Anglican Church to officially embrace evolution! [Archive]

Charlie Daniels

09-15-2008, 10:40 PM

Really, you can no longer call this really a Christian church... well maybe you can, but it's turning into more a social club than it is a religion.

A strong, valid, case can be made for why the fundamentalist Christian religions have it right. A strong, valid, can also be made for why the athiests have it right.

But I really can't find a valid reason behind Anglican... It's made too many compromises which directly contradict the tenants of a Christian religion.

Aaron

09-15-2008, 11:18 PM

Care to elaborate as millions'd disagree?

Det_Nosnip

09-16-2008, 02:05 AM

Honestly, CD if you follow that logic far enough, Catholicism and maybe Orthodox are the only valid Christian religions.

McP3000

09-16-2008, 02:54 AM

which is beyond false

Charlie Daniels

09-16-2008, 03:45 AM

Care to elaborate as millions'd disagree?
Well, for starters, the bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin, that Darwinian evolution did not occur, and that divorcing ones wife is a sin.

However, the Anglican church (although views are mixed amongst church members) tend to be be leaning towards accepting all three of those things as non-sins.

Now, without arguing whether those practices are wrong or not, the bible does condemn them. They are pretty blatantly going against what the book (which in their opinion is a divine book which the whole religion is based on) says.

I can't understand how anyone who truly believes in the divinity of Christ and the bible can justify that those three things (and I'm sure there are others) are not sins.

Honestly, CD if you follow that logic far enough, Catholicism and maybe Orthodox are the only valid Christian religions.
I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. What I'm saying is that if your religion is based on the divinity of a book it's rather illogical to deliberately go against some of the teachings in it...

McP3000

09-16-2008, 03:48 AM

they are not going against the book, but rather against what fundamentalist christians interpret it to mean.

Charlie Daniels

09-16-2008, 03:54 AM

http://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html

Commentary aside, the direct text from the bible is pretty clear.

And Genesis is very definite the God made man and animals in their current form...

But to add, in none of the releases by the Anglican church on these issues do they quote scripture to back up their interpretation... instead they tend to base them on conforming to the secular thoughts on the issues...

Charlie Daniels

09-16-2008, 03:58 AM

Honestly, nothing said in Genesis even remotely resembles Darwinism... and to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the entire bible that remotely teaches something similiar.

The bible explicitly says creationism is how species came about.
Darwin explicitly says evolution is how they came about.

Iscariot

09-16-2008, 04:14 AM

they are not going against the book, but rather against what fundamentalist christians interpret it to mean.

fundamentalist christians take a literal interpretation of the bible, as in what the bible says is what the bible says and it's not open for debate

to interpret the texts liberally to fit one's own comfortable lifestyle isn't exactly what one would call adhering to your religion

McP3000

09-16-2008, 04:27 AM

fundamentalist christians take a literal interpretation of the bible, as in what the bible says is what the bible says and it's not open for debate

to interpret the texts liberally to fit one's own comfortable lifestyle isn't exactly what one would call adhering to your religion
i agree. You seem to think that i think that you can fill in the blanks. I'm not.

Iscariot

09-16-2008, 04:28 AM

idk it seemed like you were downplaying fundamentalism's role in true religious practice or something i think i misread your post

McP3000

09-16-2008, 04:31 AM

I was saying that fundamentalist catholics have a very different way of interpreting the bible than a more liberal christian church such as the Anglican or Methodist sector.

Iscariot

09-16-2008, 04:33 AM

oic

i don't consider those real christian denominations anyway tbh

/is catholic

Charlie Daniels

09-16-2008, 04:39 AM

I was saying that fundamentalist catholics have a very different way of interpreting the bible than a more liberal christian church such as the Anglican or Methodist sector.

But you strongly implied that they weren't going against the bibles instruction? When quite clearly they are?

Or didn't you? :-S

Aaron

09-16-2008, 05:46 AM

Well, for starters, the bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin, that Darwinian evolution did not occur, and that divorcing ones wife is a sin.
Yes, and the bible is also clear that lying, murder, and countless others are but it also recognises that Jesus' death forgives these sins.

However, the Anglican church (although views are mixed amongst church members) tend to be be leaning towards accepting all three of those things as non-sins.False. The Anglican Church recognises that people fundamentally sin as a result of human nature, and accepts people into faith in an effort to support them from avoiding sinning.

Now, without arguing whether those practices are wrong or not, the bible does condemn them. They are pretty blatantly going against what the book (which in their opinion is a divine book which the whole religion is based on) says.They're not supportive of those issues, they're suportive of the people they recognise as sinning.

I can't understand how anyone who truly believes in the divinity of Christ and the bible can justify that those three things (and I'm sure there are others) are not sins.To any Christian, Anglicans included, the best gift you can give someone is the love of God. It'd be pretty "unchristian" to hold back the word of God from anyone, especially someone who is living in sin.

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. What I'm saying is that if your religion is based on the divinity of a book it's rather illogical to deliberately go against some of the teachings in it...It's not as I said; and as I said previously christianity is an individual belief system, that is shared and discussed in the form of Anglicanism and other denominations. You need to realise that Anglicanism has a key focus on the application of the fruits of the spirit, and that is why it is so supportive of all people. Seems to be a logical way to live, when you realise the key facets of the faith is that of love and the sharing of God's word.

Jude

09-16-2008, 06:13 AM

fundamentalist christians take a literal interpretation of the bible, as in what the bible says is what the bible says and it's not open for debate

The problem with that of course is that there's a whole bunch of the Bible that isn't supposed to be taken literally and if you do you come out with a batshit crazy religion...like what fundamentalists have

Eliminator

09-16-2008, 06:20 AM

Yes, and the bible is also clear that lying, murder, and countless others are but it also recognises that Jesus' death forgives these sins. woah you sure understand that

Charlie Daniels

09-16-2008, 08:51 PM

Yes, and the bible is also clear that lying, murder, and countless others are but it also recognises that Jesus' death forgives these sins.
There is a BIG difference between accepting that something is/was sin and forgiving it and what we are talking about here.

Is the Anglican church going to say that lying is no longer a sin? Are they going to say that fornication is no longer a sin?

I'm not saying that these things can't be forgiven if the sinners sincerely repent and stop their sinful ways, but what is happening is the Anglican church seems to be deciding that some things are no longer sins.

And the motives behind these decisions seem to be based on current secular morals rather than based on their divine doctrine.

False. The Anglican Church recognises that people fundamentally sin as a result of human nature, and accepts people into faith in an effort to support them from avoiding sinning.
True, but that's beside the point that's contested. Denying creationism, viewing a homosexual lifestyle as Godly and not promoting the sanctity of marraige is blantantly going against what the bible teaches.

They're not supportive of those issues, they're suportive of the people they recognise as sinning.

To any Christian, Anglicans included, the best gift you can give someone is the love of God. It'd be pretty "unchristian" to hold back the word of God from anyone, especially someone who is living in sin.
Electing openly gay, unrepentant, bishops is clearly accepting it, rather just supporting the 'sinner'.

Would you consider it a appropriate for an unrepentant drug dealer (someone who sees no problem with selling drugs and will continue to do so) as a bishop?

It's not as I said; and as I said previously christianity is an individual belief system, that is shared and discussed in the form of Anglicanism and other denominations. You need to realise that Anglicanism has a key focus on the application of the fruits of the spirit, and that is why it is so supportive of all people. Seems to be a logical way to live, when you realise the key facets of the faith is that of love and the sharing of God's word.
Supporting them how... are they trying to correct said peoples sinful ways, or are they arguing that hey aren't actually sinful?

Charlie Daniels

09-16-2008, 08:56 PM

The problem with that of course is that there's a whole bunch of the Bible that isn't supposed to be taken literally and if you do you come out with a batpoop crazy religion...like what fundamentalists have
You don't know much bout the basics of what a religion is, do you?

All Christians, both Fundies and Anglicans, beleive that there are divine entities, spiritual kingdoms, heaven and hell, a devil etc. etc.

Yet, whether they are "batpoop crazy" comes down to what their views are on divorce and homosexuality?

Aaron

09-16-2008, 09:18 PM

^ That I agree with.

John, I can't discuss this now beyond my own personal beliefs. Somethings I agree with you on, others I disagree, but now I'd just be giving personal opinion so I'll hold back.

McP3000

09-16-2008, 09:20 PM

But you strongly implied that they weren't going against the bibles instruction? When quite clearly they are?

Or didn't you? :-S
What exactly are they going against? Since when was the beginning creation stories intended to be taken at face value, not merely a surrogate story to teach those about how might and powerful God.

Mr. Ron

09-16-2008, 09:23 PM

sweet now for the utter destruction of religiosity as a whole. :>

McP3000

09-16-2008, 10:49 PM

where is another hitler when you need one, eh?

Charlie Daniels

09-16-2008, 11:13 PM

What exactly are they going against? Since when was the beginning creation stories intended to be taken at face value, not merely a surrogate story to teach those about how might and powerful God.
Since when isn't it? Is there anything in the bible that suggests that Genesis is just some inaccurate facts and false occorances used to demonstrate something?

Something which distinctly would suggest otherwise is the detailed information on the "characters" lineage. It goes into great detail on who begat who, which would be largely irrelevant if the chapter was just a metaphor, and that suggests it's meant to be taken as a historic account.

Why would the divine book choose too rely on factually inaccurate (in the opinion of the Anglicans) information to demonstrate God's might and power rather?

Smokey D

09-17-2008, 12:34 AM

Is there anything in the bible that suggests that Genesis is just some inaccurate facts and false occorances used to demonstrate something

Well, the whole concept of allegory and parables.

Rounder

09-17-2008, 12:35 AM

they are not going against the book, but rather against what fundamentalist christians interpret it to mean.

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

I'm an atheist myself, but that seems like a pretty clear statement.

Det_Nosnip

09-17-2008, 12:45 AM

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. What I'm saying is that if your religion is based on the divinity of a book it's rather illogical to deliberately go against some of the teachings in it...

Well, I'm not exactly sure what Catholics and Orthodoxy say to that, but from a historical standpoint one could point out that their churchs are actually OLDER than the aforementioned text, leading one to belief that they have a closer connection to the spirit and meaning of what Jesus and his disciples taught than poorly educated southerners in America. Allowing for the countless proven revisions, mistranslations, and additions that were made over the years and I find it hard to believe that any rational, thinking person would believe that the "book" were in any way divine or that the words it contains in any way legitimize or illegitimize centuries-old religious movements.

Charlie Daniels

09-17-2008, 01:59 AM

Well, the whole concept of allegory and parables.

Where does it allude to Genesis being just one of those? :-S

Rounder

09-17-2008, 02:00 AM

Well, the whole concept of allegory and parables.

Well I guess God failed because most Christians take Genesis literally.

Iscariot

09-17-2008, 02:02 AM

Well I guess God failed because most Christians take Genesis literally.

no we don't

given that you obviously either don't know any christians or have such an irrational angry disposition towards them that you can't accept any actual facts i'll let that stupid remark slide

Charlie Daniels

09-17-2008, 02:06 AM

Well, I'm not exactly sure what Catholics and Orthodoxy say to that, but from a historical standpoint one could point out that their churchs are actually OLDER than the aforementioned text, leading one to belief that they have a closer connection to the spirit and meaning of what Jesus and his disciples taught than poorly educated southerners in America. Allowing for the countless proven revisions, mistranslations, and additions that were made over the years and I find it hard to believe that any rational, thinking person would believe that the "book" were in any way divine or that the words it contains in any way legitimize or illegitimize centuries-old religious movements.
Well, historical standpoint aside, the Bible IS seen as divine by all Christian faiths. The basic premise is those who wrote the bible, and those who translated it, had divine guidance from God.

But your whole history point doesn't really stand. Aside from the fact the Anglican church wasn't established when the bible was written, that point doesn't hold water. And not to mention that originally the Anglicans (as did all the Christian movements from the time of Christ) accepted creationism and homosexuality as clearly being sinful.

Only recently, due to pressure from secular scientist and civil rights movements rather than any divine inspiration, have the Anglicans decided to reinterpret (or outrightly ignore) parts of the bible.

Charlie Daniels

09-17-2008, 02:08 AM

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the only parables in the bible are those quoted in the speech of Jesus.

In fact, I can't think of any parables at all appearing in the old testament.

Rounder

09-17-2008, 02:20 AM

no we don't

given that you obviously either don't know any christians or have such an irrational angry disposition towards them that you can't accept any actual facts i'll let that stupid remark slide

I used to be a fundamentalist. Assembly Of God. I grew up around the bible. Again, most Christians take a literal view of the bible in general, tho I'll clarify that with 'evangelical' christians.

Iscariot

09-17-2008, 02:21 AM

'most christians' don't, because most christians live in the real world side by side with this great thing called science

and evangelicals are a joke so you can't really count them

McP3000

09-17-2008, 02:34 AM

Evangelicals are very nice people if you're short a few dollars at a fast food joint.
but other than that? idk

Det_Nosnip

09-17-2008, 02:37 AM

Well, historical standpoint aside, the Bible IS seen as divine by all Christian faiths. The basic premise is those who wrote the bible, and those who translated it, had divine guidance from God.
Fair enough...the point stands from an inter-faith standpoint, even if it sounds outright nutty from the outside looking in. :p

But your whole history point doesn't really stand.
Oh?

Aside from the fact the Anglican church wasn't established when the bible was written, that point doesn't hold water.
Oh, I wasn't talking about the Anglicans. Those guys are a lost cause in terms of legitimacy, being that the church was founded by Henry VIII.

And not to mention that originally the Anglicans (as did all the Christian movements from the time of Christ) accepted creationism and homosexuality as clearly being sinful.
...and had an openly gay King (James I) as their head of church...

Only recently, due to pressure from secular scientist and civil rights movements rather than any divine inspiration, have the Anglicans decided to reinterpret (or outrightly ignore) parts of the bible.

Well, the problem is that faiths which choose to resist progress+change tend to lose their relevance and fade over time.

hybridreality

09-17-2008, 02:42 AM

The bible contradicts itself too much for anyone to believe it.

Read one thing in the old testament, then the same in the new testament and try and follow it.

Therefore all fundamentalist christians must have split personalities.

Iscariot

09-17-2008, 02:43 AM

what an uneducated statement

Smokey D

09-17-2008, 02:50 AM

Where does it allude to Genesis being just one of those? :-S

It doesn't say it but I do not feel obliged to belief that a God who has given us sense and reason expects us to forego their use.

Which is to say, if Christianity is in some sense true, then I cannot believe that God expects us to believe as a literal account of creation something so at odds with everything we know about hte universe.

Well I guess God failed because most Christians take Genesis literally.

Nah only in America.

Well, historical standpoint aside, the Bible IS seen as divine by all Christian faiths

It is seen as divinely inspired, but it's another step altogether to say it's inerrant. Only some Christians believe that.

Charlie Daniels

09-17-2008, 03:04 AM

Fair enough...the point stands from an inter-faith standpoint, even if it sounds outright nutty from the outside looking in. :pIndeed.

Oh, I wasn't talking about the Anglicans. Those guys are a lost cause in terms of legitimacy, being that the church was founded by Henry VIII.
Well, it's the Anglicans I'm calling out. I think we both agree

...and had an openly gay King (James I) as their head of church...
This I was unaware of... do you have any source for him being openly gay? The best I could find by doing some googling was there's some speculation that he had sexual relations with some male courtiers. But it is pretty established he regular heterosexual intercourse and fathered many children.

I suspect even if he was openly gay, this would have been ignored or overlooked given his power.

It's pretty well established that the Anglicans condemned homosexuals until rather recently.

Well, the problem is that faiths which choose to resist progress+change tend to lose their relevance and fade over time.
Do you understand the difference between a 'lifestyle' and a 'faith'?

Aaron

09-17-2008, 07:36 AM

This thread shows why discussing religion on a message board is a waste of time. It's too personal a concept.

Chu

09-17-2008, 07:53 AM

That's what I wanted :smoke:

To be totally honest, it becomes stale unless some topic regarding religion is being battled over.
Everyone is so passionate about their opinions, as someone who enjoys arguments I like to see this :cool:

Aaron

09-17-2008, 06:56 PM

It's fine as long as people recognise that you can't all agree and respect other peoples' opinions. I hate that people think their opinion = fact, just because they're a wordsmith and have an arguement behind what they say. I can talk all day if I want, but it doesn't change the fact that in spiritual matters you can't prove anything entirely and it comes down to faith.

GreyHam

09-17-2008, 08:28 PM

its one of the reasons i find religion so interesting tbh - im an agnostc (sitting on the fence since 2001) and i like to think im fairly unbiased when it comes to religious issues.

the CofE must be one of the most wishy washy denominations, but also the most accesable. it ordains women, and allows homosexuals to worship. this acceptance of evolution is, in my opinion, a good idea. the bible is said to be divinely inspired, but wether it was or wasnt, it was written by people, and re-translated over and over again. there are so many different versions of the bible out there, and some of them paraphrase the same verse very differently.

at the end of the day, all the scientific evidence points towards evolution - certainly more so than human and animals magically popping into existence 30'000 years ago. either the church can continue to put hands of ears and mutter to itself, or it can accept that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

the world is becoming more and more secular, and morality is being formed more from liberal ideals than from religious conservatism. religion remains one of the only areas in british society where women are allowed to be discriminated against. catholic church still refuse to ordain women, and most mosques enforce single sex prayer. generally, its a bit rubbish

as we understand more about the world around us, religion will have less and less value. either that, or people will cling onto it desperately, and become increasingly intolerant of those with differing beliefs

probably