the church of england is reviewing its same sex policy basically the allowed celibate gay clergy (reluctantly) now needs to review due to legal issues now i am not a churchgoer, never have been, but surely if your belief is that homosexuality is wrong then by accepting this shows weakness in faith and changing Gods word, as the bible forbids it and they argue that its Gods word would you have more respect if they stuck to their belief?
The bible is full of contradictions and ambiguities so how can you stick to certain beliefs if you're not sure about them?
i agree with that, my understanding is a lot of those have come through the 'changes' the church has added over the centuries but thats not the issue here or the question. the point is these are people who believe its Gods word yet are looking to change it they should just quit?
But given what you've just said about changes to the bible down the years how can you be sure it's God's word?
Anyone who takes a book written by men as the word of God (whatever God is) need to be watched but the CoE are the religious equivilent of Italy. Always changing their stance. If your in your in, no farting about. I mean, celibate gay clergy? WTF. The guy can marry another guy and live with them but not have sex? It's ridiculous.
I personally am sure it is NOT I was saying that for someone who is, like the CofE, surely it would signal the end?
agreed, ridicilous that is why i say I personally would have more respect for them if they stuck to their beliefs said no and suffered the consequences
But if the whole thing boils down to interpretation then it's perfectly acceptable to change it or take it the way you want.
is it 'interpretation' though? I can see some things are open to interpretation or even 'lost in translation' but where it says something as specific as no gay sex, then its a different issue
Does that mean that one day you were following the word of God and the next you were going against it though?
Yes but that specific part of the bible is an interpretation and is contradicted throughout the text. I'm not a religious person but religious people seek answers through questioning in much the same way that scientists do. By questioning and probing these issues further different conclusions can be drawn, hence things can be interpreted differently when new light is shine upon them.
Exactly. The CoE, I think, are desperate to remain relevant in a modern world. The Catholic Church and Muslims get a hell of a lot of stick but at least they are consistant. In that sense I would have more respect for them although I think the whole lot of them are crackpots. It's about having the courage of your convictions. The CoE do not.
On the other hand, the CoE adapts to face the modern world where as Islam and to a lesser extent Catholicism do not. That may explain why countries which are predominantly Protestant in their outlook do better in the modern world than countries that are not (although this is slowly changing as China and India emerge).
I agree to an extent. What relevance does religion have in western society and the way they run their govt and economys though? Almost zero. Would it not be that fact that makes those countries do better rather than the fact that the CoE change their knickers more often than Lady Gaga?
Actually rather a lot I'm afraid to say. History shows that countries with strong government and an enlightened religion as the dominant force do better than countries with a more insular outlook.
Religion is not a dominant force though. Maybe a hundred years ago, not now. Religion is almost an irrelevance now. You just had to look at the derision that met Rowan Williams recent attack on the Tory govt, calling it an unelected govt as they didnt have a majority. This from an unelected member of the House of Lords too. Maybe Protestantism has installed an ethic into GB that has stayed, to a degree, within society but to call it dominant is stretching it.
I would be of the opinion that religion plays a part in America when certain politicians are looking for votes, nothing else. I would be astounded if religion played any part in the minds of the policy makers in Washington. There is a hell of a lot of votes to be had by playing the religion card there. It is the same as Obama drinking a pint of Guinness recently in Ireland. That would have got him untold votes from the misty eyed, gullible Irish American vote.
I disagree with this If you look at the 'true' history then religion was actually the 'enlightenment' you talk about The western world as it exists today has all its laws, philosophy etc entrenched in religion
