Wishy-washy Liberals set to tear Church of England in two.

What about Anika Sorenstam and Michelle Wie? Danica Patrick and the other IRL girls? I say, if their good enough to make the team/field in the sport they play: Fair play.

As for religion, the COE(as is the Catholic Church) is a monarchy. The top of the order makes the decesions, you either live with it, or leave the Church. If the COE is such an important institution to you, then live with it. And don't think the Catholic Church isn't far behind on allowing Woman/Homosexuals to become Bishops. Give it another 20-30 years.

 

Don't suppose now'd be a good time to ask who the head of the Church of England is?

 

And what if Benedict's successor is decidely more Libreal? It's going to start with allowing married men to be ordained and go from there. You can pretend that it's not going to happen, but don't be crying on BigSoccer if and when it does.

 

Repped.

 

Seconded.

 

TBH, I sort of agree with JJF. I think that going liberal will hurt the church more than it does help them. It's because of the nature of religion.

Religions claim to preach the truth, but if they start changing policies according to "the latest fashions", people will start to wonder. What has been the truth yesterday suddenly has turned into falsehood. So while "liberal Christians" would have less of a problem identifying with the church, the devout core will be alienated and that's exactly those who keep the whole thing running.

For us rational people, that way of thinking is absurd, because we don't think that we can ever possess the ultimate truth, we're rather in an endless pursuit of the truth, so it's not a problem to change opinions and still be consistent to yourself.

Yet, an institution that was founded on the principle of preaching the truth and has done so for 2000 years (at least according to them) cannot easily change its policies.

 

Are you really trying to compare a woman attempting to play for a male football team to women trying to be recognized as equals within the chruch they are a member of? Oh and you seem to have forgotten all about homosexuals and as much as you try and deny as you might, there are homosexuals playing the top leagues of the world.

You claimed that amount of members were against it. All you cited was an article from traditionalist who also claimed this. You can claim anything you want but without solid proof it isn't fact.

The finds of the survey must provide some outlook on the social trends in Britain otherwise there would be no point at all in it being carried out. No census is that accurate on issues such as religion, I know that I put COE on the religous choice section last time even though I haven't been to church in nearly 20 years. The only fact that matters is the percentage of the population that regularly attends church as they will be the only ones with a vested interest in any religious issue.

 

I like how you consistently defend ahistorical religious bigotry and stupidity as somehow authentically religous, and then dismiss religion as an absurdity you "rational people" don't have to deal with.

Your understanding of religion is what scholar Huston Smith refers to as "3rd grade level." Do some reading.

 

I don't defend what you call "ahistorical religious bigotry". I'm just looking at it from what is now an outside perspective. Personally, I'm all for liberalizing, but I still do think that this would weaken the churches (not that I have a problem with that).

So from the perspective of the churches, I think that it would be best to remain as conservative as they are.

And I'm not saying that rational people don't have to deal with religion, only that they approach matters from an entirely different direction and are therefore often having problems understanding why religious people act the way they do.

I guess I was not as precise as I should have been. Of course my comment has nothing to do with "true religion", it was merely about the churches and what strategy best serves their interests.
However, to an extend, it also fits to religions because the more liberal a religion becomes, the weaker it is. In order to have real power, you need a lot of people who speak with one voice - liberalism is the opposite of that by definition.

 

Not only "cannot" but "should not" in terms of policy.

I shed a tear for the Church of England since it is being torn from within by a few Anglicans who should have been cast out when their motives were apparent. It remains to be seen whether the Church of England, through their Traditionalists, can make the motives of these progressives clear and end their corrosive influence. Thank God the Catholic Church, through the Vatican, has no time for such perversions of the faith and is strong enough to squelch it when it makes a presence; indeed much of what I am hearing from Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Pope Benedict XVI is a rollback of former progressivism, to the dumpster on Vatican II reforms, setting the course ahead as one of traditional faith. If we pick up a few faithful along the way from the Church of England so much the better.

 

Except the dozens of times that the Catholic church has changed policy of course.

 

1) Your "outside" perspective is based on a superficial caricature that is both ahistorical and culturally rather narrow.

2) You offer a "perspective of the churches" after you claim to be "outside." This is where pretty much all of your posts on this issue goes off the rails: you know nothing of "religion," yet you claim this "outside perspective" enables you to know what's best for churches? That doesn't really make a lot of sense.

3) Your assumption that "religion" is monolithic and that all religioius people are all the same is another problem with most of your posts on this topic. See #1 below.

1) Again, your understanding of "churches" and their "interests" is pretty narrow. The laity who differ from the heirarchy, as well as the laity who generally support the heirarchy, as well as the reform minded heirarchy, ALL constitute THE CHURCH. The Church isn't solely defined by those who would have it only adhere to their own limited understanding of "the church" as unchanging. It's a community that is always in flux. That's the real reason why Christianity has been around for 2000 years: its ability to change.

2) Christianity, as you would know if you looked closely at the gospel stories, isn't about "Real power."

Again: Please read something. I recommend Huston Smith's Religions of the World as a place to start.

 

Thus Spake a Fake.

 

The Wikipedia and Google Catholic is at it again, I see.

 

It would help if you added something to discussion beyond castigation; even if you have to reach beyond my high expectation of your low understanding of the topic at hand. Go ahead; feel free to either support/condemn the progressives tearing apart the Church of England, or do your bit against Christianity, even if you have to drag it in as a thread hijack.

Why not surprise us with your renowned comprehension and inform us the true motive of why alleged faithful within the Church of England would chose to tear the Anglican Church apart over reform the cannot hope to enact?

Nevermind; on second thought, don't bother. That's a reach that's far beyond your grasp.

 

Except, the COE came to be BECAUSE of reformation.

You read a bible lately? Yea, 500 years ago, you would have been stoned.

 

So, what is the COE's position on Divorce?

 

Again, I think you don't understand what I was getting at. I'm not trying to make an argument for one belief/interpretation or another. All I'm doing is to look at the strategic options of churches, not at content. In that context, I'm merely looking at churches in their governing function.

While I do believe that I know quite a bit about religion and Christianity in particular (I grew up in a Catholic surrounding), I wouldn't even need that for this kind of assessment.

You say that Christianity isn't about "real power". Well, that might be your interpretation and you're probably right. But as I said, I didn't want to give an interpretation of the gospels. Instead, I just looked at what the churches actually do. The churches have always been major players in worldly politics and while they lost a great deal of influence, they still are powerful interest groups.

Also, Christianity has always been about growing in numbers and gaining influence. That's a part of what they do. And if they want to go on doing it, I'm assessing that going liberal is counter productive.

It might sound good at first because the majority of Christians in Europe probably is liberal. But those are not the ones who keep the wheel spinning. A large part of those probably go to church twice a year and know next to nothing about the Bible. While they believe in their version of the Christian God, they don't need the church. For them the church is merely a social institution, not a spiritual one.

And yes, the churches did adapt to changing times. But when was the last major change in policies? The introduction of celibacy?

 

Okay....

For you, too, Church is merely a social institution, not a spiritual one.

 

they wont have divorcees getting married in their churches.

 

If women shouldnt be ordained because the Apostles were all men (except maybe for that one the others rubbed out after Jesus died) why arent other distinctions drawn along the lines of Apostle characteristics? Wernt they all Jews? How, than, can non-Jews be ordained? None of them were from England. They all had beards and smelled like fish. Why is the line drawn at penis wielding?

 

they may say that on a survey (not withstanding what has already been said about that being a stat from 2001), however the proof of how much they give a shit about christianity is there for all to see in the empty churches. something like 5-7% of the population goes to church, and attendance is dropping fast.

 

I never said otherwise. I used to be a "liberal Christian" before I started to question my religion.

But maybe it's not even that anymore. Well, I still go to church on Christmas because it still is sort of a social convention. But actually, I only do it for my grandmother who wouldn't understand.