Anglican church against gay marriage

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You have yet to justify, biblically, this 'Established Christian Doctrine'.

Most Christians are not Protestants.

Yet, the "Apostolic" Churches often practices things that are not found in the early Church, like excluding female priests, when it is clear, from Paul's many epistle, that women are often found spreading the word of God and serving as ministers and leaders. The Anglican Church is a Protestant Church, so it should follow that we should go about this sola scriptura.

[United Marxist Nations]

Most Christians are not Protestants.

Yet, the "Apostolic" Churches often practices things that are not found in the early Church, like excluding female priests, when it is clear, from Paul's many epistle, that women are often found spreading the word of God and serving as ministers and leaders. The Anglican Church is a Protestant Church, so it should follow that we should go about this sola scriptura.

A priest conducts the ceremony of communion, AFAIK, only men doing this is tradition. Const had a lengthy thing explaining the reasons for this in the CDT, so I will defer to him, as I am less educated on the matter.

I though the Anglicans accepted the Ecumenical Councils as well?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Yet, the "Apostolic" Churches often practices things that are not found in the early Church, like excluding female priests, when it is clear, from Paul's many epistle, that women are often found spreading the word of God and serving as ministers and leaders. The Anglican Church is a Protestant Church, so it should follow that we should go about this sola scriptura.

A priest conducts the ceremony of communion, AFAIK, only men doing this is tradition. Const had a lengthy thing explaining the reasons for this in the CDT, so I will defer to him, as I am less educated on the matter.

I though the Anglicans accepted the Ecumenical Councils as well?

http://conciliaranglican.com/2011/08/03/ask-an-anglican-the-ecumenical-councils/

[United Marxist Nations]

A priest conducts the ceremony of communion, AFAIK, only men doing this is tradition. Const had a lengthy thing explaining the reasons for this in the CDT, so I will defer to him, as I am less educated on the matter.

I though the Anglicans accepted the Ecumenical Councils as well?

http://conciliaranglican.com/2011/08/03/ask-an-anglican-the-ecumenical-councils/

I, I see. In that case, I would assume they go with the traditional interpretation of scripture about the creation of Man and Woman as two halves and the condemnation of homosexual acts. I'm not an Anglican though, so I could be wrong.

EDIT: Have to go eat, will be back.

[The Flutterlands]

Yet, the "Apostolic" Churches often practices things that are not found in the early Church, like excluding female priests, when it is clear, from Paul's many epistle, that women are often found spreading the word of God and serving as ministers and leaders. The Anglican Church is a Protestant Church, so it should follow that we should go about this sola scriptura.

A priest conducts the ceremony of communion, AFAIK, only men doing this is tradition. Const had a lengthy thing explaining the reasons for this in the CDT, so I will defer to him, as I am less educated on the matter.

I though the Anglicans accepted the Ecumenical Councils as well?

Nonetheless, I don't see anything morally wrong with a break in tradition including allowing women to be priests. So as of now, I'm hoping that Const and I could agree to disagree.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

http://conciliaranglican.com/2011/08/03/ask-an-anglican-the-ecumenical-councils/

I, I see. In that case, I would assume they go with the traditional interpretation of scripture about the creation of Man and Woman as two halves and the condemnation of homosexual acts. I'm not an Anglican though, so I could be wrong.

EDIT: Have to go eat, will be back.

The passage you provided for that can has alternative interpretation, so not all Christian can, or should, accept it to mean a condemnation of homosexual marriage as 'sinful'.

[Diopolis]

You have yet to justify, biblically, this 'Established Christian Doctrine'.

Most Christians are not Protestants.

Most Anglicans are, however.

[The Flutterlands]

I, I see. In that case, I would assume they go with the traditional interpretation of scripture about the creation of Man and Woman as two halves and the condemnation of homosexual acts. I'm not an Anglican though, so I could be wrong.

EDIT: Have to go eat, will be back.

The passage you provided for that can has alternative interpretation, so not all Christian can, or should, accept it to mean a condemnation of homosexual marriage as 'sinful'.

Agreed.

[St alberto]

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman only

[Diopolis]

Most Christians are not Protestants.

Yet, the "Apostolic" Churches often practices things that are not found in the early Church, like excluding female priests, when it is clear, from Paul's many epistle, that women are often found spreading the word of God and serving as ministers and leaders.

Women were never priests- they were deaconesses, a form of consecrated virgins which might have been a minor order, but which is not ordained as a matter of historical record(multiple ecumenical councils record that they "were not ordained/did not have the laying on of hands"). Today, there are arguably deaconesses in the Carthusian order, but regardless they were clearly a position requiring celibacy and were the ancient equivalent of nuns or sisters and not female priests.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman only

And how did you come about that, beside what your priest tells you?

[Diopolis]

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman only

And how did you come about that, beside what your priest tells you?

He would by definition be more qualified to speculate on such a thing than random internet denizens.

[St alberto]

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman only

And how did you come about that, beside what your priest tells you?

Whether you accept or reject it same-sex marriage is invalid and can never be accepted . people of the same-sex can not be joined together in matrimony because it is contrary to the natural law. so same-sex marriage is not marriage . Marriage can only be in between a man and a woman only

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

And how did you come about that, beside what your priest tells you?

He would by definition be more qualified to speculate on such a thing than random internet denizens.

I tend to judge an argument based on its argumentation rather than the authority of the speaker, so he is more likely, given his greater knowledge of the Bible, to produce an informed opinion, so would a liberal Biblical Scholar who has a PhD. and written a dissertation on sexuality in the Bible, or someone who spends a lot of time just studying the Bible and the cultural context from which it was written.

[Novus America]

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman only

That is one view. It is not the only view. See there are some things most can agree on. Like raising the living standard being good. How is the issue. But with these moral things people just have to agree to disagree. Neither side will convince the other. Hence why the government should only offer civil unions. If the other Anglicans only want to recognize civil unions between men and women, fine. If the US Episcopalians want to recognize civil unions between two men an two women that is cool too.

Maybe it is time they finally split. Churches do it all the time. Though as both the Anglicans in the UK and Episcopalians are declining I guess they are scared a split will only kill them faster. But it also might make both stronger if they can split and not be bound by the other. Infighting will not save them for sure.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

And how did you come about that, beside what your priest tells you?

Whether you accept or reject it same-sex marriage is invalid and can never be accepted . people of the same-sex can not be joined together in matrimony because it is contrary to the natural law. so same-sex marriage is not marriage . Marriage can only be in between a man and a woman only

You are arguing in circles now, how is 'male-female marriage' natural laws, is this not falling into what philosophers call the 'is-ought fallacy', that is, deriving an modal statement from a descriptive one, who defines marriage, etc.

[St alberto]

He would by definition be more qualified to speculate on such a thing than random internet denizens.

I tend to judge an argument based on its argumentation rather than the authority of the speaker, so he is more likely, given his greater knowledge of the Bible, to produce an informed opinion, so would a liberal Biblical Scholar who has a PhD. and written a dissertation on sexuality in the Bible, or someone who spends a lot of time just studying the Bible and the cultural context from which it was written.

We all know that the same-sex marriage is a newly established european american thing .

[Diopolis]

He would by definition be more qualified to speculate on such a thing than random internet denizens.

I tend to judge an argument based on its argumentation rather than the authority of the speaker, so he is more likely, given his greater knowledge of the Bible, to produce an informed opinion, so would a liberal Biblical Scholar who has a PhD. and written a dissertation on sexuality in the Bible, or someone who spends a lot of time just studying the Bible and the cultural context from which it was written.

Such a liberal bible scholar is unlikely to have the grace of holy orders and as such a share in the magisterial authority of the church.

[St alberto]

Whether you accept or reject it same-sex marriage is invalid and can never be accepted . people of the same-sex can not be joined together in matrimony because it is contrary to the natural law. so same-sex marriage is not marriage . Marriage can only be in between a man and a woman only

You are arguing in circles now, how is 'male-female marriage' natural laws, is this not falling into what philosophers call the 'is-ought fallacy', that is, deriving an modal statement from a descriptive one, who defines marriage, etc.

Female and Male marriage is the natural thing because that is how it should be. Homosexuality is a sexual disorder

[Farnhamia]

I tend to judge an argument based on its argumentation rather than the authority of the speaker, so he is more likely, given his greater knowledge of the Bible, to produce an informed opinion, so would a liberal Biblical Scholar who has a PhD. and written a dissertation on sexuality in the Bible, or someone who spends a lot of time just studying the Bible and the cultural context from which it was written.

We all know that the same-sex marriage is a newly established european american thing .

So? Christianity was a newly established Judaean thing once upon a time.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I tend to judge an argument based on its argumentation rather than the authority of the speaker, so he is more likely, given his greater knowledge of the Bible, to produce an informed opinion, so would a liberal Biblical Scholar who has a PhD. and written a dissertation on sexuality in the Bible, or someone who spends a lot of time just studying the Bible and the cultural context from which it was written.

We all know that the same-sex marriage is a newly established european american thing .

Except for references in the Roman Juvenal, Cato, a well documented tradition in South China, and definitely Greece. But why let facts get in the way.

[St alberto]

We all know that the same-sex marriage is a newly established european american thing .

So? Christianity was a newly established Judaean thing once upon a time.

The homosexual thing violate the laws of God and we can not change it because we want to be passionate

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I tend to judge an argument based on its argumentation rather than the authority of the speaker, so he is more likely, given his greater knowledge of the Bible, to produce an informed opinion, so would a liberal Biblical Scholar who has a PhD. and written a dissertation on sexuality in the Bible, or someone who spends a lot of time just studying the Bible and the cultural context from which it was written.

Such a liberal bible scholar is unlikely to have the grace of holy orders and as such a share in the magisterial authority of the church.

Only, many don't accept the authority of the Magisterial Authority of the Church, period. You are presuming that the Papists are right and arguing from that starting point, I am arguing that anyone knowledgeable of the bible is able to make an informed, if not necessarily correct, opinion that can be well argued and which many may find convincing, despite our reservation for their position.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

So? Christianity was a newly established Judaean thing once upon a time.

The homosexual thing violate the laws of God and we can not change it because we want to be passionate

The Bible never talks about Homosexual Marriage, there is a number of passages that condemns male-male sexual intercourse, nothing on lesbianism, or affection and love for someone of the same gender, let alone prohibiting their marriage to one another.

[St alberto]

The homosexual thing violate the laws of God and we can not change it because we want to be passionate

The Bible never talks about Homosexual Marriage, there is a number of passages that condemns male-male sexual intercourse, nothing on lesbianism, or affection and love for someone of the same gender, let alone prohibiting their marriage to one another.

The bible define marriage as an institution between man and woman only and every accepted sexual activity in the bible was only between a man and a woman