jesus save me... :: Feb 25, 2005
...from your followers. One of the top 5 bumperstickers I've ever seen.
OK, so the Anglican church has basically asked their North American branch to leave, until they're ready to apologize and go back to treating gays like they're tainted and evil like they're supposed to. I wonder if the North American contingent will come up with a new name for their peculiar branch of gay-friendly christianity, now that the rest of the Anglicans have told them to go away?
Oh, and the Pope is going to die any day now... or at least he should. Isn't there some kind of religious objection to keeping the Pope kicking indefinitely on life support? Surely you can't run one of the world's biggest churches from a hospital bed on a ventilator?
Anyone want to take bets on the long term effects of either development?
Will the Catholics finally get a Pope who tells them it's not horrible to enjoy sex without the threat of pregnancy hanging over their heads? Does it matter, when they can just go to confession, spill their sinful birth-control-using little guts, say a few prayers as penance, and get it over with?
Will N. America finally be the headquarters of a significant branch of a respectable religion? No, the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, and whatever else do not count as "respectable" religions. The Anglicans do. (Or, God help me, are the Baptists native to this continent? They probably are.)
Now, those of you who (like me) aren't particularly religious may be giving this all a giant shrug. Who cares what those religious nuts do? But do keep in mind that religion is one of the great catalysts of human history. It may not catalyze much *good* these days, as we don't really need monks to keep up with transcribing a backup copy of the Library of Congress or anything... but it's still culturally relevant enough to be worth keeping track of.
A Pope dying is a pretty big deal. The Catholic church is a HUGE machine, with huge influence financially and politically, all over the world... and a new Pope can bring about a major shift in official ideology, which, presumably, would bring about shifts in where the money goes... For example, the current US administration's absurd push for "abstinence only" sex education. One of the people in consideration as the Pope's successor supports the use of condoms to prevent HIV transmission, which could lead to influence supporting the teaching of condoms' effectiveness in preventing STDs, which is a good thing. Outside the US, a catholic-driven push to educate Africa about prevention of AIDS could be a boon to a continent seeing their 'working age' population ravaged, leaving whole villages with nothing but children and the elderly.
In the case of the Anglicans... A schism from the 'parent' church is how the Church of England started. Way back when Henry the 8th (I think that's the right Henry...) wanted to divorce and the Catholic church said no, he decided to start a church that would say yes. So the North American Anglicans are ordaining gays in the US, and officiating at gay marriages in Canada, and are 'congregation non-grata' with the head muckety-mucks because of it. If they accept the invitation to leave, and start an official 'gay friendly' Christian church, could we now see a movement towards more denominations accepting homosexuals as something other than the devil's spawn, like the wide acceptance of divorce today?
Major changes afoot. Here in the increasingly fundamentalist US, a move by two major religions towards more socially accepting values might be just the thing to turn the tide of our frighteningly right-wing church-going crowd. A girl I recently met who describes herself as a "bisexual Christian" would have a friendly church to call home. The "but condoms are against God" crowd would have the Pope himself saying, "Nuh-Uh!" And politicians who wanted to legislate narrow "Biblical" values into Our American Way of Life would have two major religious organizations standing up saying, "I don't think so."
Is even George Bush so arrogant as to say he knows what God wants better than the Pope?
I can't really say what I think different American churches will opt to do, but I believe the Church of England won't accept gay marriages/priests etc.
Personally I don't think gay people are more evil than anyone else (best mate is gay), being all tainted by the same brush, so to speak, but I am still against gay clergy and gay marriages, because I think it (gay sex) is immoral. It pretty much states that outright near the beginning of Acts (new testament), so the idea of churches 're-interpreting' the Bible to suit newer times & views is pretty dodgey going, i feel.
I'm gererally against divorcing as well (once you're married you're married), though never had a problem with contraception, like the monty-python sketch illustrates.
Oh, by the way, i agree that the Pope really isn't in a position to lead the Catholic Church anymore, but it's not my position to say what should and shouldn't be, as I'm not even Catholic. And I think confession doesn't count unless you're actually sorry for what you did (I'm sure God knows if you're sorry or not).
Posted by Andrew @ Feb 26, 05
the idea of churches 're-interpreting' the Bible to suit newer times & views is pretty dodgey going, i feel
Oddly, I completely agree with you here... Which is why I've taken to calling myself an armchair buddhist, as far as religion is concerned. I think part of the whole intent of many religions is self-deprivation in service to one's faith, and that following the rules even (or especially) when they don't suit you is the whole point. That you love God so much, or put so much faith into your religion, or submit yourself to God's will, or whatever, to such an extent that you will follow the rules, even when they're unpleasant or inconvenient or don't make any sense to you. It's all for a higher purpose, which is not given for mortal man to understand.
Now,personally, I think most restrictions tradtional religions hav eput on human behvior are crap. I have no moral problem with gay sex or divorce or much of anything else, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, and that pretty much precludes me from being a "good" follower of any major western religion... so I therefore don't call myself a "Catholic" or a "Protestant" or even a generic "Christian." I'm not Jewish (even by reform standards), and I'm not about to walk around all day, every day with my head covered, nor am I going to give up pork, so Muslim is out as well. And I'm OK with this.
I think if someone is going to flout the rules of a given religion, or if they find it must be "reinterpreted" to suit their fancy, they're really not following that religion at all. Which is fine, IMO... I just don't think they should go around calling themselves something they're not. You can't just pick out the parts of a church you like, and pretend the rest don't exist.
Posted by mivox @ Feb 28, 05
The two big religions of the world have been playing games that last for centries, one of these games is to out populate the other hence the reason behind the old christian value of no pill, no condom ,and no abortions, this will ensure that christains will out populate muslims and become the dominant religion of the world.
Not because they are ignorant of aids, gays or womens groups its pure and simple $$$$, the biggest get the most.
Posted by Wayne @ Apr 01, 05
Well, that operating on the assumption that the church's followers actually follow such "rules."
Unfortunately, that tends to lead to the extremists out populating the moderates in the long run, eh?
Posted by mivox @ Apr 02, 05
books gone wild
