So, if I understand you correctly crabsy...

>> It has constructed a formidable media organisation to promulgate its exclusive, small-minded, mean-spirited view of the world. That is part of the explanation as to why the Australian mass-media report the Archbishop of Sydney far more often and in far more detail than they do any other Anglican Archbishop, including the Australian Primate.<<

... your earlier statement would have been more accurately expressed as:

"The general public has an inaccurate picture of Christianity sculpted by Rev Dr Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney"

Credit where it is due, and all that.

You quote Edser as saying: "I am going to take as truth that being gay or lesbian is neither sick nor sinful."

But if you and Edser really are the Christians you describe yourself as there can be no question of 'taking as truth' anything that deviates from the pronouncements of God as set out in the Bible.

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "

And the law?

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Not much room for equivocation there, is there?

So why not just bite the bullet and admit that your whole religion is a load of bigoted nonsense? Then you wouldn't have to feel a 'sense of sadness' because other people know your own religion better than you do.

The Bible is a product of its time and culture, not a supernatural instruction manual.

No modern Christian takes all its laws literally. We don’t stone disobedient children or burn wiccans or follow the laws on diet, clothing etc.

The text you quote says Jesus came to “fulfil” the law. In context, the debate was similar to the one we are having today about gays and Christianity – about obeying the letter of the law or fulfilling its underlying values and intent. At this point in Matthew, Jesus has made a series of statements about how his followers should go beyond the letter of the law to fulfil its underlying intent.

How then are we to determine between conflicting interpretations of the law, or where there is a clash of worldviews between modern and ancient cultures? I respect the argument of both fundamentalists and atheists that choosing which bits of the bible to take literally can seem to give us licence to cherry pick a religion to suit out tastes. But in fact, I don’t think we have such licence. The bible itself gives us guidance as to the appropriate way to resolve contradictions and conflicts.

One of the key passages lies in the dual “law of love” (Matthew 22:36-40):

"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Modern understanding of homosexuality clashes with ancient understanding. We understand it as innate to a person, not a lifestyle choice or character defect. It cannot be rejected without denying something integral to a person’s identity, in the same way denying a person’s heterosexuality would not do justice to them. In God’s creation people are male and female, gay and straight. The law of love demands that that all are accepted and welcomed in God’s church.

I guess to some extent Christianity is probably like most religions in that is encourages a club-like atmosphere. If you want to belong - you must follow the rules according to whomever runs the club at the time. You want to believe somthing different - you are out of the club. Hundreds of years ago Lutherans were out of the club - now they are in. CofE, the same. In fact, especially in many parts of the USA, it is the evangelical movement which basically 'owns' the term and won't even let the Catholics into the club.
Nowadays most people probably allow most Jesus-teaching groups into the club - but some are still apparently outside the tent - Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
It never occurred to me that gays might be outside the tent, they just need to affiliate with a gay-friendly in-the-tent church. Besides, even if you think being gay is sinful, if sinners weren't allowed in then the churches would be completely empty.

Small point Chris, the IRA are Communists, have been since the 1960's.
In other news:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/gay-church-dubbed-a-cult-after-schism-20120208-1rf1f.html

So Rhian, because you love God, you get to pick and choose which of God's rules to ignore? But the ancient Israelites didn't, so obviously they didn't love God, right? Even though they were much closer and better acquainted with him, interacting on a daily basis.

Maybe they knew more about God than you do, after all.