"Doing The Lambeth Walk" is a fair title for the article by this Anglican song and dance man. His whole reasoning, and indeed belief system is predicated on the so-called "authority" of the Bible.
The Bible is no more than a collection of fictional writings by human essayists with their attendant ignorance of, or disregard for, fact and truth.
It is the largest selling work of fiction in the world, but fiction nonetheless.
It is frightening that organisations as large as the Christian churches build their entire credibility and invoke an authority stemming from this load of lies.
Thanks to modern education and scientific logic, we are seeing a huge decline in the followers of Christianity, a reason, perhaps, that God and Gullible both begin with a "G".

Ponder, you have stated your case plainly, so plainly that it is obvious that nothing that happens at Lambeth will have any effect on you. You obviously would never attend a church, so why stick your nose in here?

Bruce, you have written:

"But is not the Christian model to associate with sinners and tax collectors? And is it not a commendable activity for Christians to engage and argue face to face with their fellow Christians when they disagree with them?"

In reply I would point you to:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you".

Attending Lambeth, with those who support sin in the church rather than those seeking to correct it, is to support interpretations of the Bible that are disagreed with.

Dear Hamlet

Why so mean to Ponder?

Whether or not Ponder wanders into a church is her/his business but let me assure you that the world is suffering from the extreme views of people like 'The Fambly Jensen'as they turn the 21st century back to 2008 BC.

I have heard that Andrew Denton is raising a fund to pay for Jensen's return to Afhganistan and the little madrassah he so desires.

Whether it is Jensen or Pell, who declares 'secularism is dead' and 'only the Vatican can return true democracy to the globe', we all have an investment in what church leaders say and attempt to force politicians to do.... one only has to remember the grovelling to Hillsong from Liberal and ALP pollies, or the waste of $165m on the NSCP scam, or the $90m+ on the Vatican Rag we are all hosting in NSW shortly to realise these are powerful and potentially dangerous people who need to be discussed and questioned far more deeply than they are currently in the meeja.

Besides, who really knows whether any 'Gawd' exists?

At last I've found an answer to why bees cannot be found in heaven and I do suggest both Ponder and Hamlet take a trip to see why this is so: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VzXYYmBMst8

Bruce Kaye makes some serious points which deserve discussion. He says “Portraying the present dispute as being about the authority of the Bible frames the argument so as to presume that the Bible is the only authority”.

If following Bruce’s suggestion a church does acknowledge plural authorities (as most churches do) some interesting consequences follow.

Tradition and individual conscience are two secondary authorities commonly mentioned. Suppose, for argument’s sake we then have the following hierarchy (in descending order of power)
1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Conscience

If scripture is ‘ultimate’, then any conflict among these authorities is automatically resolved by deferring to scripture.

However if there is only one unassailable and unchangeable interpretation of scripture, this has the effect of collapsing the hierarchy into one item only – scripture (as interpreted) – and the rest have become irrelevant because they can never prevail.

I don’t think that’s what Bruce would want, or was trying to say. But what’s the alternative?

For a system of plural authorities to have any substance, each one must to some degree be malleable and able to be influenced by those below it that conflict with it – including the ultimate one itself.

So if conscience, for instance, challenges scripture (as interpreted) then conscience doesn’t automatically get punched in the face and told to lie down, but the interpretation of scripture is necessarily challenged (scripture as such can’t be challenged because it’s words on paper – only its interpretation can be challenged).

History gives us many cases of where this challenge of scriptural interpretation by individual conscience has been successful – slavery being one notable one.

Bruce Kaye’s comments make sense - but only to a point, and that what and who does the interpreting of scripture is the elephant in his room.

By failing to acknowledge it, he allows the notion of plural authorities to become empty and thus demolishes his own position in the argument.

Regrettably, Jensen and others fall into the same trap and otiosely pretend that there’s only one possible interpretation of their favourite anti-gay scriptures – namely, their own.

Bruce,

When you see the list:

Uganda, Rwanda, Sydney, Nigeria

It’s a bit like playing “one of these things is not like the other”. In terms of history, economy and culture, Sydney has no natural inclusion in this group of nations.

For the record, I’m a Sydney Anglican, and I believe that the weight of biblical authority lies with Peter Jensen on the issue of ordaining homosexual ministers.

However, it is a concern that this squabble is brought into the secular domain where the issues, being totally dependent on scripture, are incomprehensible for the non-believer.

Of greater concern is this: Sydney sitting down at the African table in an alliance which excludes the body of the Anglican Church. The Christian African nations are practicing their faith in non-western cultures, surrounded by Muslim nations, where human rights abuses and humanitarian crisis is the norm. These nations simply cannot tolerate gays in their midst, let alone, allow a practicing gay access to the ministry.

I can’t help wondering if the African representatives understand scripture as it applies to homosexuals. On closer inspection, the churches are not calling for reform, tolerance or acceptance of gays and lesbians in the community, or protection of their lives. In fact, there is a movement toward harsher penalties. Their motivations seem to be culturally driven, not scriptural.

Bowing to pressure from the Muslim nations or unstable, tribal African nations is not where Christians find communion, on any issue.

Looking at this group one-by-one, starting with Nigeria, the most populous (140 million+), Sydney’s involvement in this group is nothing short of bizarre..

(cont)...

Niger to the north of Nigeria is 90% muslim and Islam has advanced south to take a stronghold in northern Nigeria (including adopting Sharia). Christianty is concentrated in the southeast.

“Nigeria is about to set itself apart, yet again, in one of the most sweeping anti-gay laws in the world. While the pending civil law proposes a lighter sentence than the criminal law, its legal reach is breathtaking. Interestingly, homosexuality is already criminalized in Nigeria. Depending on whether the accused is Christian or Muslim, the penalty is either 14 years imprisonment or death by stoning.”

Under Islamic Sharia law adopted by Muslim states in the north of Nigeria, homosexual sex is punishable by stoning to death, but no one has suffered such punishment, until in recent times, the likelihood of this punishment being carried out is increasing."

http://www.whrnet.org/docs/issue-uhuru-0605.html

Uganda (30 million), predominately Catholic and home to the “Lord’s Resistance Army” (known for forcibly recruiting child soldiers and raping women), . To the north is Muslim Sudan, where the humanitaritan crisis and genocide of Darfur rages.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200709250147.html

Homosexuality is illegal, denounced as a foreign import and Uganda is one of the countries that practice the strongest sanctions against homosexuals worldwide, including torture.

http://www.afrol.com/articles/16744

Rwanda (10.1 million) was regarded as one of the most "Christian" countries in Africa and the world, with some 80% to 90% of the population calling themselves Christian (Roman Catholic majority with a strong minority of evangelical Protestants). And yet, Rwanda is remembered for one of the greatest genocides of modern human history.

"MEMBERS of Parliament want a law against homosexuality enacted. Currently, there is no such law in Rwanda but MPs consider homosexuality illegal.

Mauritania, Nigeria and Sudan have imposed a capital punishment on homosexuality.

Meanwhile Rwanda's Anglican Church joined the growing list of African churches which oppose homosexuality."

http://www.prx.org/pieces/1051

Instead of the churches shining a torch for human rights and the protection of life, they are jumping into the fray. The Sydney position on homosexuality and the inclusion of gay people in fellowship is very different to the African position.

As much as I loathe the undemocratic regimes of Mauritania and Sudan, at least in regard to homosexuality, they are taking their religion (however barbarous it seems to us) seriously.

Peter Jensen and his allies point to the Book of Leviticus in the Bible to show how homosexuality is "wrong". But the same book tells us that "a man lying with another man" is an abomination and that they should both be put to death. It also says the same thing about adultery and incest although Jensen et al don't talk about that so much.

So, to be consistent with Biblical teaching, Jensen should openly call on authorities to implement the death penalty for gays and adulterers. Anything less would be letting God down.

DavidJS wrote:

"Peter Jensen and his allies point to the Book of Leviticus in the Bible to show how homosexuality is "wrong". But the same book tells us that "a man lying with another man" is an abomination and that they should both be put to death. It also says the same thing about adultery and incest although Jensen et al don't talk about that so much."

Possibly the reason that Dr Jenson & co are not going on about adultery and incest is that there is, as far as I know, no ministers nor bishops openly living, and glorifying, in adulterous and incestuous relationships.

Whilst I am sure that members of the clergy have sinned by adultery and incest, they have not prided themselves in those activities and displayed in public an attitude that these are acceptable for Christians.

Or, DavidJS are you saying that clergy should be able to enter into adulterous and incestuous relationships, as if it is okay to defy Leviticus re homosexuality it is okay to deny it for these as well?

BTW Dr Jenson has never called for criminal or civil penalties against anyone due to homosexual acts or lifestyle.

Ponder
Your assertion, derived from ignorance, that "modern education and scientific logic" accounts for the decline in followers of Christianity is unsurprisingly illogical, when followers of the Islamic faith are increasing worldwide; their faith having similar tenets to Christianity, as of course do other religions worldwide.

Why is it that many expect the church to stand for human rights in some areas but demand that State and Religion be separate in others. The mandate of the church has never changed. Our main mission is to save souls from hell. Granted we have failed with most Australians but great things are happening in China and Africa. In Singapore reports of up to 40% of the doctors are now bible believing Christians.

Let the denominations continue to squabble in house. No amount of talks will make fornication, child abuse, homosexuality or lying right. I admire Peter Jensen's stand but fear that his organization has been so infiltrated by compromisers (and that is being kind rstuart) that they are losing many of their people of genuine faith. Jesus will continue to build His church and the gates of hell won't prevail against it. He has never lied. You can be confident that He will continue to grow and purify His church.

People are fooling themselves if they believe that faith in Christ is somehow dying. As the stupidity and dishonesty of evolution is being uncovered daily by many, people are waking up to the fact that they have a Creator and are going to be held accountable for their depravity. Thank God for His marvelous Son.

Hamlet, Jensen should be calling for the death penalty for gays, adulterers and child molesters as consistent with Biblical teaching (read Leviticus). According to the Bible, same-sex relations are not only "wrong', they require the death penalty. No ifs or buts. It doesn't matter if the government of the day is not likely to take up Jensen's request - as based on the teachings of the Bible. The point is, Biblical teaching clearly states that adultery, incest and homosexuality should be cured with the death penalty. Jensen, if he was a real Bible-believing Christian, would be making this point. If I can't bring himself to do so, I can only assume he is a pathetic backslider without morals or principles.

DavidJS writes

'Hamlet, Jensen should be calling for the death penalty for gays, adulterers and child molesters as consistent with Biblical teaching (read Leviticus)'

Funny how my children at 5 could tell the difference between the Levitical law practiced by the Jews and the teachings of Jesus. You must have missed out as a child David. Good evidence why Christianity needs to be taught in schools.

for once, i'm pleased to read a post by runner. he wishes to distinguish levitical law with the teachings of jesus. that at least seems a good framework for discussion: there's jesus, and then there's all the other stuff.

on this basis, i have an honest question: did jesus ever say a word against homosexuality?

Bushbasher wrote "did jesus ever say a word against homosexuality?"

Not that I've ever read, mate. He did hang around with twelve unattached guys for quite a long time, though, and then there's this stuff about being rather partial to John, the beloved one. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

What difference would it make if it turned out that jesus was a gay man?

Jesus addressed the spiritual aspirations of mankind. Homosexuality is a human condition that is only physical and psychological and nothing to do with the spirituality of human beings.
I cannot understand why people who want to be recognised as authorities on religion wantto confuse these issues.The louder one protests and the more one gets hysterical about homosexual issues tends to conceal their own covert propensities. Religious tyrants use the issue to whip up anger and support their claims for control and management. It has always been a matter of manipulation of the masses...either as suppliers of visas for eternal happiness in Paradise and a supply of virgins thrown in for good measure (nothing for women,sad to say) or a means of creating fear of death and manipulating guilt by creating it using it to gain obedience.

You can see its application in Christianity and Islam.

socratease

Actually Runner, I think comparative religion should be taught in schools rather than Christianity in schools. After all, Christianity is already taught in plenty of schools. And parents can send their children to those schools - that is their right. And it is also the right of parents are not religious to send their children to secular schools and have a religious-free zone. Taxpayers choice.

But comparative religion, - which should include the history of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Indigenous religions etc plus the differences between their beliefs and what sort of doctrines they promulgate - would be useful and interesting given the influence of religion in human history.

But if you are to teach Christianity in schools what type do you propose? Quakerism? Jensen-style Anglicanism? Catholicism? Or maybe Pentecostalism? These demoninations have fundamental differences as we've already seen within Anglicanism alone. A Catholic mother or father wouldn't be too happy having Baptism taught to the exclusion of their preferred religion.

Did Jesus ever say anything against homosexuality?

Not directly, but he didn't say anything against bestiality, incest or drunk driving. He did say that he came to fulfil the law, which means, amongst other things, that the basis of the law, God's relationship, with humanity was not dissolved.

He also spoke against adultery: that is, against sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman: Remember the Samaritan woman at the well, and the woman caught in adultery. The woman caught in adultery was about to be stoned to death, he prevented this execution, but also told the woman to go and sin no more.

This is the attitude that is probably healthiest for modern Christians: be against the sin, but do not seek to impose punishment. (that is for God).

Homosexual sex is adultery by its very nature, as it is sexual contact outside the situation of a marriage between a man and a woman. So Jesus, IMHO, would say, 'Go and sin no more'. At the same time, it is no different than any other sexual sin. All humans are inclined to seek sex outside of marriage, or to steal, or to break our relationship with God in many ways. To single out homosexuality as a particular sin is wrong.

But so is to declare that it is not a sin.

hamlet, thank-you. a few comments.

1) it is reasonable to believe that jesus supported certain laws and moral codes of the time even though there's no evidence of him discussing them. but

a) what jesus talked about is presumably a guide to what he thought was important.

b) it seems silly to consider jesus's sayings, much less his speculative implicit beliefs, as simply a checklist of do's and don't's, rather than as a guide to moral and social principle. the former would shackle jesus to a certain cultural age, and means you get into absurd debates, not just what jesus thought about homosexuality, but what he thought about shellfish and slavery.

2) homosexual sex is not "adultery by its very nature". it is adultery by a narrow-minded and self-fulfilling legal terminology. the nature of homosexual relationships is that they can be as meaningful and as loving and as loyal as heterosexual relationships.

you have not convinced me that jesus of 2000 years ago was concerned about homosexuality. and you have most definitely not convinced me that a current jesus would bat an eyelid. that is, you have not pointed to any principle in jesus's writings, any principle in how we should care for each other and love each other, which proscribes homosexuality.

in brief, you have not convinced me that homosexuality is a sin in any meaningful sense of the word. if you want to talk about, and be bound by, religious law, that's your choice. churches may do as they wish. but please do not equate an antiquated legalism with morality.

bushbasher

You are not willing to accept a Biblical definition of marriage.

You are not willing to accept a Biblical definition of adultery,

You have attributed to Jesus the qualities that you want to attribute, regadless of the evidence.

Yet you somehow still feel that you can meaningful contribute to a debate about Biblical authority (which you show that you reject) regarding an issue that doesn't directly affect you.

You state that homosexual relationships can be as loyal and meaningful as marriage: well, so can non sexual relationships between siblings, but so can incest, but that don't make those the same as marriage.

Please either agree tha the Bible should be accepted, or say that it isn't, and then debate another topic that actually will have an affect on your life.

bushbasher you write 'in brief, you have not convinced me that homosexuality is a sin in any meaningful sense of the word.' It is not up to us to convince you.That is clearly done for us by the bible. You along with other moral relativist want to define what sin is yourself. If your conscience is not seared you will agree with God's word. If it is seared you will continue to justify what the bible (including new testament) condemns. By all means argue that homosexuality is okay but don't be do dishonest as to pretend God approves of it in His Word.

hamlet and runner. of course i am not willing to accept biblical definitions, or biblical characterizations of anything. they mean nothing to me. and since i am not, of course i have no place in a religious battle: if the anglican church chooses to tear itself apart over homosexuality, that's their right and their problem.

but i am interested in why certain christians are so hung up about homosexuality. and i am particularly interested, since it seemed to be of no grand concern to jesus. i'm sorry if you think i'm presumptuously interpreting jesus, but i'm not exactly putting words in his mouth: if anything, you guys are.

all you two are giving me is religious law. homosexuality is a sin by definition, because it is adulterous, or because the bible says so, or apparently god said so.

you're allowed to do that, but i don't know why you bother, since it will obviously mean nothing to me. it has nothing to do with morality or ethics or human understanding. it's simply quoting authority, and an authority i clearly do not accept.

Runner and Hamlet

Of course we should not take the whole bible literally – do you seriously believe that we should follow biblical prescriptions for disobedient children, adulterers, mouldy buildings, clothing, food laws, menstruation and wet dreams?

We ignore many of the laws advocated in Exodus and Leviticus because we understand they are products of a time and culture that is not ours, and that they have no relevance now – indeed they offend against modern ethical codes that have themselves been influenced by 3,000 years of moral reflection deeply influence by Judaic and Christian thinking. Liberals do this honestly, I believe so-called “bible-believing” Christians rationalise it. But no-one actually advocates strict observance of all those laws.

We put Paul’s exhortations for slaves to obey their masters in the same category. Most of us do the same with pseudo-Pauline misogyny.
On a different note, we understand Jesus’ instructions to hate our parents as hyperbole, and don’t take it literally.

So the question is not whether to take the whole bible literally, but how to discern, interpret and apply the truths it points to for our own age and culture. That is what the debate about attitudes to women and homosexuals is about. From a church perspective it is fundamentally a question of theology and authority, but small wonder non-Christians are bemused by the disproportionate emphasis it attracts, and revolted by the lack of compassion exhibited by some who would use homosexuals as the scapegoats for all the perceived sins of liberal Christianity.

bushbasher,

'but i am interested in why certain christians are so hung up about homosexuality. and i am particularly interested, since it seemed to be of no grand concern to jesus'

I actually partly agree with you bushbasher. Though as I stated many times I agree with the apostle Paul's description of homosexuality as being unnatural it is no better or worse than adultery or fornication in God's sight.

I think you will find that it is the homosexual lobby itself that draws attention to itself with it wanting to tell the church or God what is right and wrong. They want condoned by all what the bible calls perversion. Look how many articles their are on this site on the issue. Look who is lobbying Parliament to have their actions condoned.

There is also heaps of dishonesty about the negative affects on society created by homosexuality. Any honest study uncovers the dramatic increase in disease shared among many homosexuals. Kids are told that homosexuality is in a persons genes(more pseudo science)and so many experiment trying to find out what they are due to false information. Some people in their 70's still can't decide if they like boys or girls. Anyone who visited Kings Cross in the 70's or 80's would be sickened to think of their kids being exposed to this lifestyle.

Again if the homosexual lobby were not so militant and vocal (a number of judges among them) we probably would not be having this discussion. Funny enough though it is not only Christians who see this lifestyle as destructive. Many doctors and health workers agree.

Why are some Christians "hung up" about homosexuality? Because they have a sick obsession with what goes on in the bedrooms of gay men and lesbians.

They are the same people who publicly abuse gays - and watch so-called lesbian pornography. They are the same people who preach about the evils of homosexuality from the altar - then sexually molest children (gender irrelevant). Runner said some people in their 70s can't work out if they like girls or boys. They're called priests, sweetie. And incidentally, most prostitutes are women after males. Any ignoramus knows that.

They are the same people who bash or murder gays - then (what a surprise!) come out as gay themselves. They are the same ones that lambast the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and go there to "disapprove" (yeah, right) every year without fail from a good vantage point. And they are the same ones who use this forum to vent their obsession - notice how any article about homosexuality gets heaps of responses but, for example, the one on elder abuse did not.

Is Christianity a perversion? It is a form of mysticism certainly. But it is not entirely rotten. After all, didn't Christ throw the money-changers (Jensen and the Bishop of Rome's predessors) out of the temple? It's not entirely without hope.

“Why are some Christians "hung up" about homosexuality? Because they have a sick obsession with what goes on in the bedrooms of gay men and lesbians. They are the same people who publicly abuse gays - and watch so-called lesbian pornography”.

With respect, DavidJS, this is nonsense – just how many church going types do you know? They would be (un)lucky enough to endure a sermon on the evils homosexuality once in a blue moon if that.

However, a fair proportion of Christians and lots of others as well, think the homosexual lifestyle has a few deficiencies, and not just AIDS, and they do object to homosexuals forcing acceptance of that lifestyle down their throats. Quite frankly for myself, I think as little as possible about what goes on in the bedrooms of gay men and lesbians and I’m certainly not into lesbian pornography – you can keep that to yourself.

Bruce,

I notice you saying, “it is said to be a matter of conscience on the grounds that the offence of the North American churches is so bad that they cannot be associated with. But is not the Christian model to associate with sinners and tax collectors? And is it not a commendable activity for Christians to engage and argue face to face with their fellow Christians when they disagree with them?”

Two comments:

If it was all about engaging and arguing face to face, I’m with you. The problem is as I understand it, the North Americans stopped engaging/arguing – they actually went and acted in contradiction to what was agreed at Lambeth 1998, not only that, but they have been persecuting dissident Parishes and priests over the issue.

Historically, we know there comes a point when the dissonance becomes so extreme it is better to walk separately – witness the Reformation that led to the separate formation of your own Church. Actually the recent Conference/Pilgrimage in Jerusalem has come up with a rather neat solution, a church within a church, so to that extent I would have thought you should be pleased.

DavidJS,

Of course no honest study would be done to how many paedophile Priests are/were practicing homosexuals. '

'They are the same people who bash or murder gays - then (what a surprise!) come out as gay themselves. They are the same ones that lambast the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and go there to "disapprove" (yeah, right) every year without fail from a good vantage point. And they are the same ones who use this forum to vent their obsession - notice how any article about homosexuality gets heaps of responses but, for example, the one on elder abuse did not.'

Are you just dishonest or bitter and twisted

Not as bitter and twisted as you, sweetie. I've seen www.godhatefags.com. I have your number.

Anyway, back to the topic which is about disagreement in the Anglican Church. Jensen et al need to realise that their "church" was only set up because Henry VIII wanted to get rid of his Missus and shack up with a good-time girl. At least Pell (despite her back dress sense) has a longer tradition in Christianity.

I look forward to World (Catholic) Youth Day.

rhian, you said it exactly, much better than me.

david palmer, "homosexual lifestyle" is as meaningless as "heterosexual lifestyle".

I like to think of homosexuality as a life with style.

It is also worthwhile to remember that the concept of 'homosexuality' as an identifier of sexual identity is less than 150 years old. Prior to 1869 the term homosexual did not exist.

People behaved in homosexual ways, in the same way that some people today revel in adultery, as 'swingers' (I am waiting for 'swingers' to be included as a form of sexual identity).

So the question has to be asked, given around 4000 years of recorded human history, whether 150 years of homosexuality as an identifier is valid, particularly as researchers have claimed that just under 50% of males have indulged in homosexual acts, or have been aroused at least to a degree in response to 'homosexual' stimulus, which implies that homosexuality is part of a spectrum of behaviours, rather than an identifier to hide sinfulness.

The Bible does not identify sin by the sinner, but by the behaviour of the sinner. Why should Christians go along with recent trends that attempt to claim that sinners should not be held responsible for their sin, whether they are adulterers, those who indulge in homosexual behaviour and drunkards (also drug users..) in the name of a self imposed identifier?

hamlet, i'm not sure of the purpose of your last post. questioning the labels and the catgorization of sexual behaviour is fair enough, but how does that relate in any way to the purported sinfulness of certain sexual behaviour? you last post simply seems to presume that homosexual acts are sinful, the exact presumption others here are not willing to make.

unless and until you give some reason (other than appeal to authority) why a homosexual act is sinful, i don't see that you're getting us anywhere.

The trouble with the "sin" argument is what constitutes a sin is a matter of opinion. For centuries Jewish people suffered at the hands of Christians because their religion was regarded as sinful. Christians suffer at the hands of Islamic regimes for precisely the same reason.

Murder is prosecuted in Australia not because it constitutes a sin but because it is a threat to civil order. Notice the Australian Family Association, Catholic Church or Peter Jensen don't oppose same-sex marriage on the basis of sin (unless they are talking to their own members) but instead say it undermines family life as we know it (a threat to civil order, essentially). They know better than to use primarily religious arguments.

Quite frankly, I couldn't careless about the sexuality or sex or species of Anglican bishops. That's for the Anglican Church to work out. However, when they try to entrench the inequality of gay men and lesbians, that is the point where I oppose them.

bushbasher and DavidJS.

This topic is entirely about authority. Biblical Authority. That is how the topic started, that is the entire basis of the topic.

I don't have to prove to anyone that homosexual behaviour is sin. The topic start from that basis.

I quite frankly I don't give a damn about behaviour happens in people's bedrooms (or anywhere else in private), so long as that behaviour is not abusive, in contravention of informed consent or about power, so long as no-one makes homosexual behaviour compulsory.

What I do care about are people who, knowing full well the tradition and teaching of the Anglican, or any other church, intentionally go out to offend those who wish to stick with the tradition.
Or is it about the money and power, the stripping of assets, knowing that those who have worked for years to build their local churches will have those stripped away f they disagree with having an adulterous bishop?

Or is it the dressing up and theatricality?

Hell, there is news about a woman episcopalian priest in the good old USA who has converted to Islam, and still wants to be accepted as Christian priest!

Or is it more sinister, knowing the teachings and traditions of the church some people are intentionally seeking to destroy the church from within?

As for "However, when they try to entrench the inequality of gay men and lesbians, that is the point where I oppose them." those who prefer homosexual behaviour are trying to oppress those of the Church who do not want to accept a priests, bishops etc in authority who live in contravention of Christian beliefs.

hamlet, i'm not going to fight with you. even on your own terms, i don't understand the point of your previous post, but it doesn't matter. you want possession of the word "sin", and as far as i'm concerned you can have it. if you want possession of the word "morality", that's another issue ...

i got into this thread to ask why some christians are so hung up on homosexuality. i asked this particularly in the light of the fact that there is no record of jesus having said a word about homosexuality. i asked it because i could see nothing in what jesus did say that implied anything morally wrong about homosexuality. i wondered if there was anything deeper than "biblical authority", something for a non-believer like me to understand. apparently not.

hamlet, obviously there are many anglicans who do not regard the prominence or clarity of "biblical authority" as simply as you do. but it's for you guys to fight over: i never pretended otherwise.

"i got into this thread to ask why some christians are so hung up on homosexuality"

No, its not christians who are hung up on homosexuality, it is homosexuals who won't let go until we all grovel at their feet and say how wonderful their lifestyle is, and I for one won't be doing that any time soon.

As far as the Church is concerned we've got our marching orders, 2000 plus years ago, never rescinded and they don't include embracing the homosexual lifestyle - end of story.

Bruce, see what happens when you introduce a topic that impinges in any way on homosexuality....

Positively no more comments from me.

oh no, david, of course not. you're not hung up on homosexuality at all. what you've written here, it couldn't possibly give anyone that impression.

and it would be a shame if you left the thread. your display of reason and humility and grace is more compelling than anything i can possibly offer.

Once again someone (this time Hamlet) tries to find persecution of Christians in Australia where it doesn't exist. Disagreeing with Christian doctrines and opposing church organisations on same-sex marriage is not persecution.

Now, forcing religious organisations to wed same-sex couples would be a form of oppression. But if same-sex marriage was legislated in Australia, I for one would stay away from any religious outfit - as far as possible. I avoid them like the plague as it is.

There is no evidence, from what I can see, of gay people bashing and murdering worshippers of any religion. There is plenty of evidence of Christians being oppressed in North Africa, the Middle-East, China and South-East Asia. Practising Christians should turn their attention to real persecution and not get precious over a few insults.

DavidJS wrote:

"Now, forcing religious organisations to wed same-sex couples would be a form of oppression."

David, here is the problem: the US Episcopalian Church is a member of the Anglican Communion. That is, it claims certain privileges and rights, and rites, as part of that organisation.

Recently it not only consecrated as a Bishop a man living with a sexual partner out of wedlock (against the traditions and teachings of the Anglican Communion) but also then carried out the 'rite' of marriage between this Bishop and his male partner, once again against the teachings and traditions of the Anglican Communion.

I think that even you would agree that is what has happened.

Now, the US Episcopalian Church is, in effect, forcing the other member churches of the Anglican Communion into accepting this as a valid marriage rite. In other words, it is saying that we are forcing you to accept this Bishop and his male partner as married:

The Episcopalian church is: "forcing religious organisations to wed same-sex couples" and this is "a form of oppression". The oppression against the Anglican Communion is coming from within, not without.

If the US Episcopalian Church wants to act against the teachings and traditions of the Anglican Communion it can - but it should do so by leaving that communion, and not forcing others to accept its views.

DavidJS wrote, in another topic, after my most recent post here, which would indicate that he has inhabited this forum since my post:

Quote

All religions are stupid.
Posted by DavidJS, Friday, 11 July 2008 9:05:45 PM

Unquote

Well DavidJS, if all religions are stupid why are you bothering debating with believers? Why debate with those stupid people who believe in religions in the first place?

Shouldn't you, instead, be contacting all those gay people who want to change religion to suit themselves and trying to get them to leave all those stupid religions? (well, if all religions are stupid then even the changed ones must be stupid).

You would surely be doing them, and the believers in Biblical authority a favour.