists or fundamentalists. And while he did make legitimate criticisms of Teresa, he went so far above and beyond that into the realms of demonization that it was quite clear he had irrational anti-religion motives, hence the bigotry.

[Zoice]

Being opposed to radical violent islamists isn't Islamophobia. And being opposed to cruel catholics that exploit celebrity to cause suffering isn't bigotry.

He was pretty ardently in favour of the Iraq War on an anti-Islam basis, and his criticism of Muslims by no means stopped at Wahhabists or fundamentalists. And while he did make legitimate criticisms of Teresa, he went so far above and beyond that into the realms of demonization that it was quite clear he had irrational anti-religion motives, hence the bigotry.

His criticism didn't stop at the Wahhabists and fundamentalists, but he criticized everyone. We are all subject to criticism. He only was in favour of violence against those who were already violent and hurting people, so far as I know. As for Mother Teresa, he did have anti-religion motives, but precisely because of religion's irrationality. His demonization of Teresa was only to counteract the canonization so many were trying to achieve.

[Othelos]

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).

Would you throw someone in a lake of fire for eternity for committing adultery or having extramarital sex?

[The Flutterlands]

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).

Would you throw someone in a lake of fire for eternity for committing adultery or having extramarital sex?

Nope. I wouldn't.

[Othelos]

Would you throw someone in a lake of fire for eternity for committing adultery or having extramarital sex?

Nope. I wouldn't.

Exactly. Because that's immoral, inhumane, and a total overreaction.

The fact that people believe in a being who allegedly does this all the time and are okay with it is pretty twisted.

[The Flutterlands]

Nope. I wouldn't.

Exactly. Because that's immoral, inhumane, and a total overreaction.

The fact that people believe in a being who allegedly does this all the time and are okay with it is pretty twisted.

And it's why I'm ever closer to becoming a universalist. The least I'll believe in will be a place of temporary punishment similar to purgatory. The worse you are, the longer you'll stay, but you will get out eventually.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

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 or, better yet, abandon religion altogether, as either is an improvement on a wider variety of other issues.

Why can't "pro-gay Christians" accept that if the Bible is wrong on this one, it's moving the goalposts to defer to it on anything else?

Religion continues to poison everything, it seems. Ol' Hitch was right. Tired of people who want their fantasy books to be the source of legislation and morals. I mean you don't hear me saying we should have Hunger Games, and anyone who is against it is a blasphemer against the Capitol? I just don't think we should look to some past folks with dubious morals as a source of inspiration.

Never mind the fact plenty of other things humans have done including religion when done on a certain scale that can poison anything.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

He was pretty ardently in favour of the Iraq War on an anti-Islam basis, and his criticism of Muslims by no means stopped at Wahhabists or fundamentalists. And while he did make legitimate criticisms of Teresa, he went so far above and beyond that into the realms of demonization that it was quite clear he had irrational anti-religion motives, hence the bigotry.

His criticism didn't stop at the Wahhabists and fundamentalists, but he criticized everyone. We are all subject to criticism. He only was in favour of violence against those who were already violent and hurting people, so far as I know. As for Mother Teresa, he did have anti-religion motives, but precisely because of religion's irrationality. His demonization of Teresa was only to counteract the canonization so many were trying to achieve.

I wouldn't call serving as one of the first appointed devils advocate (there hadn't been one for a while) as outright demonization. Of course Christopher had the subtlety of a whore having a doctor administer them a napalm enema.

[Zoice]

His criticism didn't stop at the Wahhabists and fundamentalists, but he criticized everyone. We are all subject to criticism. He only was in favour of violence against those who were already violent and hurting people, so far as I know. As for Mother Teresa, he did have anti-religion motives, but precisely because of religion's irrationality. His demonization of Teresa was only to counteract the canonization so many were trying to achieve.

I wouldn't call serving as one of the first appointed devils advocate (there hadn't been one for a while) as outright demonization. Of course Christopher had the subtlety of a whore having a doctor administer them a napalm enema.

Chris felt strongly about Mother Teresa.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

I wouldn't call serving as one of the first appointed devils advocate (there hadn't been one for a while) as outright demonization. Of course Christopher had the subtlety of a whore having a doctor administer them a napalm enema.

Chris felt strongly about Mother Teresa.

They did have reasons to, and frankly quite a lot of people did as well. I kind of wish Hitchens would have calmed down just enough to write an actual book on the matter since scattered videos across the internet aren't a useful source.

[Zoice]

Chris felt strongly about Mother Teresa.

They did have reasons to, and frankly quite a lot of people did as well. I kind of wish Hitchens would have calmed down just enough to write an actual book on the matter since scattered videos across the internet aren't a useful source.

Didn't he? The missionary position I think. Never read it though.

[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).

Would you throw someone in a lake of fire for eternity for committing adultery or having extramarital sex?

This relies upon the incorrect notion that it it is punishment. Lake of Fire is (IIRC) just a metaphor for how horrible existence without the presence of God would be in the afterlife. By turning one's back upon Him, one condemn's themselves to afterlife without acknowledging His presence.

[Othelos]

Would you throw someone in a lake of fire for eternity for committing adultery or having extramarital sex?

This relies upon the incorrect notion that it it is punishment. Lake of Fire is (IIRC) just a metaphor for how horrible existence without the presence of God would be in the afterlife. By turning one's back upon Him, one condemn's themselves to afterlife without acknowledging His presence.

You are your brain. If your brain is altered, you change or can disappear. When you die, you die. That's the end. There's nothing afterwards.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Would you throw someone in a lake of fire for eternity for committing adultery or having extramarital sex?

This relies upon the incorrect notion that it it is punishment. Lake of Fire is (IIRC) just a metaphor for how horrible existence without the presence of God would be in the afterlife. By turning one's back upon Him, one condemn's themselves to afterlife without acknowledging His presence.

I don't acknowledge his presence now, it doesn't sound like it'll be all that different.

[United Marxist Nations]

This relies upon the incorrect notion that it it is punishment. Lake of Fire is (IIRC) just a metaphor for how horrible existence without the presence of God would be in the afterlife. By turning one's back upon Him, one condemn's themselves to afterlife without acknowledging His presence.

You are your brain. If your brain is altered, you change or can disappear. When you die, you die. That's the end. There's nothing afterwards.

Then there is no point in discussing doctrine that you don't believe in as we will never come to an agreement.

[Othelos]

You are your brain. If your brain is altered, you change or can disappear. When you die, you die. That's the end. There's nothing afterwards.

Then there is no point in discussing doctrine that you don't believe in as we will never come to an agreement.

"there's no point in discussing reality because I don't agree with logic"

[United Marxist Nations]

Then there is no point in discussing doctrine that you don't believe in as we will never come to an agreement.

"there's no point in discussing reality because I don't agree with logic"

You said you don't think it is reality, so why would I discuss it with you?

[Othelos]

"there's no point in discussing reality because I don't agree with logic"

You said you don't think it is reality, so why would I discuss it with you?

Because it's still an idea. I could discuss communism with someone even though I don't agree with the idea.

[United Marxist Nations]

You said you don't think it is reality, so why would I discuss it with you?

Because it's still an idea. I could discuss communism with someone even though I don't agree with the idea.

Alright, then, let us discuss. I already laid out my position on why souls being damned is not cruel.

[Othelos]

Because it's still an idea. I could discuss communism with someone even though I don't agree with the idea.

Alright, then, let us discuss. I already laid out my position on why souls being damned is not cruel.

so you don't take a literalist approach?

[United Marxist Nations]

Alright, then, let us discuss. I already laid out my position on why souls being damned is not cruel.

so you don't take a literalist approach?

In terms of the "lake of fire"? No, fire is often used as simply a metaphor for great suffering. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that purgatory consists of "cleansing fire". The fire here is not literal, but represents the pain one will receive from having to confront the results of their sins.

[Othelos]

so you don't take a literalist approach?

In terms of the "lake of fire"? No, fire is often used as simply a metaphor for great suffering. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that purgatory consists of "cleansing fire". The fire here is not literal, but represents the pain one will receive from having to confront the results of their sins.

What pain would that be?