- Status
G
Graceful_Lamb
Guest
Thanks.
G
GKC
Guest
I’m of the opinion that a statement such as “The Anglican community was formed to legitimize adultery for King Hank VIII” is prima facie evidence of a deficient grasp of the history.
How much of my endless discussions on Horny Hank and His Hormones have you read?
B
Brendan_64
Guest
So the words of Christ mean different things depending on the prevailing societal norms? Societal norms become the lens through which scripture is interpreted? Scripture is moulded to suit the world around it?
That is the problem when there is no Magisterium. Without a Magisterium every man can interpret scripture to suit his own purposes. Truth is no longer absolute, but relative. In fact why the need for a Church at all in these circumstances? All you need is simply a gathering of believers, each with his own personal interpretations of scripture, each man his own Magisterium.
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
OK.
After twenty minutes, you can’t.
Oh well, I report you, but you might have to pay off the others.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
But even the Catholic Church didn’t seem to find anything wrong with owning slaves at one time. What better authority do we need for this than the quote I provided earlier from St. Augustine? Various Catholic clergy, religious orders and Popes owned slaves, and the Papal States at one time had naval galleys that were maned by captured Muslim galley slaves. So is the Magisterium always a good interpreter of Scripture?
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
I agree wholeheartedly and your example is a good one. I think about how, once upon a time, we knew that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Then we learned more - we learned that, in observable fact, it wasn’t. In my opinion (and in the opinion of most of the leadership of my church), we have learned more about human sexuality than we once thought we knew. That’s a good thing. It therefore makes sense for Christians to respond to this new knowledge by looking more closely and more prayerfully at the Scripture and tradition that informs us. The Bible, interpreted rightly, cannot be in conflict with the reality of the world around us.I don’t think the interpretation of Scripture is timeless.
For example, people in the past interpreted Scripture in such a way that they saw no problem in owning slaves. Slave owners in the South before the Civil War could point to passages in Scripture to justify the owning of slaves and the requirement that those slaves must be obedient to their masters.
After all, in Leviticus 25:44 it says:
Colossians 3:22 says: Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord
St. Augustine saw nothing wrong with owning and whipping slaves: “if you see your slave living badly, what other punishment will you curb him with, if not the lash? Use it: do. God allows it. In fact he is angered if you don’t. But do it in a loving rather than a vindictive spirit” (Servumque ipsum tuum, si male viventem videris, non poena aliqua, non verberibus refrenabis? fiat hoc, fiat : admittit deus, imo reprehendit, si no fiat ; sed animo dilectionis fac : non animo ultionis.) (from Corpus christianoruam, series Latina (Turnhout, 1953-), 40: 1464-6).
But of course most people nowadays would agree that slavery is wrong and immoral and would not agree with Augustine that God is angry if someone doesn’t whip their disobedient slaves. The interpretation of Scripture on slavery has not been timeless.
I understand that other Christians have prayerfully considered this particular issue and reached a different conclusion than I have.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
The actions of the Church or any of its clergy (even some Popes) does not necessarily mean that those actions equate to Church teaching. The Church’s silence on condemning a particular issue or indeed the appearance (through actions or even words) does not mean that that represents Magisterial teaching.
But to have a situation where every man in the pews can interpret scripture simply because he owns a Bible and can read is madness. How can one man interpret scripture to contradict another mans’s interpretation of scripture and both of them be right? The authority to interpret scripture does not come lie with the scripture itself, such authority lies with the Church, and has been given to the Church (through Peter) by Christ Himself.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Thank you for sharing these thoughts. I work with many people who are homosexual and find them very caring, and often very hurt, people. Your argument correlating slavery and same sex attraction is common, but unfortunately non-applicable, point of view as it relates to the same sex issue we discuss today.I don’t think the interpretation of Scripture is timeless.
For example, people in the past interpreted Scripture in such a way that they saw no problem in owning slaves. Slave owners in the South before the Civil War could point to passages in Scripture to justify the owning of slaves and the requirement that those slaves must be obedient to their masters.
After all, in Leviticus 25:44 it says:
Colossians 3:22 says: Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord
St. Augustine saw nothing wrong with owning and whipping slaves: “if you see your slave living badly, what other punishment will you curb him with, if not the lash? Use it: do. God allows it. In fact he is angered if you don’t. But do it in a loving rather than a vindictive spirit” (Servumque ipsum tuum, si male viventem videris, non poena aliqua, non verberibus refrenabis? fiat hoc, fiat : admittit deus, imo reprehendit, si no fiat ; sed animo dilectionis fac : non animo ultionis.) (from Corpus christianoruam, series Latina (Turnhout, 1953-), 40: 1464-6).
But of course most people nowadays would agree that slavery is wrong and immoral and would not agree with Augustine that God is angry if someone doesn’t whip their disobedient slaves. The interpretation of Scripture on slavery has not been timeless.
- The concept of slavery as discussed in the Bible was different than American slavery of the 1800’s, and therefore the Scriptural statements don’t directly apply. Slaves in ancient Greco Roman culture were often educated and there were fairly strict laws regarding freeing slaves at a certain age to allow them to build enough wealth to live in old age. American slavery was pure exploitation where keeping the slave uneducated and controlling them with abherently brutal behavior was not uncommon.
- Scripture was also used as the reasoning for ending slavery. There is no scripture supporting same sex behavior. To try to justify it, those in support have only discounted or ignored certain passages and can bring none forward to support the case, unlike abolition of slavery.
- When a slave was freed presumably their life got better. Though really never spoken about these days, when someone is involved with having sex with people of the same sex, it causes physical devastation for the population. Go to the Center for Disease Control website and search for “HIV / Aids” or “men having sex with men”. You will see disease statistically rampant among the population.
Please don’t take this post in a negative light. It is not meant to be read in anger or dismissive of the pain many people with same sex attraction have to deal with regularly. It is meant to show, when brought to the standard of commonly accepted discourse, that particular argument does not actually apply.
Thanks again for your insight.
P
Peter_J
Guest
He never bought a computer, how smart could he have been?
P
pnewton
Guest
So your opinion is the standard by which the knowledge of all is to be determined. What is this prima facie evidence of?
It is not just irony that who can have sex with who is going to fracture this group again. It was inevitable. But then I know that is just my opinion. You may think I am ignorant, deficit or even stupid for this opinion, but I would consider such a view narrow-minded and arrogant. In non-empirical fields of study, the differences between opinion, evidence and fact needs to be appreciated.
G
GKC
Guest
Yep.
G
GKC
Guest
It is a little sweeping, to be sure.I wish people would ask me, “So your opinion is the standard by which the knowledge of all is to be determined”. I’d say, “Yep,” too.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Back in about 2000 I heard a very good talk about St. Thomas More. In the Q and A afterwards, I posed a question very similar to the point you just made. The speaker responded with “Well, when a group is not in communion with Rome, you can be sure they’re going to go downhill” and moved on to another questioner.
Maybe you and I are like minded – fools seldom differ, as they say.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
I know this comment was made tongue in cheek, but it actually speaks great truth about the mindset which created the ongoing Anglican Communion situation.I wish people would ask me, “So your opinion is the standard by which the knowledge of all is to be determined”. I’d say, “Yep,” too.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Could be true, but it’s hardly a mindset that exists on only one side of this dispute. For example, according to one news report:
huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/03/uganda-anglican-church_n_4890603.html
So even some conservative African Anglicans in this dispute have an “if I don’t get my way, I’m just going to leave” attitude. It’s not just the Episcopal Church that is causing problems, and they aren’t threatening to leave.
- Status