Anglican church against gay marriage

[Baltenstein]

Didn't know there were over a million Angelicans in the US.

Does anyone know what the Christians are called that reject the Pauline Epistles? I believe most of the marriage mumbo jumbo comes from Paul in the NEw Testament, but I could be wrong.

Aren't they called Episcopalians in the US?

[Grand Calvert]

Wait...are you a girl or a boy?

Remember back to your freshman year health class, which couple has sex and produces a baby thus so?

From your very first comment I thought you were talking about a lesbian relationship

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Didn't know there were over a million Angelicans in the US.

Does anyone know what the Christians are called that reject the Pauline Epistles? I believe most of the marriage mumbo jumbo comes from Paul in the NEw Testament, but I could be wrong.

Aren't they called Episcopalians in the US?

They are, the rest of the world (pretty much) uses the term Anglican. England uses The Church of England, Ireland, the Church of Ireland. We in Canada use Anglican Church of Canada.

[Conserative Morality]

God deserves the glory because He created us, and the air we breath and food we eat that maintains our lives. He deserves our praise. Humans who are selfish do not deserve the glory because all of their achievements were accomplished with something that they would not have without God.

God deserves the glory because he made us for his own amusement and punishes us for acting in a manner that he has specifically created us to. But hey, he made us, so... that makes him good? What kind of morality is that? Does an abusive mother deserve eternal praise because she birthed and fed her kids?

[Zoice]

Again, no. That's just not a fact, STD's were all over the place before the sexual revolution. As for the individual level, well, there is no good reason.

Well ultimately the only way to fight sexual temptation is to be devoted to something greater than yourself (i.e. God) which is why teaching abstinence does not work in a secular society. That's my point.

Abstinence only education has never worked, not in secular societies, not in theocracies.

And finally, one last point before I sign off: The conversation about STDs is misguided. Sexual promiscuity is not wrong because it might give you STDs. That's just a potential side effect.

Sexual promiscuity is wrong because it injures your soul by promoting selfishness. As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, to erase the mental distinction between us and others, to empty ourselves of concerns for the self. We must strive to not even think of ourselves at all. To always think of others. To allow the concern for others to fill our minds and souls completely. Living in communion. That is the Way. Few attain it, but all should strive towards it.

Sexual promiscuity makes it impossible to follow the Way, because one who is promiscuous uses sex for individual gratification. Promiscuity makes sex about me and my desires, when it should always be about my partner. Ideally, it should be entirely about my partner, and not at all about myself. The proper Christian attitude to sex is to use it as an expression of selfless love. To give pleasure to another, whom you love. Of course, it's fine to also receive pleasure from them, but one should never seek it. Sexual pleasure should be seen as a gift. It's nice to receive gifts, but we don't go around asking people, "so, I want a gift right now, can I have one?"

And for the vast, overwhelming majority of people, only a long-term, committed monogamous relationship can cultivate the kind of absolutely selfless love that makes the Christian approach to sex possible. That doesn't mean that every committed monogamous relationship will contain this kind of love, but it does mean that a committed monogamous relationship is (usually) required as a starting point.

TL;DR - Promiscuity is wrong because sex should always be about making your partner happy, and those who are promiscuous seek to make themselves happy.

That's. . . more thoughtful than I expected, but still full of shit. There's nothing wrong with seeking pleasure in sex, and as long as both people understand what's going on, no one is hurt by it. If you want to be monogamous that's fine, but some people don't - and that is fine too.

No I've read it, multiple times. But no matter what I was never able to actually wrap my mind around why these things are wrong beyond arbitrary reasons that didn't make much sense to me. Which ended up being one of the major reasons why I left the religion.

Ultimately humans are created for God's glory and pleasure, and so when we seek to pleasure ourselves over Him who created us, we are acting sinfully. We are putting ourselves above our Creator, which He takes as an insult (and it is).

This. . . is disgusting, frankly. What a horrible anti-humanist nihilist narrowminded view of the world.

[Grand Calvert]

God deserves the glory because He created us, and the air we breath and food we eat that maintains our lives. He deserves our praise. Humans who are selfish do not deserve the glory because all of their achievements were accomplished with something that they would not have without God.

God deserves the glory because he made us for his own amusement and punishes us for acting in a manner that he has specifically created us to. But hey, he made us, so... that makes him good? What kind of morality is that? Does an abusive mother deserve eternal praise because she birthed and fed her kids?

What? He never punishes us for acting the way He created us for, He punishes us for acting sinfully (which because of Adam and Eve's sin is now a part of human nature). And I would say that a mother does not deserve eternal praise because ultimately it was God who created those children.

[Kannap]

Remember back to your freshman year health class, which couple has sex and produces a baby thus so?

From your very first comment I thought you were talking about a lesbian relationship :?

Then you jumped to a foolish assumption.

[Setgavarius]

Well ultimately the only way to fight sexual temptation is to be devoted to something greater than yourself (i.e. God) which is why teaching abstinence does not work in a secular society. That's my point.

Abstinence only education has never worked, not in secular societies, not in theocracies.

And finally, one last point before I sign off: The conversation about STDs is misguided. Sexual promiscuity is not wrong because it might give you STDs. That's just a potential side effect.

Sexual promiscuity is wrong because it injures your soul by promoting selfishness. As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, to erase the mental distinction between us and others, to empty ourselves of concerns for the self. We must strive to not even think of ourselves at all. To always think of others. To allow the concern for others to fill our minds and souls completely. Living in communion. That is the Way. Few attain it, but all should strive towards it.

Sexual promiscuity makes it impossible to follow the Way, because one who is promiscuous uses sex for individual gratification. Promiscuity makes sex about me and my desires, when it should always be about my partner. Ideally, it should be entirely about my partner, and not at all about myself. The proper Christian attitude to sex is to use it as an expression of selfless love. To give pleasure to another, whom you love. Of course, it's fine to also receive pleasure from them, but one should never seek it. Sexual pleasure should be seen as a gift. It's nice to receive gifts, but we don't go around asking people, "so, I want a gift right now, can I have one?"

And for the vast, overwhelming majority of people, only a long-term, committed monogamous relationship can cultivate the kind of absolutely selfless love that makes the Christian approach to sex possible. That doesn't mean that every committed monogamous relationship will contain this kind of love, but it does mean that a committed monogamous relationship is (usually) required as a starting point.

TL;DR - Promiscuity is wrong because sex should always be about making your partner happy, and those who are promiscuous seek to make themselves happy.

That's. . . more thoughtful than I expected, but still full of shit. There's nothing wrong with seeking pleasure in sex, and as long as both people understand what's going on, no one is hurt by it. If you want to be monogamous that's fine, but some people don't - and that is fine too.

Ultimately humans are created for God's glory and pleasure, and so when we seek to pleasure ourselves over Him who created us, we are acting sinfully. We are putting ourselves above our Creator, which He takes as an insult (and it is).

This. . . is disgusting, frankly. What a horrible anti-humanist nihilist narrowminded view of the world.

I wouldn't say it's neccessarily nihilistic to slaver to a cosmic dictator. Seems damn creepy, sure.

[Grand Calvert]

Well ultimately the only way to fight sexual temptation is to be devoted to something greater than yourself (i.e. God) which is why teaching abstinence does not work in a secular society. That's my point.

Abstinence only education has never worked, not in secular societies, not in theocracies.

And finally, one last point before I sign off: The conversation about STDs is misguided. Sexual promiscuity is not wrong because it might give you STDs. That's just a potential side effect.

Sexual promiscuity is wrong because it injures your soul by promoting selfishness. As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, to erase the mental distinction between us and others, to empty ourselves of concerns for the self. We must strive to not even think of ourselves at all. To always think of others. To allow the concern for others to fill our minds and souls completely. Living in communion. That is the Way. Few attain it, but all should strive towards it.

Sexual promiscuity makes it impossible to follow the Way, because one who is promiscuous uses sex for individual gratification. Promiscuity makes sex about me and my desires, when it should always be about my partner. Ideally, it should be entirely about my partner, and not at all about myself. The proper Christian attitude to sex is to use it as an expression of selfless love. To give pleasure to another, whom you love. Of course, it's fine to also receive pleasure from them, but one should never seek it. Sexual pleasure should be seen as a gift. It's nice to receive gifts, but we don't go around asking people, "so, I want a gift right now, can I have one?"

And for the vast, overwhelming majority of people, only a long-term, committed monogamous relationship can cultivate the kind of absolutely selfless love that makes the Christian approach to sex possible. That doesn't mean that every committed monogamous relationship will contain this kind of love, but it does mean that a committed monogamous relationship is (usually) required as a starting point.

TL;DR - Promiscuity is wrong because sex should always be about making your partner happy, and those who are promiscuous seek to make themselves happy.

That's. . . more thoughtful than I expected, but still full of shit. There's nothing wrong with seeking pleasure in sex, and as long as both people understand what's going on, no one is hurt by it. If you want to be monogamous that's fine, but some people don't - and that is fine too.

Ultimately humans are created for God's glory and pleasure, and so when we seek to pleasure ourselves over Him who created us, we are acting sinfully. We are putting ourselves above our Creator, which He takes as an insult (and it is).

This. . . is disgusting, frankly. What a horrible anti-humanist nihilist narrowminded view of the world.

How is it nihilist? Nihilism means that life is meaningless. Living your life for God is the opposite of nihilism.

[Grand Calvert]

From your very first comment I thought you were talking about a lesbian relationship

Then you jumped to a foolish assumption.

Sorry.

[Kannap]

God deserves the glory because he made us for his own amusement and punishes us for acting in a manner that he has specifically created us to. But hey, he made us, so... that makes him good? What kind of morality is that? Does an abusive mother deserve eternal praise because she birthed and fed her kids?

What? He never punishes us for acting the way He created us for, He punishes us for acting sinfully (which because of Adam and Eve's sin is now a part of human nature). And I would say that a mother does not deserve eternal praise because ultimately it was God who created those children.

Unless God intends to go around zapping people into virgin births in 2016, the parents of the child deserve credit for having the child.

[Zoice]

Abstinence only education has never worked, not in secular societies, not in theocracies.



That's. . . more thoughtful than I expected, but still full of shit. There's nothing wrong with seeking pleasure in sex, and as long as both people understand what's going on, no one is hurt by it. If you want to be monogamous that's fine, but some people don't - and that is fine too.



This. . . is disgusting, frankly. What a horrible anti-humanist nihilist narrowminded view of the world.

How is it nihilist? Nihilism means that life is meaningless. Living your life for God is the opposite of nihilism.

Life is meaningless. The only thing worth doing is being God's yesman. So, life has no meaning without heaping praise on him. Horrible.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

And finally, one last point before I sign off: The conversation about STDs is misguided. Sexual promiscuity is not wrong because it might give you STDs. That's just a potential side effect.

Sexual promiscuity is wrong because it injures your soul by promoting selfishness. As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, to erase the mental distinction between us and others, to empty ourselves of concerns for the self. We must strive to not even think of ourselves at all. To always think of others. To allow the concern for others to fill our minds and souls completely. Living in communion. That is the Way. Few attain it, but all should strive towards it.

Sexual promiscuity makes it impossible to follow the Way, because one who is promiscuous uses sex for individual gratification. Promiscuity makes sex about me and my desires, when it should always be about my partner. Ideally, it should be entirely about my partner, and not at all about myself. The proper Christian attitude to sex is to use it as an expression of selfless love. To give pleasure to another, whom you love. Of course, it's fine to also receive pleasure from them, but one should never seek it. Sexual pleasure should be seen as a gift. It's nice to receive gifts, but we don't go around asking people, "so, I want a gift right now, can I have one?"

And for the vast, overwhelming majority of people, only a long-term, committed monogamous relationship can cultivate the kind of absolutely selfless love that makes the Christian approach to sex possible. That doesn't mean that every committed monogamous relationship will contain this kind of love, but it does mean that a committed monogamous relationship is (usually) required as a starting point.

TL;DR - Promiscuity is wrong because sex should always be about making your partner happy, and those who are promiscuous seek to make themselves happy.

Nonsense. Promiscuity=/=selfishness. You just asserted that.
The post then falls apart.

[Conserative Morality]

What? He never punishes us for acting the way He created us for, He punishes us for acting sinfully (which because of Adam and Eve's sin is now a part of human nature).

Remind me, who is the creator of everything in the universe in your religion, including the Garden of Eden and the tree of knowledge? Including the very ideas of knowledge and sin?

You see, there are only two possibilities. Either morality is independent from God, in which case God is not the decider of good and evil, or morality is not independent from God, in which case he must answer for all of his choices, such as creating the idea of sin, making humans biologically programmed to be aroused when they see attractive humans they aren't in a monogamous relationship with, making plagues and wasps that birth their young inside their prey and goddamn spiders.

[Grand Calvert]

What? He never punishes us for acting the way He created us for, He punishes us for acting sinfully (which because of Adam and Eve's sin is now a part of human nature). And I would say that a mother does not deserve eternal praise because ultimately it was God who created those children.

Unless God intends to go around zapping people into virgin births in 2016, the parents of the child deserve credit for having the child.

They deserve credit, but they do not deserve God's glory.

[Conserative Morality]

How is it nihilist? Nihilism means that life is meaningless. Living your life for God is the opposite of nihilism.

It's actually very nihilist. Living your life solely for another being without any values or principles independent of that being is nihilist. If God tells you left is right, it's so, even if he's not telling the truth. If God tells you to rape and murder, you go and get your murderin' boots on, because God is your only meaning in life.

[Kannap]

What? He never punishes us for acting the way He created us for, He punishes us for acting sinfully (which because of Adam and Eve's sin is now a part of human nature).

Remind me, who is the creator of everything in the universe in your religion, including the Garden of Eden and the tree of knowledge? Including the very ideas of knowledge and sin?

You see, there are only two possibilities. Either morality is independent from God, in which case God is not the decider of good and evil, or morality is not independent from God, in which case he must answer for all of his choices, such as creating the idea of sin, making humans biologically programmed to be aroused when they see attractive humans they aren't in a monogamous relationship with, making plagues and wasps that birth their young inside their prey and goddamn spiders.

I have questions about the wasps and spiders too. What were you thinking, God?

[Arthurious]

I thought everything was alright with same sex marriage.

[Grand Calvert]

What? He never punishes us for acting the way He created us for, He punishes us for acting sinfully (which because of Adam and Eve's sin is now a part of human nature).

Remind me, who is the creator of everything in the universe in your religion, including the Garden of Eden and the tree of knowledge? Including the very ideas of knowledge and sin?

You see, there are only two possibilities. Either morality is independent from God, in which case God is not the decider of good and evil, or morality is not independent from God, in which case he must answer for all of his choices, such as creating the idea of sin, making humans biologically programmed to be aroused when they see attractive humans they aren't in a monogamous relationship with, making plagues and wasps that birth their young inside their prey and goddamn spiders.

What? I choose option c, where God is the very definition of good, which is what pretty much all Christians believe. And anyways, He did not create sin, Adam and Eve chose to sin. You see, in order for Adam to truly be loyal to God, which is what He wants, there has to be something else. Something besides God. So that's what the Tree was there for. For Adam to prove his loyalty (which he failed at).

[Grand Calvert]

How is it nihilist? Nihilism means that life is meaningless. Living your life for God is the opposite of nihilism.

It's actually very nihilist. Living your life solely for another being without any values or principles independent of that being is nihilist. If God tells you left is right, it's so, even if he's not telling the truth. If God tells you to rape and murder, you go and get your murderin' boots on, because God is your only meaning in life.

Except that God has never told me to do those things.

[The Flutterlands]

And finally, one last point before I sign off: The conversation about STDs is misguided. Sexual promiscuity is not wrong because it might give you STDs. That's just a potential side effect.

Sexual promiscuity is wrong because it injures your soul by promoting selfishness. As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, to erase the mental distinction between us and others, to empty ourselves of concerns for the self. We must strive to not even think of ourselves at all. To always think of others. To allow the concern for others to fill our minds and souls completely. Living in communion. That is the Way. Few attain it, but all should strive towards it.

Sexual promiscuity makes it impossible to follow the Way, because one who is promiscuous uses sex for individual gratification. Promiscuity makes sex about me and my desires, when it should always be about my partner. Ideally, it should be entirely about my partner, and not at all about myself. The proper Christian attitude to sex is to use it as an expression of selfless love. To give pleasure to another, whom you love. Of course, it's fine to also receive pleasure from them, but one should never seek it. Sexual pleasure should be seen as a gift. It's nice to receive gifts, but we don't go around asking people, "so, I want a gift right now, can I have one?"

And for the vast, overwhelming majority of people, only a long-term, committed monogamous relationship can cultivate the kind of absolutely selfless love that makes the Christian approach to sex possible. That doesn't mean that every committed monogamous relationship will contain this kind of love, but it does mean that a committed monogamous relationship is (usually) required as a starting point.

TL;DR - Promiscuity is wrong because sex should always be about making your partner happy, and those who are promiscuous seek to make themselves happy.

Nonsense. Promiscuity=/=selfishness. You just asserted that.
The post then falls apart.

Actually... Yeah. I agree with this. As long as you're not cheating on your mate.

[Zoice]

It's actually very nihilist. Living your life solely for another being without any values or principles independent of that being is nihilist. If God tells you left is right, it's so, even if he's not telling the truth. If God tells you to rape and murder, you go and get your murderin' boots on, because God is your only meaning in life.

Except that God has never told me to do those things.

Instead He told you that homosexuality is wrong, promiscuity is bad, abortion is murder, and His Glory is the meaning to life. And you believed Him.

[Grand Calvert]

Except that God has never told me to do those things.

Instead He told you that homosexuality is wrong, promiscuity is bad, abortion is murder, and His Glory is the meaning to life. And you believed Him.

Umm...ok? So?

[Zoice]

Instead He told you that homosexuality is wrong, promiscuity is bad, abortion is murder, and His Glory is the meaning to life. And you believed Him.

Umm...ok? So?

. . . The point is that your post of "Except that God has never told me to do those things" completely misses the point, and is pretty funny. Yeah, he didn't tell you to do THOSE things, but he did tell you to do OTHER things, and you obeyed.

[Conserative Morality]

What? I choose option c, where God is the very definition of good, which is what pretty much all Christians believe.

That's option a. God necessarily defines morality. He is good. Else he is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent.

And anyways, He did not create sin, Adam and Eve chose to sin.

God decides what sin is. God decides that there is such a thing as sin. God can make eating shellfish sinful and murdering everyone in a town holy. He's the legislative, executive, and judicial branch all in one. He makes the rules. He interprets the rules. And, to some degree, he enforces the rules. He who makes the rules must answer to them. If there are concepts independent of God, then God necessarily is not the beginning of all things in the universe, not the lone creator Christian mythology relies upon. God has created these concepts, so he has to answer for why he did so and why he uses them so.

You see, in order for Adam to truly be loyal to God, which is what He wants, there has to be something else. Something besides God. So that's what the Tree was there for. For Adam to prove his loyalty (which he failed at).

You assume that's the reason the tree of knowledge was there. Where in the bible does it say that, again?