Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[Tamas]

Where are you getting your intel about god's nature? :p

[mongers]

Where are you getting your intel about god's nature? :p

Shelf is the enthusiastic intern whose holding the fort whilst the boss up there has gone on holiday.

[Sheilbh]

Where are you getting your intel about god's nature? :p

Sorry that's the Anglican view. Hooker argued that God didn't really care about minor doctrinal issues or church governance, which is why each country should have their own church.

[jimmy olsen]

Even if the book is not making a big deal out of it, how can we tell people to feel free and turn to the Bible for spiritual guidance, but then condemn them for utilizing the answer they find there?

I've no interest in the lunatic wings of Protestantism. The Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and Lutheran Churches most definitely don't say to people to feel free and look to the Bible for guidance. That's the entire point of a Church.

I'm not a Lutheran, but when I was taught about the Reformation at University, they said that was one of the main changes. IIRC, anyways, it's been a long time.

[Ed Anger]

God moves in mysterious ways.

Ed, on the other hand, moves according to a chart numbered 1-7.

Roll 1D7
+2 if Taco Bell was consumed

[Sheilbh]

Lutherans still generally believed in the intertwining of church and state. People were free to look to their Bibles to support the positions of the Lutheran church. They also still believed in a 'visible church' that will 'rightly teach'.

[fhdz]

God moves in mysterious ways.

Ed, on the other hand, moves according to a chart numbered 1-7.

Roll 1D7
+2 if Taco Bell was consumed

[PDH]

God moves in mysterious ways.

Ed, on the other hand, moves according to a chart numbered 1-7.

Roll 1D7
+2 if Taco Bell was consumed

CRIT!

[Tamas]

Where are you getting your intel about god's nature? :p

Sorry that's the Anglican view. Hooker argued that God didn't really care about minor doctrinal issues or church governance, which is why each country should have their own church.

So that's sort of my point. At one hand, you are fine with them changing their doctrine to whatever seem to be working for them at any given time, ie. with them not having sure knowledge on how a proper Christian church should handle itself.
On the other hand, despite the above, you accept their opinion on god's nature as a given. Based on what?

[Viking]

Even if the book is not making a big deal out of it, how can we tell people to feel free and turn to the Bible for spiritual guidance, but then condemn them for utilizing the answer they find there?

I've no interest in the lunatic wings of Protestantism. The Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and Lutheran Churches most definitely don't say to people to feel free and look to the Bible for guidance. That's the entire point of a Church.

I'm not a Lutheran, but when I was taught about the Reformation at University, they said that was one of the main changes. IIRC, anyways, it's been a long time.

Being the guy who was educated and confirmed in the lutheran church and still a member (grandma still lives) I can tell you most certainly that it does teach to look to the bible (and pray, you need to be praying as well). That was the entire point of making a book in a language which was "understanded of the people" and why clergy used very much of their time teaching people how to read (the bible). This is also why the lutheran (and anglican) churches are usually the most liberal ones out there, it is simply because they remain so free of dogma and doctrine and effectively leave it up to their parishioners to decide for themselves by reading the bible and praying over the issue.

The few dogma and doctrines the lutheran church has are either direct bible quotations or denials of Catholic doctrine or heresy.

[dps]

But also perspectives differ, I think of Anglicanism which, unlike Catholicism, believes doctrine can change. Their entire view of doctrine is that it should be dynamic and pragmatic

Do they justify that by declaring that God keeps changing his mind?

A non-Anglican, non-Catholic perspective on the matter would be that God's will doesn't change, but our understanding of His will can change.  Doesn't seem like that should be so hard to grasp--no one seems to have a problem with the same principle when it comes to science--i.e., the laws of nature don't change, but our understanding of them certainly does.

[Valmy]

Even if the book is not making a big deal out of it, how can we tell people to feel free and turn to the Bible for spiritual guidance, but then condemn them for utilizing the answer they find there?

I've no interest in the lunatic wings of Protestantism. The Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and Lutheran Churches most definitely don't say to people to feel free and look to the Bible for guidance. That's the entire point of a Church.

I'm not a Lutheran, but when I was taught about the Reformation at University, they said that was one of the main changes. IIRC, anyways, it's been a long time.

Yeah Luther did say that.  Then the Anabaptist movement sprung up, leading to a bit of backtracking.

[The Brain]

God moves in mysterious ways.

Ed, on the other hand, moves according to a chart numbered 1-7.

[viper37]

Anyways, is this matter much? When it comes to debates like gay marriage, the anti-gay crowd always says shit like "I have no problem with them, just don't do it in public" etc.
So it's not like this will convince a single homophob to be accepting.

It means that if everyone in his entourage listen to him, and the next pope keeps the same tone, eventually the attitude will change toward homosexual people.

It's not much of a problem being gay in America, Europe or Canada I guess, but in 3rd world places were Christianity is growing, it might help somewhere down the road.  It means that eventually, local priests/bishops won't be able to hide their prejudice behind their religion.

[Viking]

But also perspectives differ, I think of Anglicanism which, unlike Catholicism, believes doctrine can change. Their entire view of doctrine is that it should be dynamic and pragmatic

Do they justify that by declaring that God keeps changing his mind?

A non-Anglican, non-Catholic perspective on the matter would be that God's will doesn't change, but our understanding of His will can change.  Doesn't seem like that should be so hard to grasp--no one seems to have a problem with the same principle when it comes to science--i.e., the laws of nature don't change, but our understanding of them certainly does.

... and which church argues that their understanding is merely tentative and will in future be proven wrong one our understanding of the will of god improves? ... and which church argues that it's moral teaching is not right due to it being the will of god but merely a best guess of his will which will later be improved upon once our understanding of it improves? ... and which church argues that any and all of it's teachings are potentially falsifiable and thus potentially wrong and that despite this you as a believer should wager your immortal soul on those teachings non-the-less?

that is mere post-facto bs trying to cover up for the fact that an allegedly absolute and un-alterable truth was replaced with a new and inconsistent absolute and un-alterable truth for secular and material reasons.


edit: there is one church, that is the church of science and Dawkins is it's prophet.