Am I the only Anglican upset by our Church?

[lunamoth]

Could be -like I said, I think it's a stretch though. ANY Protestant movement emanating from England would have it's roots in the Church of England. But there's a clear division with Methodism. Methodism in general is much more conservative than the Church of England and the Episcopal Church, and much more evangelical.

The "Methodists" were mocked by CoE members for their discipline and methodical bible study from the early 1700s forward. Methodism broke away from the CoE when it denounced the CoE as corrupt and unduly focused on the aristocracy.

Oh well - though I attend a Methodist Church, I'm non denominational anyway. I consider myself a liturgical Christian -I appreciate the traditions surrounding the liturgy and the holy year. Those predate Henry VIII by centuries - and I'm glad for that.

Not 'any' Protestant movement from England, but definitely Methodism or those derived directly from the CofE. The clear distinctions you point out were not there at the beginning, but evolved after Methodism formed as an independent church. If early 'Methodists' were mocked, it was a case of some Anglicans mocking other Anglicans over favored spiritual practices. The formal split you refer to happened well after Henry.

I love the liturgy too, which of course we owe to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Henry was very much in favor of the liturgy.

 

[Foxfire]

I don't mean to be rude but are you serious?

I am in a fun sort of way. Why?

 

[Kathryn]

Not 'any' Protestant movement from England, but definitely Methodism or those derived directly from the CofE. The clear distinctions you point out were not there at the beginning, but evolved after Methodism formed as an independent church. If early 'Methodists' were mocked, it was a case of some Anglicans mocking other Anglicans over favored spiritual practices. The formal split you refer to happened well after Henry.

I love the liturgy too, which of course we owe to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Henry was very much in favor of the liturgy.

Here's the deal -the Church of England was established by Henry VIII. It was. It hasn't distanced itself from that history in any way. History can't be changed.

The Methodist Church, like most other Protestant denominations coming out of England, by it's very nature (Protestant rather than Roman Catholic) has it's beginnings in the Church of England, but these other denominations have broken from the Church of England.

I think that's a good thing.

And the liturgy (and many key doctrines) of the Methodist Church - and the Church of England for that matter - has it's roots in the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, in my church, the liturgy, especially regarding communion (but not limited to that) is nearly identical to the Roman Catholic Mass. The wording is exactly the same, for instance - other than the invitation to an open communion table (which isn't even part of the liturgy).

I am assuming that many "high church" denominations are similar. I've only been to a few Episcopal services but they were very similar to a mass as well.

 

[lunamoth]

Here's the deal -the Church of England was established by Henry VIII. It was. It hasn't distanced itself from that history in any way. History can't be changed.

The Methodist Church, like most other Protestant denominations coming out of England, by it's very nature (Protestant rather than Roman Catholic) has it's beginnings in the Church of England, but these other denominations have broken from the Church of England.

I think that's a good thing.

And the liturgy (and many key doctrines) of the Methodist Church - and the Church of England for that matter - has it's roots in the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, in my church, the liturgy, especially regarding communion (but not limited to that) is nearly identical to the Roman Catholic Mass. The wording is exactly the same, for instance - other than the invitation to an open communion table (which isn't even part of the liturgy).

I am assuming that many "high church" denominations are similar. I've only been to a few Episcopal services but they were very similar to a mass as well.

History can't be changed, and so also the fact can't be changed that the Methodist Church is equally related, both time-wise and theologically, to the Anglican Church when it was split off by Henry VIII as is today's Episcopal Church of the USA. The brush you attempt to use to tar the Anglican Church with the vices and antics of Henry VIII splatters the Methodist Church equally.

 

[Kathryn]

History can't be changed, and so also the fact can't be changed that the Methodist Church is equally related, both time-wise and theologically, to the Anglican Church when it was split off by Henry VIII as is today's Episcopal Church of the USA. The brush you attempt to use to tar the Anglican Church with the vices and antics of Henry VIII splatters the Methodist Church equally.

It may splatter on us but at least we're standing out of the direct line of fire. The Anglican Church IS the same church that Henry VIII founded. The very one.

It's enough to make me want to become Greek Orthodox just thinking about it.

 

[lunamoth]

It may splatter on us but at least we're standing out of the direct line of fire. The Anglican Church IS the same church that Henry VIII founded. The very one.

It's enough to make me want to become Greek Orthodox just thinking about it.

Sorry Kathryn, but you are just as much in 'the direct line of fire', whatever that means. You can say it over and over, but that does not lessen the fact that the Methodist Church owes the same to Henry VIII as any other branch or offshoot of the original CofE.

Greek Orthodox has great theology, I agree, but you might find some other aspects of that flavor a bit stifling for your tastes.

 

[Kathryn]

Sorry Kathryn, but you are just as much in 'the direct line of fire', whatever that means. You can say it over and over, but that does not lessen the fact that the Methodist Church owes the same to Henry VIII as any other branch or offshoot of the original CofE.

Greek Orthodox has great theology, I agree, but you might find some other aspects of that flavor a bit stifling for your tastes.

I'm not Anglican. I do not belong to the Church that Henry VIII founded. The Methodist Church is not a part of the Church of England. You can disagree all you like, but as a Methodist, I am further removed from Henry VIII than an Anglican is. And I'm glad for that.

And I was kidding about the Greek Orthodox thing. I don't want to stand for the entire service, for starters. But it does have a lot of lovely aspects and a rich, deep history.

 

[lunamoth]

I'm not Anglican. I do not belong to the Church that Henry VIII founded. The Methodist Church is not a part of the Church of England. You can disagree all you like, but as a Methodist, I am further removed from Henry VIII than an Anglican is. And I'm glad for that.

You may find comfort in that idea for some odd reason, but you are still just as much in the same heritage as any Anglican when it comes to Henry XIII.

 

[Kathryn]

You may find comfort in that idea for some odd reason, but you are still just as much in the same heritage as any Anglican when it comes to Henry XIII.

No, I'm not. In order to be "just as much in the same heritage" I'd have to be, errr, Anglican. And I'm not. The Methodist Church (which has about 40 different denominations, by the way) has a very rich heritage which is completely separate from the Church of England - and has been for over 200 years.

Methodism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Karl R]

Rowan Williams amazing ablity to turn our Church into a feel good social justice club, throwing out any sense of tradition or biblical morality

I became frustrated with the Anglican church because it was dragging its feet on social justice issues and remained mired in traditional social morals, rather than the core biblical morals taught by Jesus.

The rabbi Hillel (a contemporary of Jesus) once explained the core message of the Torah:
"That which you despise when other do it to you, do not do those things to others. That is the whole of the law. All else is commentary."

If we extend this idea to christianity, the great commandment (Love god; love others as you love yourself) is the whole of Jesus' teachings. Everything else is commentary.

If you love others as you love yourself, then you will automatically follow the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). You will automatically feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned. You will automatically "judge not, lest ye be judged."

In my opinion, by pursuing social justice, christians hold true to the core message of the new testament (loving others). If I love homosexuals as I love myself, I don't persecute them for being different. I don't prevent them from having the same rights as everyone else.

If some of the minutia in the commentary (like the "conservative views" you mention) appear to contradict the core message, I'm going to follow Jesus' core message by default. The core message transcends time and culture. The minute details often reflected the social standards and problems of a specific time and place.

Rowan Williams and I are following christian morality. We just define "morality" in a very different way than you.

 

[lunamoth]

No, I'm not. In order to be "just as much in the same heritage" I'd have to be, errr, Anglican. And I'm not. The Methodist Church (which has about 40 different denominations, by the way) has a very rich heritage which is completely separate from the Church of England - and has been for over 200 years.

Methodism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's OK, Kathryn. Everyone has a crazy uncle in the attic somewhere in their family, and so I can understand you want to distance yourself from it. I personlly don't see it as much of an issue.

While posting in this DIR does not make you an Anglican, unless of course you see yourself as one, I think your comfort posting here shows how close you feel to us. ;-).

I'm out of time for our little side debate, so I invite you to the last word. Cheers!

 

[Kathryn]

It's OK, Kathryn. Everyone has a crazy uncle in the attic somewhere in their family, and so I can understand you want to distance yourself from it. I personlly don't see it as much of an issue.

While posting in this DIR does not make you an Anglican, unless of course you see yourself as one, I think your comfort posting here shows how close you feel to us. ;-).

I'm out of time for our little side debate, so I invite you to the last word. Cheers!

LOL, I didn't even realize it was an Anglican DIR till right this minute! I am SO sorry if I have offended anyone!

Wesley was a little odd himself, by the way, speaking of crazy uncles. There was a lot of odd stuff going on in that Great Awakening.

Also, Methodists don't drink wine during communion - I think that's weird and stupid, to be honest. Plus, I like wine.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

The Bishops of Africa and Asia are more faithful? They live in a cesspool of superstition, where homosexuals are imprisoned, or murdered, and children are accused of witchcraft and then abandoned [at best] and albinos are hunted to support superstitious practices!

Have you read anything on the Bible and history? You can google christian virgin birth and find all kinds of information on why ever thinking person should doubt a literal virgin birth.

No their is never a reason to doubt the literal virgin birth. Let's look at this logically okay, from the premise that Christianity is actually true. Christ being the Son of God could not have come from anyone but God, therefore He could not have a human father, and therefore since God doesn't have sex with people, had to have been born without sexual intercourse.

If you want to claim that Mary was a harlot and a fornicator, well the burden of proof is on you, as Mary was a pious young lady and it is unlike she did such a thing.

So then the end all be all arugement of liberal is this "VIRIGNS DON'T HAVE BABIES !!!!111!!" which does not rule out anything miraclous (Like Christ's birth was) and actually just looks kinda stupid.

So my question to you is this, why embrace homosexuality and hypersexuality when the Church has condemned all these practicses for 2000 years. Why call Mary a whore and deny Christ His divine right as the Son of God, for your petty liberal minded collegaues? At least in Africa they believe something that looks like Christianity

 

[ForeverFaithful]

I became frustrated with the Anglican church because it was dragging its feet on social justice issues and remained mired in traditional social morals, rather than the core biblical morals taught by Jesus.

The rabbi Hillel (a contemporary of Jesus) once explained the core message of the Torah:
"That which you despise when other do it to you, do not do those things to others. That is the whole of the law. All else is commentary."

If we extend this idea to christianity, the great commandment (Love god; love others as you love yourself) is the whole of Jesus' teachings. Everything else is commentary.

If you love others as you love yourself, then you will automatically follow the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). You will automatically feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned. You will automatically "judge not, lest ye be judged."

In my opinion, by pursuing social justice, christians hold true to the core message of the new testament (loving others). If I love homosexuals as I love myself, I don't persecute them for being different. I don't prevent them from having the same rights as everyone else.

If some of the minutia in the commentary (like the "conservative views" you mention) appear to contradict the core message, I'm going to follow Jesus' core message by default. The core message transcends time and culture. The minute details often reflected the social standards and problems of a specific time and place.

Rowan Williams and I are following christian morality. We just define "morality" in a very different way than you.

Due you then codemn 2000 years of Church history and the scriputures?

I love homosexuals too, and don't ever forget that. I also love adultrers and theives, but I love the sinner, not the sin. The Church should be the Church, we should teach kids the teachings passed on to us, (Ie The Trinity, Sexual morality).

Rowan Williams has done nothing but pander to rich white people, if you think that is what Christianity is about, you are sadly mistaken.

Besides everyone knows Catholics and Evangelicals have had more efficent social justice programs than any mainline church.

 

[Karl R]

No their is never a reason to doubt the literal virgin birth. Let's look at this logically okay, from the premise that Christianity is actually true. Christ being the Son of God could not have come from anyone but God,

Read Mark 3:17. Should we assume that James and John were literally the "sons of thunder?" That's what Jesus called them.

Why should a logical person assume that Jesus is the literal son of god (in the manner you imply), but James and John are not the literal sons of thunder?

The bible says that all christians are children of god (or sons of god, depending upon the translation). You and I both have human fathers. We weren't the product of virgin births. The bible claims that we're children of god. It's clearly a metaphor when the bible is talking about the two of us, but you're absolutely certain that it's not a metaphor when the bible is talking about Jesus.

That's not logic. It's a belief.

Furthermore, the gnostics (a collection of pre-catholic christian sects) believed that Jesus was born a human (like the rest of us), but he became the first to recognize, realize and enable the divine potential which is within each of us. Therefore, they would agree that Jesus was the son of god and that Jesus was divine ... but their conceptualization of those terms is radically different than yours. And their conceptualization led them to deny the validity of a virgin birth.

since God doesn't have sex with people, had to have been born without sexual intercourse.

Prove that (using logic).

God is omniscient and omnipotent (if you believe church tradition). That implies god knows how to have sex with people and is capable of having sex with people. Therefore, the birth of a (literal) child of god could have included sexual intercourse.

If you want us to accept your statements as "logic", then do us the courtesy of following the rules of logic.

If you want to claim that Mary was a harlot and a fornicator,

We're claiming that legends about Jesus and Mary were created which were fictional. There are other examples of historical people who had legends which far exceeded their actual deeds.

For example, Davy Crockett was real person, a frontiersman, congressman and war hero. However, the legend of Davy Crockett claims that he killed a bear at age three, was twice as strong as a bear, etc. There's clearly fiction mixed in with the facts.

People create fictional legends about real people. Particularly people whom they admire.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. To you, either there was a virgin birth, or Mary was a harlot/fornicator.

On the other hand, if a husband and wife (Mary and Joseph) had a child (Jesus) in the normal fashion (sex), there's no virgin birth. There is also no harlot or fornication in that explanation.

Due you then codemn 2000 years of Church history and the scriputures?

Read Ephesians 6:5 or Colossians 3:22. The scriptures (and about 1850 years of church history) condoned slavery. Most moral and ethical human beings (including christians) condemn slavery.

If you go back to the fundamentals of the great commandment and the golden rule, there is no possible way to support slavery. But if you want to pick specific bible verses and church tradition, you can find adequate support for it.

In specific instances, I believe that condemning certain church traditions, certain episodes in the church's history and certain passages of scripture is the moral and ethical thing to do.

The Church should be the Church, we should teach kids the teachings passed on to us, (Ie The Trinity, Sexual morality).

And the church taught that the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.... (in the 1600s)

If you're fine with one (or more) historical church teaching being abandoned because it was incorrect, then why should christians assume all of the current church teachings are correct? Why should we pass on church teachings that we believe are false?

Over the millenia, the christian church has given us the inquisition, the crusades, the sale of indulgences and the witch trials. At one time, those were teachings passed on to people by the church ... until people realized the church was wrong.

I can think of numerous historical examples where the church has put tradition and specific verses of scripture ahead of the great commandment and the golden rule. It has never turned out well for christianity, the church, or the individuals involved when they did so.

Besides everyone knows Catholics and Evangelicals have had more efficent social justice programs than any mainline church.

That sounds like a very biased and self-serving statement. Do you have a third-party source (a source that isn't affiliated with the catholic or evangelical churches) that supports this statement?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I am glad the Church keeps evolving. That means the Holy Spirit is still leading us to truth.

As already mentioned regarding homosexuality, the Church condoned slavery and mistreatment of women for centuries as well.

There's lots of modern scholarship showing that the bible doesn't say as much on homosexual orientation as traditionally thought.

You would rather dismiss sound scholarship and reason for the sake of tradition and what you're calling conservatism?

I'm sure Rome would be delighted to have you. Reason is a leg of the Faith in English Reform theology, not only tradition and certainly not strict scripturalism.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Read Mark 3:17. Should we assume that James and John were literally the "sons of thunder?" That's what Jesus called them.

Why should a logical person assume that Jesus is the literal son of god (in the manner you imply), but James and John are not the literal sons of thunder?

The bible says that all christians are children of god (or sons of god, depending upon the translation). You and I both have human fathers. We weren't the product of virgin births. The bible claims that we're children of god. It's clearly a metaphor when the bible is talking about the two of us, but you're absolutely certain that it's not a metaphor when the bible is talking about Jesus.

Children yes, begotten sons, no

A bird begets a bird, God begets God. The reason I'm certain of this is because the people who were around when these records where around died for the literal interpretation, I do need some new interpretation, is it amazing how we've got so smart in the last few decades?

That's not logic. It's a belief.

Furthermore, the gnostics (a collection of pre-catholic christian sects) believed that Jesus was born a human (like the rest of us), but he became the first to recognize, realize and enable the divine potential which is within each of us. Therefore, they would agree that Jesus was the son of god and that Jesus was divine ... but their conceptualization of those terms is radically different than yours. And their conceptualization led them to deny the validity of a virgin birth.

That is the very reason the Gnostics were NEVER and never will be Christians, the Church (those continuing the the teachings of the apostles)has always condemned them as nothing more then a cult that masks as Christianity.

Prove that (using logic).

God is omniscient and omnipotent (if you believe church tradition). That implies god knows how to have sex with people and is capable of having sex with people. Therefore, the birth of a (literal) child of god could have included sexual intercourse.

God can't do various things, that which is not in His nature, such as lieing, having sex is not in His nature as he is spiritual. Don't go redifing terms.

We're claiming that legends about Jesus and Mary were created which were fictional. There are other examples of historical people who had legends which far exceeded their actual deeds.

What proof do you have of this? None of the actual early Christians believed that, and you must be calling some of them down right dirty liars to tell such a story, on top of that all the early sources outside of the faith we have of Jesus mock him for not having a real father. So a) Christ was the Son of God b) Mary was a harlot or c) some theory we have no proof of.

For example, Davy Crockett was real person, a frontiersman, congressman and war hero. However, the legend of Davy Crockett claims that he killed a bear at age three, was twice as strong as a bear, etc. There's clearly fiction mixed in with the facts.

People create fictional legends about real people. Particularly people whom they admire.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. To you, either there was a virgin birth, or Mary was a harlot/fornicator.

On the other hand, if a husband and wife (Mary and Joseph) had a child (Jesus) in the normal fashion (sex), there's no virgin birth. There is also no harlot or fornication in that explanation.

However no one has claimed that for two hundred years, and the fact was Jesus was not born at a time when Mary was married, therefore she would be a fornicator

Read Ephesians 6:5 or Colossians 3:22. The scriptures (and about 1850 years of church history) condoned slavery. Most moral and ethical human beings (including christians) condemn slavery.

Ex 21:16 Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.

And than again Church tradition;

Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist. By inspiring the best of its children with this heroic charity, examples of which have been given above, it remotely prepared the way for the abolition of slavery. To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned slavery in principle, and with having tolerated it in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have perished withRoman society. But to say, with Ciccotti (Il tramonto della schiavitù, Fr. tr., 1910, pp. 18, 20), that primitive Christianity had not even "an embryonic vision" of a society in which there should be no slavery, to say that the Fathers of the Church did not feel "the horror of slavery", is to display either strange ignorance or singular unfairness. In St. Gregory of Nyssa (In Ecclesiastem, hom. iv) the most energetic and absolute reprobation of slavery may be found; and again in numerous passages of St. John Chrysostom's discourse we have the picture of a society without slaves - a society composed only of free workers, an ideal portrait of which he traces with the most eloquent insistence (see the texts cited in Allard, ''Les esclaves chrétiens", p. 416-23). (Full article CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Slavery and Christianity)

If you go back to the fundamentals of the great commandment and the golden rule, there is no possible way to support slavery. But if you want to pick specific bible verses and church tradition, you can find adequate support for it.

And that's why the Church codemned it, however sodemy is still a sin no matter how you look at it.

In specific instances, I believe that condemning certain church traditions, certain episodes in the church's history and certain passages of scripture is the moral and ethical thing to do.

So why bother aruging with me, you do have any concern for which ethic is Christian,

And the church taught that the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.... (in the 1600s)

If you're fine with one (or more) historical church teaching being abandoned because it was incorrect, then why should christians assume all of the current church teachings are correct? Why should we pass on church teachings that we believe are false?

So we can just ignore the warm welcome Copericus recieved by the Jesuits for teaching heliocentricism, and that papal inflammability does't apply to every single case the magistrait sees? here's a tract

Over the millenia, the christian church has given us the inquisition, the crusades, the sale of indulgences and the witch trials. At one time, those were teachings passed on to people by the church ... until people realized the church was wrong.

Witch burnign was folk Christianity, kinda along the same vein as the Anglican church that ignores what real Christianity is,
Inquistion was funded by the Spanish royal family, and the Crusades were defencive wars, sale of indulgences as been condemned by the church, but it's late and I'm leaving, Good night!

 

[lunamoth]

Have all the conservatives died off or what,

We are an apostlic church, among the great churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Moscow, but we seem to become more worldly everyday,

Is anyone else unhappy with the way our Church is going?

I don't agree with everything the Episcopal Church does , or everything the Anglican Church does, but having a progressive inclination I am glad about things like being more inclusive of homosexuals, increasing our charitable work and social action around the world, and having an increasingly more open table in general.

I don't like it when we squabble and end up wasting millions of dollars in lawsuits against each other. I dont agree that the Episcopal Church can just ignore things it has agreed to with the larger Anglican Communion.

We are a family with very divergent ideas but we should all still be able to come together to worship and share communion. We disagree with each other over how to bring the love of Christ into the world, but such disagreements are as old as mankind. We need to listen to each other, remain kind to each other, and keep trying to find our way together.

It is not helpful to try to tell each other what we see as the others' shortcomings. We need to try to see Christ in each other in the same manner we seek so know Christ in all people.

 

[Karl R]

A bird begets a bird, God begets God. The reason I'm certain of this is because the people who were around when these records where around died for the literal interpretation,

You're implying there were "records" of Jesus' paternity? There were independent witnesses to the conception?

The apostles died because they believed Jesus was the Messiah. They died because they believed he was resurrected.

None of the actual early Christians believed that, and you must be calling some of them down right dirty liars to tell such a story,

The oldest church writings (the Pauline epistles) do not mention the virgin birth. The oldest gospel (Mark) does not mention the virgin birth. They're not telling any story about the virgin birth. You're claim about what these "actual early Christians believed" is based upon your own belief, not upon what they actually wrote.

The virgin birth is clearly a later addition to the story of Jesus. You believe it's true (for the reasons you mentioned above). I'm skeptical.

More importantly, from the perspective of more theologically liberal christians (whether anglicans or other denominations), the virgin birth is irrelevant to the core message that Jesus brought:
God loves us.
We should love god.
We should love each other as we love ourselves.
We should treat each other in the way we wish to be treated.

That message does not require a virgin birth. It does not require a divine messenger. It does not even require a sacrifice or a resurrection. The inherent truth of Jesus' message stands on its own merit.

That is the very reason the Gnostics were NEVER and never will be Christians, the Church (those continuing the the teachings of the apostles) has always condemned them as nothing more then a cult that masks as Christianity.

The gnostics claimed direct apostolic succession (based on writings barely older than the Pauline epistles), just like the orthodox did (based on writings of the same age).

There were opposed sects, each claiming to be christians, each claiming apostolic succession, each claiming the other was misguided, each claiming that the other was teaching heresy. You choose to believe the traditions of the group that persecuted the other group into extinction (with the help of the Roman imperial government).

You don't get to decide who is actually a christian and who isn't. The orthodox don't get to decide who is actually a christian. The catholics don't get to decide who is actually a christian. The anglicans don't get to decide who is actually a christian. Only god makes that decision. And to the best of my knowledge, god has neither delegated that task to anyone else, nor made any personal pronouncements about the validity of the gnostics claims (or the orthodox/catholic/anglican claims) to being christian.

God can't do various things, that which is not in His nature, such as lieing, having sex is not in His nature as he is spiritual. Don't go redifing terms.

Since you believe in the trinity, you believe that Jesus is god. You believe that Jesus was fully human (provided you agree with the traditional beliefs). According to your beliefs, god has already been human in a physical form. In complete contradiction to that, you're claiming that god is completely spiritual and incapable of such a feat.

on top of that all the early sources outside of the faith we have of Jesus mock him for not having a real father.

So there were rumors going around that Jesus was illegitimate. You assume that either Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, or Mary was a fornicator. You are still ignoring the third possibility: the rumors were just scandalous rumors.

the fact was Jesus was not born at a time when Mary was married,

You've seen Jesus' birth certificate? You've seen Mary and Joseph's marriage certificate? You believe that Mary was not married when Jesus was born. That does not make it a fact.

Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist. By inspiring the best of its children with this heroic charity, examples of which have been given above, it remotely prepared the way for the abolition of slavery.

The leaders of the Anglican Church were slave owners even into the 1800s. Some members of the church may have been part of the solution, but many leaders were part of the problem.

By recognizing that the church was wrong back then, I'm not allowing myself the delusion that the church is infallible. It was wrong before. It can be wrong again.

however sodemy is still a sin no matter how you look at it.

There's very little scriptural support for that. There's a lot more scriptural support for gossip being a sin. However, gossip is tolerated in the halls of every church I've ever been in.

Witch burnign was folk Christianity, kinda along the same vein as the Anglican church that ignores what real Christianity is,

King James I of England (the official head of the anglican church) presided over the North Berwick witch trials. At least one woman was personally "examined" by James I (also known as James VI of Scotland) in Holyrood House. She confessed under torture, was strangled and burned.

King James I also wrote Daemonologie, a tract in which he approved and supported the practice of witch hunting.

How much more official does it have to be before you're willing to acknowledge that the church had some responsibility?

Inquistion was funded by the Spanish royal family,

And run by the church. Are you absolving the church of its actions just because the atrocities were underwritten by someone else?

the Crusades were defencive wars,

Defensive? They were attempting to conquer Palestine 400 years after it had been conquered by muslims. How is that defensive?

sale of indulgences as been condemned by the church,

We finally hit one example where you're will to acknowledge that the church was wrong. Of course, you're still trying to ignore (or justify) the church's involvement in slavery, the inquisition, witch trials and the crusades.

But to reiterate, church traditions have been wrong before. That means they might be wrong now. It's not safe to assume that a belief or action is correct just because it is supported by church tradition.

When a church tradition appears to be in conflict with the great commandment or golden rule, I'm going to have to conclude that the church tradition is in error.

 

[SageTree]

Holy crow.... how did that conversation with Kathyrn NOT get reported for a DIR violation?

She was pretty much making a mockery of the whole tradition....
with a short sighted and somewhat errant view of history at that.