Schism in the Anglican Church community

[szrana007]

Suicide rates and depression tend to be high in secular countries.

Yeah a point to wonder, if the people in the West are happy, then why are suicide and depression rates so high in the West?

 

[SalimBhai]

In 2019, the ten countries with the highest suicide rates (number of suicides per 100k) were:

Lesotho - 72.4
Guyana - 40.3
Eswatini - 29.4
South Korea - 28.6
Kiribati - 28.3
Federated States of Micronesia - 28.2
Lithuania - 26.1
Suriname - 25.4
Russia - 25.1
South Africa - 23.5

 

[szrana007]

In 2019, the ten countries with the highest suicide rates (number of suicides per 100k) were:

Lesotho - 72.4
Guyana - 40.3
Eswatini - 29.4
South Korea - 28.6
Kiribati - 28.3
Federated States of Micronesia - 28.2
Lithuania - 26.1
Suriname - 25.4
Russia - 25.1
South Africa - 23.5

Most of these countries are secular

 

[Robert]

Yeah a point to wonder, if the people in the West are happy, then why are suicide and depression rates so high in the West?

The West isn’t one entity.

Depression/ suicide in USA is high due to their extremely individualistic society. Also the US medical-industrial establishment seeks to create dependency on antidepressants and heroin substitutes for pain suppression.

In UK this is true to a lesser extent.

Sweden / Norway / Finland have high incidence of SAD because of the long dark winters lacking sunshine.

Southern France, Italy and Spain have low incidence of depression due to stronger social links and warmer climates.

 

[Robert]

Mods, the thread appears to be derailed…..

 

[szrana007]

The West isn’t one entity.

Depression/ suicide in USA is high due to their extremely individualistic society. Also the US medical-industrial establishment seeks to create dependency on antidepressants and heroin substitutes for pain suppression.

In UK this is true to a lesser extent.

Sweden / Norway / Finland have high incidence of SAD because of the long dark winters lacking sunshine.

Southern France, Italy and Spain have low incidence of depression due to stronger social links and warmer climates.

Nice breakdown, I agree with your reasoning.

 

[SalimBhai]

Most of these countries are secular

Incorrect they are not .

 

[SalimBhai]

Most of these countries are poor. Hence can’t get proper care. That would be the reason. Not religion or lack of religion.

 

[szrana007]

Incorrect they are not .

Most of these countries have a separation of state and religion and have secular constitutions. But you can keep burying your head in sand.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Most of these countries have a separation of state and religion and have secular constitutions. But you can keep burying your head in sand.

People are pretty religious in those countries too.

 

[RexRex]

The Aramaic word for abomination is the same as the word for unhygienic.

I thought the early Bible was written in Hebrew.

 

[RexRex]

This is the problem that conservative Christians have - if you change one rule then every rule is up for grabs.

You can't equate a holy book to a document like the the Constitution that can be amended regularly. That renders it useless. Either its the truth or its not.

What the major denominations of Christianity consider as common ground christian canon has been unchanged for 2000 years and that includes their stance on homosexuality.

I think that several very intellectual liberal Christians deny the divinity of Christ - privately. But his message of love, forgiveness, and kindness to the Other is what counts. So he becomes less the Son of God and more a psychological principle or ideal model of human behaviour.

Are you a believing christian or just a cultural one ? If the latter, then this discussion is quite pointless.

 

[Robert]

You can't equate a holy book to a document like the the Constitution that can be amended regularly. That renders it useless. Either its the truth or its not.

What the major denominations of Christianity consider as common ground christian canon has been unchanged for 2000 years and that includes their stance on homosexuality.

And yet Christians don't bother with the same prohibitions on eating pork, shellfish, menstruation, leather handbags and selling your daughter into slavery. So you see, they do amend their constitution, not actively by passively by ignoring parts of it.

Are you a believing christian or just a cultural one ? If the latter, then this discussion is quite pointless.

Cultural, but that's not relevant - it's a discussion on the modern Anglican church.

 

[Robert]

I thought the early Bible was written in Hebrew.

Some Hebrew, some Aramaic, some Greek.

 

[Technics 1210]

Lots of deception going on here.

The Old testament was written in Hebrew and cleary mentions that homosexuality is an abomination. Therefore Abonination and unhygienic meaning the same in Aramaic is simply irrelevant.

Remember, the Bible is the Old and New testament in one.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Modern understanding of Leviticus has changed. The translation from Aramaic appears to refer to hygiene, not morality. But now we have soap and water.

The historical strength of Christianity is that it sees itself as part of a wider culture and has changed with culture over time.

Christianity is in serious decline and has been , because of changes and because Churches have sold out their beliefs to maintain power.

This seems very clear to me.

. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

How can this refer to hygiene?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Mods, the thread appears to be derailed…..

Haven't actually followed this thread but on reading a couple of the recent replies I was wondering what the topic was about. I'll bet if I looked back at earlier posts it wouldn't be hard to see where the diversion was artfully inserted by one of our newly resurrected members.

 

[RexRex]

And yet Christians don't bother with the same prohibitions on eating pork, shellfish, menstruation, leather handbags and selling your daughter into slavery. So you see, they do amend their constitution, not actively by passively by ignoring parts of it..

Not true.

All those medieval practices and dietary prohibitions you mention were applicable to societies and circumstances at that ancient time in Israel, it has never been taught by the Church as part of .. how christians should behave or their obligations. What is applicable to Christians is described in the New Testament. That's why that part of the Bible is named as such - a break from the past. As I've mentioned earlier, homosexuality in particular is also mentioned in the New Testament but none of what you've mentioned in the above quote is.

Do you know what the 'New Covenant' is ? That answers your question. Read up on it.

 

[Robert]

Christianity is in serious decline and has been , because of changes and because Churches have sold out their beliefs to maintain power.

This seems very clear to me.

. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

How can this refer to hygiene?

The Bible wasn’t written in English. This article suggests that the prohibition is not of homosexuality but if the rape of a man:

https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/

So perhaps I was wrong. If this book came from Hebrew not Aramaic then the dual meaning of the former won’t apply.

 

[Robert]

Not true.

All those medieval practices and dietary prohibitions you mention were applicable to societies and circumstances at that ancient time in Israel, it has never been taught by the Church as part of .. how christians should behave or their obligations. What is applicable to Christians is described in the New Testament. That's why that part of the Bible is named as such - a break from the past. As I've mentioned earlier, homosexuality in particular is also mentioned in the New Testament but none of what you've mentioned in the above quote is.

Do you know what the 'New Covenant' is ? That answers your question. Read up on it.

Yes, I attended church until the end of my teens. The New Covenant refers to salvation through Jesus. He also said:

For truly I tell you, 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.

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

 

[RexRex]

Yes, I attended church until the end of my teens. The New Covenant refers to salvation through Jesus. He also said:

For truly I tell you, 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.

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

What is that verse supposed to mean ? It could have any number of interpretations.

 

[sweep_shot]

What is that verse supposed to mean ? It could have any number of interpretations.

Robert came up with his own Christianity.

He thinks homosexuality and premarital sex are permissible in Christianity.

 

[Technics 1210]

Well well well, this is what the Archbishop of Canterbury has said today.

--------

Russia must not be humiliated in any Ukraine peace deal.

Russia must not be treated like Germany after the First World War and should be allowed to recover when the Ukraine conflict ends, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...ussia-must-not-humiliated-ukraine-peace-deal/

---------

I wonder what UK Christians and defenders of the Anglican Church have to say about this.

 

[SalimBhai]

People are pretty religious in those countries too.

Thats correct. But the poster above can come to terms with that.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The Bible wasn’t written in English. This article suggests that the prohibition is not of homosexuality but if the rape of a man:

https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/

So perhaps I was wrong. If this book came from Hebrew not Aramaic then the dual meaning of the former won’t apply.

Unlike the Quran the bible has been changed many a time, which is why it has hundreds of errors or contradictions.

However what we know for sure is the core principles , remember it was Adam and Eve. Some people have desires to be intimate with the same sex , having thoughts may not be a sin, it isnt in Islam, but to carry out this thought would go against God creating Man and Woman, children through them etc.

I think its more of a case of liberals pressuring the church or some in the church who want to carry out their desires.

 

[RexRex]

Robert came up with his own Christianity.

He thinks homosexuality and premarital sex are permissible in Christianity.

Why are you as a muslim bothered about Christianity failing ? You should be happy. The Islamic point of view is that the Bible is a compromised and corrupted document so its funny to see some of you defend the sanctity and authenticity of the Bible verses discussed here.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Why are you as a muslim bothered about Christianity failing ? You should be happy. The Islamic point of view is that the Bible is a compromised and corrupted document so its funny to see some of you defend the sanctity and authenticity of the Bible verses discussed here.

Since you are coming across as an expert, you should also be aware the revelations sent to Jesus(pbuh), although corrupted still hold many truths which are fully in line with the Quran.

Its never a competition , Muslims respect these texts knowing their origins. After all its the ONE same God/Allah.

 

[Technics 1210]

Since you are coming across as an expert, you should also be aware the revelations sent to Jesus(pbuh), although corrupted still hold many truths which are fully in line with the Quran.

Its never a competition , Muslims respect these texts knowing their origins. After all its the ONE same God/Allah.

Don't confuse him.

 

[RexRex]

Since you are coming across as an expert, you should also be aware the revelations sent to Jesus(pbuh), although corrupted still hold many truths which are fully in line with the Quran.

Its never a competition , Muslims respect these texts knowing their origins. After all its the ONE same God/Allah.

Since its corrupted, you should just ignore the Bible as a whole and just stick to the Quran, given that muslims believe that the latter is the final and complete revelation.

The Bible's central message is that Jesus is the son of God, which the Quran absolutely rejects. If the Bible has got its central theme wrong, it subsequently follows that apostles have no credibility and were all just liars .. so there is no point in defending any other verse in the Bible.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Since its corrupted, you should just ignore the Bible as a whole and just stick to the Quran, given that muslims believe that the latter is the final and complete revelation.

The Bible's central message is that Jesus is the son of God, which the Quran absolutely rejects. If the Bible has got its central theme wrong, it subsequently follows that apostles have no credibility and were all just liars .. so there is no point in defending any other verse in the Bible.

Thanks but I'd rather take advice or orders from the Lord not from a random Indian poster.

No its not, the central message is of God. There are many texts in the bible which show Jesus(pbuh) was not the son of God. This is for another topic.

Its interesting you wrote "Why are you as a muslim bothered about Christianity failing ? " In reality it seems you are 10x more bothered what Muslims think of Christianity.

As an atheist, can I ask why you are concerned at all? You're spending time on something you dont believe to be true at all. lol.

 

[Technics 1210]

The Bible is missing the Gospel of Barnabas.

King James Bible (translation) is responsible for the highest level of corruption in religion than any event in history.

 

[Technics 1210]

As an atheist, can I ask why you are concerned at all? You're spending time on something you dont believe to be true at all. lol.

Second thoughts perhaps, other than that, discussion on Islam has a tendency to bring out the Thiest defending Athiests.

 

[sweep_shot]

Since its corrupted, you should just ignore the Bible as a whole and just stick to the Quran, given that muslims believe that the latter is the final and complete revelation.

The Bible's central message is that Jesus is the son of God, which the Quran absolutely rejects. If the Bible has got its central theme wrong, it subsequently follows that apostles have no credibility and were all just liars .. so there is no point in defending any other verse in the Bible.

Early Christians didn't believe in trinity. It was added later on. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#Early_Christianity.

Even today, there are Christian sects that reject trinity. Unitarian Christians, for example.

But, yeah. We believe Bible has been corrupted/altered. However, there are some verses in Bible that are similar to verses in Quran. We believe original Bible was from God.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The Bible is missing the Gospel of Barnabas.

King James Bible (translation) is responsible for the highest level of corruption in religion than any event in history.

Second thoughts perhaps, other than that, discussion on Islam has a tendency to bring out the Thiest defending Athiests.

I think a lot dont realise there were many gospels but assume it was only the 4 in the New Testament.

They choose certain gospels to further politics and left others out.

I really dont understand atheists. It would be like, we Muslims spending masses of time discussing the fairy dragon overlord, ruler of the dragon world etc. It makes no sense, so we dont.

Or perhaps deep down atheists arent really atheists but their arrogance and desires makes them want to be

 

[Technics 1210]

I think a lot dont realise there were many gospels but assume it was only the 4 in the New Testament.

They choose certain gospels to further politics and left others out.

I really dont understand atheists. It would be like, we Muslims spending masses of time discussing the fairy dragon overlord, ruler of the dragon world etc. It makes no sense, so we dont.

Or perhaps deep down atheists arent really atheists but their arrogance and desires makes them want to be

Almost all Christians, especially living in the West, believe Jesus [PBUH], was white, with blond hair, and blue eyes. This is how corrupt and confused Western Christianity.

As for Athiests, I can only speak of the ones in the UK who are the first to book Xmas and Easter holidays.

It is no wonder the Anglican church and all have bartered the message of God for lefty politics.

 

[James]

Almost all Christians, especially living in the West, believe Jesus [PBUH], was white, with blond hair, and blue eyes.

Even if this was the case once upon a time, I don’t think nowadays amongst Christians that this is the general perception of what Christ looked like.

Seems to be more commonly held that he had dark eyes and a dark complexion, was of Jewish / Middle Eastern appearance, of regular build, with brown or black curly hair & a matching beard of medium length.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Almost all Christians, especially living in the West, believe Jesus [PBUH], was white, with blond hair, and blue eyes. This is how corrupt and confused Western Christianity.

As for Athiests, I can only speak of the ones in the UK who are the first to book Xmas and Easter holidays.

It is no wonder the Anglican church and all have bartered the message of God for lefty politics.

Most are also not aware Jesus(pbuh) was a Palestinian by geography.

The problem is there are so many sects, different groups. Church of England was set up so Henry could marry again.

Now we have priests men marrying each other claiming its allowed.

It will be interesting to see their faces when the true Messiah(pbuh) returns. Interesting all 3 Islam, Christianity and Judaism are eagerly awaiting.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Even if this was the case once upon a time, I don’t think nowadays amongst Christians that this is the general perception of what Christ looked like.

Seems to be more commonly held that he had dark eyes and a dark complexion, was of Jewish / Middle Eastern appearance, of regular build, with brown or black curly hair & a matching beard of medium length.

Hope you're well James.

Do you agree with Robert , Christianity allows same couple relationships?

 

[Gilly]

Hope you're well James.

Do you agree with Robert , Christianity allows same couple relationships?

Religions don't have to allow same sex marriages, but they have to respect those that do. Any religion that excludes people that do have same sex marriages are discriminating and religion is based on non discrimination.

If a religion does exclude people in same sex marriages then that religion is promoting discrimination and would be hypocritical if they accuse others of discrimination.

 

[Technics 1210]

Religions don't have to allow same sex marriages, but they have to respect those that do. Any religion that excludes people that do have same sex marriages are discriminating and religion is based on non discrimination.

If a religion does exclude people in same sex marriages then that religion is promoting discrimination and would be hypocritical if they accuse others of discrimination.

Pure nonsense, and the US Supreme court and UK courts say so.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...oses-seven-year-battle-against-belfast-bakery

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake

In a secular society the state and religion are meant to be separate and the gay couples who took religious bakery owners to court because the owners refused to make gay wedding cakes, lost their cases.

 

[Robert]

What is that verse supposed to mean ? It could have any number of interpretations.

Obviously, it means Jesus said he did not come to change Mosiac Law, so that Law remains in force until Judgement Day.

 

[Robert]

Hope you're well James.

Do you agree with Robert , Christianity allows same couple relationships?

Where did I say that?

The Church will not marry gay couples.

The Archbishop of Canterbury now says that he will bless such a union. Hence the Anglican schism.

 

[Robert]

I think a lot dont realise there were many gospels but assume it was only the 4 in the New Testament.

They choose certain gospels to further politics and left others out.

I really dont understand atheists. It would be like, we Muslims spending masses of time discussing the fairy dragon overlord, ruler of the dragon world etc. It makes no sense, so we dont.

Or perhaps deep down atheists arent really atheists but their arrogance and desires makes them want to be

Yes, the Gospel of Mary was left out for patriarchal reasons, for instance. Couldn't have women speaking in church! Then there is the Gospel of Thomas which reads like science fiction and doesn't jibe with the other Gospels.

Atheists tend to have been emotionally damaged by early life church experiences, and seek to remove the dogma from their lives in order to heal.

Thread is about Christian schism.

 

[Gilly]

Pure nonsense, and the US Supreme court and UK courts say so.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...oses-seven-year-battle-against-belfast-bakery

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake

In a secular society the state and religion are meant to be separate and the gay couples who took religious bakery owners to court because the owners refused to make gay wedding cakes, lost their cases.

You didn't read your own link which supports what I said.

“The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.”

The bakers did not refuse service because he was gay, it was because they did not want to write a message on the cake. If a non gay person asked for the same message on the cake the baker still would have refused to write the message.

As you can see from your own link had they refused to serve him because he was in a same sex marriage then he would have won the case.

Your own link proves my point, thank you.

 

[sweep_shot]

You didn't read your own link which supports what I said.



The bakers did not refuse service because he was gay, it was because they did not want to write a message on the cake. If a non gay person asked for the same message on the cake the baker still would have refused to write the message.

As you can see from your own link had they refused to serve him because he was in a same sex marriage then he would have won the case.

Your own link proves my point, thank you.

You conveniently ignored this part --> " .. that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.”

Then again, this is very typical from you. You have a track record of cherry-picking.

 

[Technics 1210]

You didn't read your own link which supports what I said.



The bakers did not refuse service because he was gay, it was because they did not want to write a message on the cake. If a non gay person asked for the same message on the cake the baker still would have refused to write the message.

As you can see from your own link had they refused to serve him because he was in a same sex marriage then he would have won the case.

Your own link proves my point, thank you.

Wrong.

The owners of the baker REFUSED to to write a message that was not aligned with their religious belief.

In case you missed it :

It said: “The supreme court found on the facts of the case that the applicant was not treated differently on account of his real or perceived sexual orientation, but rather that the refusal to supply the cake was because of the defendants’ religious objection to gay marriage.

Focus on the bold text.

Read the links properly, I know its the first time you have come across the legal cases which torpedoes your initial claims.

SECULARISM.

 

[Gilly]

It said: “The supreme court found on the facts of the case that the applicant was not treated differently on account of his real or perceived sexual orientation, but rather that the refusal to supply the cake was because of the defendants’ religious objection to gay marriage.

Yes they can object to gay marriage but they cannot discriminate anyone on those grounds.

You are reading it but you are not understanding it. You cannot discriminate against a person because they are in a same sex marriage.

This was my original post "Religions don't have to allow same sex marriages, but they have to respect those that do."


Your link proves my point.

 

[Technics 1210]

This was my original post "Religions don't have to allow same sex marriages, but they have to respect those that do."
.

Again sheer nonsense, the Bakers DID NOT respect same sex marriages because the Bakers REFUSED (discriminate) to acknowledge same sex marriages by REFUSING to bake a cake with same sex messaging because the gay message went against the bakers religious beliefs.

This is disrespect and discrimination, but tough, the courts ruled in the baker's favour - the bakers have a right to refuse and discriminate same sex marriages by refusing to entertain and all the ills that come with it, because God ordained to.

You cannot say with a straight face you support freedom of expression/speech yet expect religious people to forcefully endorse and accept beliefs that stands against their religion.

The Supreme Court in the USA, and courts in the UK agree - you can wriggle out with pedantry all you want.

 

[Gilly]

Again sheer nonsense, the Bakers DID NOT respect same sex marriages because the Bakers REFUSED (discriminate) to acknowledge same sex marriages by REFUSING to bake a cake with same sex messaging because the gay message went against the bakers religious beliefs.

This is exactly what I wrote, religion can have their own views on same sex marriage but they cannot discriminate against people of same sex marriages. They themselves do not have to bake cakes with same sex messages but they cannot refuse to serve someone in a same sex marriage.

The outcome of this court case proves that point.

 

[Technics 1210]

This is exactly what I wrote, religion can have their own views on same sex marriage but they cannot discriminate against people of same sex marriages. They themselves do not have to bake cakes with same sex messages but they cannot refuse to serve someone in a same sex marriage.

The outcome of this court case proves that point.

No it is not what you wrote, you are now in damage control mode.

The Baker did discriminate! The baker refused to comply with the gay couple's request, because the baker does not believe in same sex marriages!

Let me make it simpler for you.

Discrimination laws only apply in PUBLIC, not in private. As a business, I have the right to refuse to serve who I want. UK Common Law and the US Constitution do not apply to the private sphere! Which is precisely the reason why private companies such as FB and Twitter are free to block who they want when they want, and precisely why I can say racist things in my own abode and never get arrested.

Get over it, the cheap attention seeking stunt by gay couples back fired, in the WEST!

 

[Gilly]

No it is not what you wrote, you are now in damage control mode.

The Baker did discriminate! The baker refused to comply with the gay couple's request, because the baker does not believe in same sex marriages!

Let me make it simpler for you.

Discrimination laws only apply in PUBLIC, not in private. As a business, I have the right to refuse to serve who I want. UK Common Law and the US Constitution do not apply to the private sphere! Which is precisely the reason why private companies such as FB and Twitter are free to block who they want when they want, and precisely why I can say racist things in my own abode and never get arrested.

Get over it, the cheap attention seeking stunt by gay couples back fired, in the WEST!

So the information in your link was false then?.

The five justices on the supreme court – Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge and Lady Black – found the bakery did not refuse to fulfil Lee’s order because of his sexual orientation and therefore there was no discrimination on those grounds.

 

[Technics 1210]

So the information in your link was false then?.

We are going around in circles.

Fact remains, the baker is a private business and has right of refusal, but the gay couple thought they could make a quick buck by claiming they were discriminated as soon as same sex marriages were legalised. Didn't matter in the end because a private business has the right to serve who they wish and discriminate, the courts agree, and the only reason why the baker had to reveal his religious reasons is because the case went to court.

The case would not have gone to court had it not been for the gay couples sinister motives. Ask yourself, why did the gay couples in question reach out to a baker known to have strong Christian values? No Athiest bakers around?

You cannot cry over discrimination yet champion freedom of expression and secualrism in the same breath.

Thankfully we do not live in Germany, France et al, where laws against thought exist: we are free to believe what we want, including Holocaust denial and homosexuality is an abonination.

 

[Champ_Pal]

We are going around in circles.

Fact remains, the baker is a private business and has right of refusal, but the gay couple thought they could make a quick buck by claiming they were discriminated as soon as same sex marriages were legalised. Didn't matter in the end because a private business has the right to serve who they wish and discriminate, the courts agree, and the only reason why the baker had to reveal his religious reasons is because the case went to court.

The case would not have gone to court had it not been for the gay couples sinister motives. Ask yourself, why did the gay couples in question reach out to a baker known to have strong Christian values? No Athiest bakers around?

You cannot cry over discrimination yet champion freedom of expression and secualrism in the same breath.

Thankfully we do not live in Germany, France et al, where laws against thought exist: we are free to believe what we want, including Holocaust denial and homosexuality is an abonination.

Nothing wrong in believing certain things are an abomination as long as you don't say it out loud to someone in public.

 

[Robert]

Nothing wrong in believing certain things are an abomination as long as you don't say it out loud to someone in public.

Fair point. Want to be faithful to your religion? Don’t have gay sex then.

But don’t try to impose your religious views on others.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Where did I say that?

The Church will not marry gay couples.

The Archbishop of Canterbury now says that he will bless such a union. Hence the Anglican schism.

Clearly you agree gays can marry . Christianity doesn’t , it’s even more clear . Archbishop is a tool of the state , which is obsessed with shoving lgbt immortal lifestyle down everyone’s.. Most Christians won’t follow suit . It’s a minor issue

 

[Technics 1210]

Nothing wrong in believing certain things are an abomination as long as you don't say it out loud to someone in public.

Agree, nothing wrong at all, but the state must not force (through law) their liberal nonsense upon religious folk in the same way religious folk should not force their beliefs on to others. Which is why in the case of the bakers, they were well within their rights to refuse to serve a homosexual couple even though despite the couple forcing their beliefs upon the religious, and hoping for a payout (but lost) because they thought they were unlawfully discriminated.

This is precisely what secularism is all about in the bakers' cases - The separation of religion and the state.

 

[Robert]

Clearly you agree gays can marry . Christianity doesn’t , it’s even more clear . Archbishop is a tool of the state , which is obsessed with shoving lgbt immortal lifestyle down everyone’s.. Most Christians won’t follow suit . It’s a minor issue

I answered this question of yours:

Hope you're well James.

Do you agree with Robert , Christianity allows same couple relationships?

....with the fact that Christian churches will not carry out the marriage sacrament for gay couples.

He's supposed to show Christian love - the love of Jesus for his flock, all of whom are sinners. Which is why he wants to bless gay marriages. This is an act of Christian love which I admire him for.

By the way the Archbishop of Canterbury he's not "a tool of the state" - he is a part of the state as a Lord Spiritual, along with the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester, and fifteen Bishops of the Church of England. Yes, UK is in part a theocracy! I would do away with that.

 

[James]

Hope you're well James.

Do you agree with Robert , Christianity allows same couple relationships?

Thanks, you too


I don’t think that Christianity overall encourages same sex relationships, but I also don’t think that someone being gay means they can’t be a Christian.

Jesus (pbuh) (in Christianity) preached a message of tolerance, acceptance, patience, forgiveness, and everyday decency towards all other human beings, regardless of their perceived sins. Christians believe that he died to repent for all of our past, present, and future sins. All Christians agree that this was the purpose of Christ’s life and the reason for his sacrifice — even though Christians don’t agree on much else!


In terms of the schism mentioned in the OP, the religion of Christianity has a complex history with numerous primary sources and our knowledge of it is based on more than just the life of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, and more than just the Bible even.

Moreover, Christian sects in disagreement with one another can simply cherry-pick the Bible verses which suit their own opinions.

It is not difficult to deduce why there are so many different interpretations of Christianity, and why a schism has occurred over this issue; it is also far from the first schism or separation within the religion that has been seen.

 

[Robert]

In terms of the schism mentioned in the OP, the religion of Christianity has a complex history with numerous primary sources and our knowledge of it is based on more than just the life of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, and more than just the Bible even.

That’s news to me. Please elucidate.

 

[James]

That’s news to me. Please elucidate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

 

[Robert]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

Ah yes, I read a book on this, pretty heavy academic stuff. Also other suggestions about the historical person of Jesus getting confused with various Pagan gods - Attis hanging on the tree, Mercury opening the tomb and so on. It's not part of liturgy though.

 

[RexRex]

Obviously, it means Jesus said he did not come to change Mosiac Law, so that Law remains in force until Judgement Day.

You're interpreting that verse to what you WANT it to mean. That has never been how the Church interpreted it.

The people who were closest to Jesus, i.e his apostles, and the immediate Church leaders were more likely to know what Jesus meant by his words than you or I or anyone who's looking at these Bible verses 2000 years later and assigning their own meaning to it.

 

[RexRex]

Thanks but I'd rather take advice or orders from the Lord not from a random Indian poster.
.

lol .. it makes no sense to me. A God just can't tell his followers 'Oh, by the way, that other book is only partially correct .. some verses are false, some are partially true and some seem sketchy, more so dodgy .. so be careful when you read that'.

How are his followers not supposed to get confused by that and filter out the good bits from the bad ? That would sound like a lazy Creator to me.

Like I said, it makes zero sense for a muslim to defend any Bible verse, just ignore it ... you have the final edition.

 

[KingKhanWC]

lol .. it makes no sense to me. A God just can't tell his followers 'Oh, by the way, that other book is only partially correct .. some verses are false, some are partially true and some seem sketchy, more so dodgy .. so be careful when you read that'.

How are his followers not supposed to get confused by that and filter out the good bits from the bad ? That would sound like a lazy Creator to me.

Like I said, it makes zero sense for a muslim to defend any Bible verse, just ignore it ... you have the final edition.

Have no idea what you're talking of and I dont think you do to either

We have the Quran, unchanged and protected forever. If it confirms any rulings in the bible, we can agree.

Or are you suggesting the Priests should marry men in their churches when this is against Christianity?

 

[RexRex]

Have no idea what you're talking of and I dont think you do to either

We have the Quran, unchanged and protected forever. If it confirms any rulings in the bible, we can agree.

Or are you suggesting the Priests should marry men in their churches when this is against Christianity?

Oh never mind, my post went right over your head.

 

[Robert]

You're interpreting that verse to what you WANT it to mean. That has never been how the Church interpreted it.

The people who were closest to Jesus, i.e his apostles, and the immediate Church leaders were more likely to know what Jesus meant by his words than you or I or anyone who's looking at these Bible verses 2000 years later and assigning their own meaning to it.

I don’t know how it could possibly be interpreted any other way.

Nobody who met Jesus wrote the Bible. The Gospels were written around 70-80 AD.

I doubt that there were twelve disciples. I think that number is derived from sacred geometry.

 

[RexRex]

I don’t know how it could possibly be interpreted any other way.

Nobody who met Jesus wrote the Bible. The Gospels were written around 70-80 AD.

I doubt that there were twelve disciples. I think that number is derived from sacred geometry.

It seems you've been reading some new-age revisionist history. I wonder by whom.

I'm just telling you what historians have traditionally believed and there's no reason or evidence to think otherwise. The Bible was compiled into one enormous book 300 years after the death of Jesus but the individual books themselves were basically Jesus biographies by the four apostles plus mainly Paul.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Agree, nothing wrong at all, but the state must not force (through law) their liberal nonsense upon religious folk in the same way religious folk should not force their beliefs on to others. Which is why in the case of the bakers, they were well within their rights to refuse to serve a homosexual couple even though despite the couple forcing their beliefs upon the religious, and hoping for a payout (but lost) because they thought they were unlawfully discriminated.

This is precisely what secularism is all about in the bakers' cases - The separation of religion and the state.

State must treat all its citizens equally irrespective of their sexual orientation. Gays and Trans deserve their respect. I do agree that children must not be exposed to sexuality and LGBT nonsense in school. Even 6 year olds in Kindergarten are getting exposed to LGBT at their schools and it must be stopped.

If people cannot vote until they are 18, then they should not be allowed to LGBT at school also. After 18, some of these subjects could be made optional.

 

[RexRex]

. Didn't matter in the end because a private business has the right to serve who they wish and discriminate, the courts agree, and the only reason why the baker had to reveal his religious reasons is because the case went to court.

Not accurate on the specifics. Private businesses cannot discriminate against gay people but they can discriminate against gay themed customer orders. That is what we learnt from the outcome of this bakery case.

 

[Robert]

Not accurate on the specifics. Private businesses cannot discriminate against gay people but they can discriminate against gay themed customer orders. That is what we learnt from the outcome of this bakery case.

Not here in the UK. The latter case would be considered Direct Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

 

[Robert]

It seems you've been reading some new-age revisionist history. I wonder by whom.

I'm just telling you what historians have traditionally believed and there's no reason or evidence to think otherwise. The Bible was compiled into one enormous book 300 years after the death of Jesus but the individual books themselves were basically Jesus biographies by the four apostles plus mainly Paul.

No, I’ve been listening to ordained ministers for the first twenty years of my life. Mosaic Law remains extant. Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery etc. The new covenant is about salvation by accepting Christ, not salvation through obeying the Law.

If the four Gospels were written by men who knew Jesus, they wouldn’t differ from each other so much. Paul never met Jesus either.

 

[RexRex]

Not here in the UK. The latter case would be considered Direct Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

So, if a gay Robert goes to an islamic bakery and wants a wedding cake with two miniature men on the cake top, the baker can't refuse to make the cake or he'll go to jail ?

 

[RexRex]

No, I’ve been listening to ordained ministers for the first twenty years of my life. Mosaic Law remains extant. Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery etc. The new covenant is about salvation by accepting Christ, not salvation through obeying the Law.

If the four Gospels were written by men who knew Jesus, they wouldn’t differ from each other so much. Paul never met Jesus either.

I don't know who these rogue ordained ministers are that you refer to but they certainly aren't from any of the major denominations of Christianity - not Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestant. The ten commandments are obviously valid today but the civil law part of Mosaic law has never been part of Christianity. You should prove otherwise.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Have no idea what you're talking of and I dont think you do to either

We have the Quran, unchanged and protected forever. If it confirms any rulings in the bible, we can agree.

Or are you suggesting the Priests should marry men in their churches when this is against Christianity?

Beg to differ. There is no evidence for the unchanged story of Quran. No one has the original Quran that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad.
You guys follow Hafs recitation of it. Hafs was from mid 700’s. His recitation was written down during Abbasid Caliphate. No one has the Quran from Rashidun and Umayyad Quran.

If I remember correctly, the Hadiths from Hafs were rejected as he was not trustworthy.

 

[Robert]

So, if a gay Robert goes to an islamic bakery and wants a wedding cake with two miniature men on the cake top, the baker can't refuse to make the cake or he'll go to jail ?

The baker wouldn’t go to jail, but would face a fine by the state if found guilty in criminal court. If the gay Robert told the Police.

 

[sweep_shot]

The baker wouldn’t go to jail, but would face a fine by the state if found guilty in criminal court. If the gay Robert told the Police.

I don't think this is the actual law. It seems like Robert made it up. If it is the law, there is no freedom of religion in West.

The gay couple can go to another bakery. Why force a Muslim bakery to put two men on the top of cake?

 

[Robert]

I don't know who these rogue ordained ministers are that you refer to but they certainly aren't from any of the major denominations of Christianity - not Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestant. The ten commandments are obviously valid today but the civil law part of Mosaic law has never been part of Christianity. You should prove otherwise.

They were Salvationists. Basically Methodists with brass bands. A subset of Protestantism.

Homosexuality was illegal until recently in UK, due to Leviticus. Still is, in most of the majority-Christian parts of Africa.

 

[Technics 1210]

Beg to differ. There is no evidence for the unchanged story of Quran. No one has the original Quran that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad.
You guys follow Hafs recitation of it. Hafs was from mid 700’s. His recitation was written down during Abbasid Caliphate. No one has the Quran from Rashidun and Umayyad Quran.

If I remember correctly, the Hadiths from Hafs were rejected as he was not trustworthy.

Wrong as usual.

Oldest Qur'an circa 7th century (around 160 years after revelation) is identical to the Qur'an today - in Arabic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ear...2015, experts from,between 6th or 7th century.

The miracle of the Qur'an are not the stories, but the language and prose.

 

[sweep_shot]

Beg to differ. There is no evidence for the unchanged story of Quran. No one has the original Quran that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad.
You guys follow Hafs recitation of it. Hafs was from mid 700’s. His recitation was written down during Abbasid Caliphate. No one has the Quran from Rashidun and Umayyad Quran.

If I remember correctly, the Hadiths from Hafs were rejected as he was not trustworthy.

Quran is 100% unchanged. Not a dot has been changed.

We have had huffaz (those who memorize the whole Quran) since the early days of Islam till today.

You copying from Islamophobic website is not changing that fact.

 

[szrana007]

Beg to differ. There is no evidence for the unchanged story of Quran. No one has the original Quran that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad.
You guys follow Hafs recitation of it. Hafs was from mid 700’s. His recitation was written down during Abbasid Caliphate. No one has the Quran from Rashidun and Umayyad Quran.

If I remember correctly, the Hadiths from Hafs were rejected as he was not trustworthy.

Quran was transmitted orally in early generations of Islam. It was compiled in written form during the lifetime of Muhammad (saws) and was later canonized in the time of the third caliph Uthman R.A some 20 years after the Prophet's death. The Quran we have from Uthman's time hasn't changed. Even non muslim academics like Dr. Angelika Neuwirth acknowledge this fact.

Educate yourself before talking nonsense.