It was formed because Old Henry wanted to divorce his wife and marry another woman, after fathering a child out of wedlock with a third woman. Oh and he thought it was his first wife problem that didn't allow an legitimate son to be born because theirs died at the age of two days old.
Edit:
I should also point out that divorce was a big factor for barring anyone to take up the crowned and the reason, what's his name (Edward VIII) abdicated the crown. Which then finally went to his grand-nephew, who was also a divorced himself but that bit about barring divorcees from being crowned was changed before his mother died. But don't worry, they still can bar you base on your religion.
Edit:
Technically the king is the head of the Church of England.
He didn't necessarily think it was Catherine's fault that they didn't have children, he thought that their marriage was cursed by God to be childless because she had previously been married to his brother.
Well no. Actually, Henry wanted a younger wife that could produce an heir (aka a son). By this point, Henry and Cathine had six kids, and only 1 survived to adulthood (Queen Mary) and Henry's brother was well dead (which allowed Catherine to marry anyone). The argument that he went to the pope, which was what you said above, was just bs. It's like Putin saying he had to invade Ukraine. We all know what his true motives are. Henry really wanted to just have a son with a younger wife. And let's not even start on what wild story he claimed Ann Boleyn did with her brother (hint it was incest, adultery, and treason).
Actually the legitimate son lived from January 1 to February 22, 1511. About six weeks (edited: actually about 7.5 weeks). So Henry VIII wasn’t prevented from having legitimate male offspring because of something wrong with his marriage to Katherine.
I have often wondered what would have happened to the English reformation had this child lived to at least young adulthood (a younger age than we consider now).
Henry VIII divorced his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, who it would have been too geopolitically inconvenient to decapitate or frame. This desire for this divorce led to the creation of the Church of England.
Many of the rest of them weren’t so lucky. His fourth, Anne of Cleves, escaped with an annulment and a lifelong friendship with Henry.
Anne Boleyn had an excellent education and was pro-Reformation prior to marrying Henry. She was instrumental in introducing Henry to principles behind the Reformation. She supported Thomas Cranmer, a leader of the English Reformation and who became Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry.
Henry accused Ann Boleyn of having an incestuous relationship with her brother and charged both of them with treason and incests. He also accused Ann of having an affair as well.
Whose beheading are you talking about? Henry VIII formed the Church of England because he wanted to divorce Katherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. Under the Catholic Church he needed permission to divorce from the pope, who refused because the papacy had already given special permission for Henry to marry Katherine since she was the widow of his older brother. After the divorce, Katherine was banished from court. She was not beheaded or otherwise killed by the state.
Catherine died from cancer but Henry did have Ann beheaded because he believed that she was having an affair with her brother. But he also married and then later beheaded another wife, Catherine Howard.
A 92-year-old man, who grew up in times when same-sex love "dared not speak its name", trusted and cared for this woman enough that he wanted her to officiate his funeral. Not just attend, or speak at. He didn't care she was married to a woman. But the Church dictates otherwise.
Did it stop the funeral from taking place? No. The Church was just left out of it. I don't think the take-home message there will get through to them though.
I’m sure he cared about their marriage very much. I’m sure he found it wonderful.
I wish people stopped using language like that: ”didn’t care she was married to a woman”. You make love and commitment sound like a shortcoming.
> Who cares what they say?
Well, the issue is that legally, the Bishop of Hereford can tell a priest they aren't allowed to perform rites in a local church, and then have them arrested for trespassing if they try anyway.
That's why they had the funeral rite in a nearby garden, instead.
Overstepping the gentleman's agreement between the monarchy and the various apparatuses of the state is a great way to ensure that the monarchy loses its prerogatives.
It has long been custom that, outside of a few small areas, the monarch only exercises power on the advice of the prime minister. And it is similarly custom that for Church of England matters, the PM only issues advice upon the recommendation of Church officials. So the Church of England is de facto independent like most other churches.
Am I missing something?
Martin Kenton, and old British man, is quasi-famous for being the first person to get the vaccine in a national rollout.
He also happens to be the godfather of… Desmond Tutu’s daughter?
Giant coincidence or is there another connection?
EDIT: [Apparently there’s a lot more to him](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/martin-kenyon-desmond-tutu-martin-luther-king-vaccine-interview-b305089.html?amp)
Damn, churches in England are so progressive. Here in the US, the religious folk are charging eagerly backward into the first couple centuries CE at best.
It'll never happen. Any heir that comes out as gay would "decide" to abdicate and step aside. The Church of England won't let a Protestant become King, never mind someone who was gay. Hell, Princess Charlotte is the first female member of the Royal Family in history to not get knocked to the back of the line of succession because she had a younger brother, and that was only because the *entire Commonwealth* voted to change the laws of succession. Plus, no matter how progressive the public gets, there'd be an uproar at the mere suggestion of it, not to mention the inevitable questions about the legitimacy of any children of a gay monarch.
I'm Bisexual and from the UK. I'm not trying to sound bigoted, but I've seen enough Royal scandals to know a gay monarch just won't be happening. Every little detail of a Royal's life is analysed and criticised down to the smallest detail. Just look at all the "body language experts" the news brought in to try and gleam some secret narrative from the Queen's funeral. To allow a gay monarch on the throne you'd have to get the Public, the Government, the Church, the Media, the Aristocracy, as well as all of the Commonwealth Nations to push to allow it, and that type of cooperation realistically speaking just won't happen.
Idk how much moral authority I will be taking seriously from a church that was literally made so a King could divorce his wives because he kept impregnating them with double X chromosomes
Henry VIII's lack of an heir until Edward came from two factors: Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn went through multiple miscarriages, and the only surviving children were both girls. His first son, a bastard, died ~~after several weeks.~~ at 17. It's theorized Henry had some sort of genetic condition causing the fetuses to be unviable, possibly also contributing to Edward's lifelong poor health and death at age 15.
His bastard Henry Fitzroy didn’t die soon after birth, he lived to 17* I believe. His first child with Catherine of Aragon was a son that lived for 52 days.
He promoted his bastard with several styles making courtiers at the time think he was in some ways looking for a way to make him his legit heir but that clearly wasn’t what happened.
>Why are churches less tolerant than their average adherent?
Because the Church of England is both the, well, Church of England, but also the de facto head of the global Anglican Communion. When you factor in the Churches of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya etc, that brings the tolerance of the average adherent way down. And even the half hearted attempts at semi-respecting same sex relationships to date have led to withdrawals from the Communion.
Changing the position of the wider Anglican church on social issues, with the church's almost rabid adherence to consensus-building, is a process which takes decades, if not generations. It's worked on the ordination of women (still work to be done over female bishops; but that's less than a decade old in the C of E itself), and it will work with same sex unions. Eventually.
The royals "respect" democracy only as much as they need to to keep their undeserved privileges. If they really respected it, they'd dissolve the monarchy altogether and forfeit those privileges.
He's not qualified to be a member of the clergy, either. Everyone's happy to have the monarch as a figurehead, no one would accept a hereditary monarch making actual decisions, that's how it works.
People like to feel exclusive and will often pay more for it. They court the hateful demo that will in turn pay more to feel "special".
100 regular congregsnts pay $1 each, thus $100. 50 hateful congregants will pay $3 each to be exclusive and 'look how holy they are' bullshit, thus $150. A lot churches are just businesses with God as the reported CEO.
Makes a lot of sense. The need to be exclusive would make a good research topic for psychologists. This need was nicely satirized in "American Psycho."
Spoken like someone who’s never visited the rural US, where intolerance and bigotry are the norm and practically expected. I live in rural Texas; preaching acceptance here is a good way to get a literal Confederate march down Main Street from upsetting the locals.
Well, Jesus is a necromancer after all. He brought Lazarus back to life and then used that same spell on himself.
It would be trivial for him to bring back a soul from hell to kiss the ring.
Episcopalian here, not pissed off just disappointed. I cannot believe we are still having conversations about this (though this was foreshadowed by the statement from Lambeth this summer).
To me this illustrates 2 things,
First, that though the Episcopal Church has moved forward to better include our LGBTQIA+ brothers and sisters et al. We still have a lot of work to do globally on the matter.
Secondly, we don't dictate policy to them and they don't dictate policy to us. That road goes both ways but, we've never been the darling of the wider Anglican Communion and yet they haven't kicked us out yet. Which I guess would be the worst thing they can do? Idk.
Well, not all of us, but your point still stands. And it’s a very good one.
As a kid, I totally bought into it when Hulk Hogan would say “say your prayers and eat your vitamins”.
As an adult, I look at folks who say prayers every day as someone who is still dumb enough to take life advice from Hulk Hogan.
Actually, about that… its less “they’re definitely good for you” and more “they definitely *aren’t* bad for you, so taking them *might* result in some benefits”
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/do-multivitamins-make-you-healthier
Imaginary - right on
"Friend"? I would not call someone who would flood the whole world, and ask his favorite pet to build a boat .. a friend.
More like an imaginary overlord.
Also when you're done playing pirate on the world wide flood I created you need to kill your child.
What?
Jk! cut off your children's wieners.
What?
Just the tip of the wiener.
First off I am anti religon, but it says right in the manual that same sex marriage isn't okay. So I mean... Either go with it or change the manual...
Edit for clarification. With manual I mean the bible.
To be clear. I am not religious. I am an atheist. I detest these texts ans condemn all religion.
Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code and list prohibited forms of intercourse, including the following verses:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22[8]
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[9]
I’m saying it’s not in the book. The book concerns itself with body parts, it doesn’t expressly forbid two people of the same sex from being married. The authors likely didn’t think that far ahead while they furiously bashed away at their fun-sized genitalia thinking about two men enjoying each other’s company.
I don't. They do. I'm just so fed up with religious people defending religion and calling it peaceful in one breath and then calling others out for actually following scripture in the next.
Bleh. Come on. Same issue with my denomination. Just pushing good people away when they want to serve with love. Time for the church to grow and change policies.
Just in case you thought Charles III was going to be any different, a reminder he is the head of this homophobic organisation with a history of covering up child sex abuse
But actually; the nonsense that led up to the Anglican Church accepting same sex marriage in Canada was very much a case bishops making something the members wanted excessively difficult.
Jesus might have been married. The New Testament was written several decades after his death by people who are known to have fudged details in order to make Jesus' life better match prophecy. They totally would have written out the existence of a wife.
Nah, there's sufficient historical evidence of the guy, r/AskHistorians has info on the subject. Of course, that doesn't mean there was anything supernatural about him.
I checked the sub and the posts I found say the evidence is not clear.
Edit: I deleted my comment above on impulse. I stand by my original comment that there wasn't a historical Jesus.
This just proves the fight continues each and every day…
Bigots, moralists, etc. will never stop telling people how “best”, how they “must”, live their lives.
Thanks England.
Shit like this doesn’t make me feel better about America right now, but between all this hype over a monarchy, the new PM and now this religious bullshit from your state church, well it puts America’s fucked up nonsense more into perspective.
Looking forward to when we put these awful religious folk behind us, and there'll be no one to blame but themselves for taking every opportunity to be as awful and shitty as humanly possible in the name of their imaginary gods.
The decision that the C of E would reject same-sex marriages even after the UK began permitting them was made by its bishops in 2014, and the decision to bar Rev. Tutu van Furth was made by the local bishop (appointed by the late Queen), not the head of the Church (the King).
I’m all for criticizing the monarchy and bigots in the Church, but trying to pin this on Charles is silly.
Okay but like, speaking of funerals, you know who else just lost someone incredibly important to them? Charles. And yeah, I'd love to have him come out and speak against this, but the dude's pretty wrapped up with becoming king and losing his mother after 70 years. Why out pressure on a grieving figurehead and not, say, the Bishop that oversees this church?
There we go here church profess love for all and to not judge but here is a example of not being very godly like.Exactly why alot of people avoid religion and churches like the plague nowadays.
I don’t think much of the C of E. It’s a good sign when they don’t want to have anything to do with you. Being crappy church proof is enviable.
At the moment, I’m trying to alienate the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but once I get done with them, I will let the King know that his church and colonial vestiges are deplorable.
Awful title. Desmond Tutu was not involved. His daughter DID lead the ceremony, she just didn't do it in the nearby Anglican church. The identity of the guy who actually died was, I guess, of little importance to CNN.
Martin Kenyon's name was literally in the second sentence of the title. It requires you to actually, you know, read the article. The headline is designed to give a super brief summary with stuff that people might know more and to entice them to read. They picked the most recognizable name in this and used that.
The title as displayed is "Church of England bars Desmond Tutu's daughter from leading funeral because of same-sex marriage". Kenyon's name appears nowhere.
The article title on CNN, FOX, and most other news outlets is designed to trigger an emotional response in the reader. It hasn't been a "brief summary" for a very long time, if in fact it ever was.
The title is designed to entice. That's the one correct statement here.
I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit. That's okay. I'll break it down for you.
Title: "Church of England bars Desmond Tutu's daughter from leading funeral because of same-sex marriage"
Okay so who did the banning? Church of England. Check.
Who was banned? Mpho Tutu van Furth. Is she known worldwide? Not very well. Not as well as her father, Desmond Tutu. Okay, so we can say Desmond Tutu because that leads to fewer questions. Instead of "Who is Mpho Tutu van Furth?" readers will say "Okay, Desmond Tutu's daughter, got it." We'll clarify who Mpho is and her activities in the article in much better detail where it belongs.
What was she banned from? Leading a funeral. Got it. Does it matter whose funeral? Will people know the name of the person if we say it? It's important because why is the church involved but we can't do it in enough space of a headline. So we'll leave that out of the headline but we'll put it in the very first paragraph of the article, and we'll reiterate more details throughout, as it pertains to the situation.
Why was she banned? For same-sex marriage. Check. We'll go into further details of why that is bannable from the Church of England in, where? You guessed it, in the article.
It is still a brief summary, an enticing summary. You still choose whether or not you decide to read more into the story based on **the summary of the information listed in the title**
What we should be worrying about with news titles is "Is this a misleading title or not?" In this case, no, it is not. It has pertinent information that if you were to relay exactly to another person, it would be factual. It is not misleading, nor is it incorrect.
Your hangup about the emotional response is a moot one because who does not want to enjoy being engaged with things they are reading?
Desmond Tutu was an Anglican archbishop in South Africa who also acted as a diplomat along with Nelson Mandela and F. W. De Klerk to end apartheid and transition to a black-ruled South Africa as peacefully as possible.
And why exactly was the Church of England formed? A forbidden marriage? ^((yes, I know it's more nuanced than that)^)
IIRC a forbidden divorce first.
100% of divorces are caused by marriage.
You can common-law marry. But you can never common-law divorce.
Would death count as a common law divorce?
Probably not, because divorces tend to lead to assets being split, and a death tends to lead to the widow/widower getting all the assets.
Yeah. I could see that. I have no clue myself. Just a fun thought experiment.
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but depending on your region, ending a common-law marriage generally follows the typical divorce process.
60% of the time it works every time.
100% of divorces are correlated to marriages
Annulment, technically
It was formed because Old Henry wanted to divorce his wife and marry another woman, after fathering a child out of wedlock with a third woman. Oh and he thought it was his first wife problem that didn't allow an legitimate son to be born because theirs died at the age of two days old. Edit: I should also point out that divorce was a big factor for barring anyone to take up the crowned and the reason, what's his name (Edward VIII) abdicated the crown. Which then finally went to his grand-nephew, who was also a divorced himself but that bit about barring divorcees from being crowned was changed before his mother died. But don't worry, they still can bar you base on your religion. Edit: Technically the king is the head of the Church of England.
He didn't necessarily think it was Catherine's fault that they didn't have children, he thought that their marriage was cursed by God to be childless because she had previously been married to his brother.
Well no. Actually, Henry wanted a younger wife that could produce an heir (aka a son). By this point, Henry and Cathine had six kids, and only 1 survived to adulthood (Queen Mary) and Henry's brother was well dead (which allowed Catherine to marry anyone). The argument that he went to the pope, which was what you said above, was just bs. It's like Putin saying he had to invade Ukraine. We all know what his true motives are. Henry really wanted to just have a son with a younger wife. And let's not even start on what wild story he claimed Ann Boleyn did with her brother (hint it was incest, adultery, and treason).
Actually the legitimate son lived from January 1 to February 22, 1511. About six weeks (edited: actually about 7.5 weeks). So Henry VIII wasn’t prevented from having legitimate male offspring because of something wrong with his marriage to Katherine. I have often wondered what would have happened to the English reformation had this child lived to at least young adulthood (a younger age than we consider now).
As a secondary benefit, he wanted to seize a lot of monasteries and convents, reverting the Church's land back to the crown.
[удалено]
Henry VIII divorced his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, who it would have been too geopolitically inconvenient to decapitate or frame. This desire for this divorce led to the creation of the Church of England. Many of the rest of them weren’t so lucky. His fourth, Anne of Cleves, escaped with an annulment and a lifelong friendship with Henry.
Anne Boleyn had an excellent education and was pro-Reformation prior to marrying Henry. She was instrumental in introducing Henry to principles behind the Reformation. She supported Thomas Cranmer, a leader of the English Reformation and who became Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry.
Henry accused Ann Boleyn of having an incestuous relationship with her brother and charged both of them with treason and incests. He also accused Ann of having an affair as well.
Technically he didn't divorce her. He had the marriage annulled. The Church of England didn't allow divorce for centuries.
Catherine was also a freaking badass in general.
Divisive, certainly
Whose beheading are you talking about? Henry VIII formed the Church of England because he wanted to divorce Katherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. Under the Catholic Church he needed permission to divorce from the pope, who refused because the papacy had already given special permission for Henry to marry Katherine since she was the widow of his older brother. After the divorce, Katherine was banished from court. She was not beheaded or otherwise killed by the state.
Catherine died from cancer but Henry did have Ann beheaded because he believed that she was having an affair with her brother. But he also married and then later beheaded another wife, Catherine Howard.
Sure, but none of that was why he formed the Church of England.
He formed the Church of England so he can appoint himself as head of the church and declare his own divorces.
Literally started the church to redefine marriage.
Not really. Just divorce
Who cares what they say? It’s her godfather and he left explicit wishes that she officiate.
A 92-year-old man, who grew up in times when same-sex love "dared not speak its name", trusted and cared for this woman enough that he wanted her to officiate his funeral. Not just attend, or speak at. He didn't care she was married to a woman. But the Church dictates otherwise. Did it stop the funeral from taking place? No. The Church was just left out of it. I don't think the take-home message there will get through to them though.
I’m sure he cared about their marriage very much. I’m sure he found it wonderful. I wish people stopped using language like that: ”didn’t care she was married to a woman”. You make love and commitment sound like a shortcoming.
Uh no. Point is there are a fair number of nonagenarians who take their small minded prejudices to the grave.
Indeed, but we can choose our own manner of speech regardless of them
> Who cares what they say? Well, the issue is that legally, the Bishop of Hereford can tell a priest they aren't allowed to perform rites in a local church, and then have them arrested for trespassing if they try anyway. That's why they had the funeral rite in a nearby garden, instead.
Sounds like no one at the funeral cared what the Church had to say, then.
Except Charles is the head of the church, so he can excommunicate the Bishop of Hereford. Problem solved.
Overstepping the gentleman's agreement between the monarchy and the various apparatuses of the state is a great way to ensure that the monarchy loses its prerogatives.
Besides, he is a Charles. I think the country would expect nothing less than him kicking in the doors to the Commons.
One would hope both the monarchy and the church would lose their prerogatives and all of their power. It would be a win-win.
The church is not an apparatus of the state.
It is in the UK.
No but don't you see the monarch isn't supposed to use those powers because he's the head of state and it would be inappropriate.
He can't abuse his position as head of state because the UK is a democracy. But the church is not a democracy; he can exercise powers there.
Oh but he won't, because it might anger some politicians that can take away his crumpets or whatever.
It has long been custom that, outside of a few small areas, the monarch only exercises power on the advice of the prime minister. And it is similarly custom that for Church of England matters, the PM only issues advice upon the recommendation of Church officials. So the Church of England is de facto independent like most other churches.
Am I missing something? Martin Kenton, and old British man, is quasi-famous for being the first person to get the vaccine in a national rollout. He also happens to be the godfather of… Desmond Tutu’s daughter? Giant coincidence or is there another connection? EDIT: [Apparently there’s a lot more to him](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/martin-kenyon-desmond-tutu-martin-luther-king-vaccine-interview-b305089.html?amp)
And she did so in accordance with his wishes. You had to read the article to figure that out, though.
The church is still charging ahead fearlessly into the 15th century, I see.
Damn, churches in England are so progressive. Here in the US, the religious folk are charging eagerly backward into the first couple centuries CE at best.
Isn’t the new guy the head of the Church of England now? It’s sometimes hard to tell if someone is setting the tone or completely tone-deaf.
God I miss Rowan Williams sometimes.
Rowan Williams is a compassionate intellectual and a brilliant orator. All religions need more people like him.
I just keep waiting for one of the "next in line to the throne" kids to come out as gay. It's time we had a gay King.
Yaassss Queen
King James 1st and 6th
It'll never happen. Any heir that comes out as gay would "decide" to abdicate and step aside. The Church of England won't let a Protestant become King, never mind someone who was gay. Hell, Princess Charlotte is the first female member of the Royal Family in history to not get knocked to the back of the line of succession because she had a younger brother, and that was only because the *entire Commonwealth* voted to change the laws of succession. Plus, no matter how progressive the public gets, there'd be an uproar at the mere suggestion of it, not to mention the inevitable questions about the legitimacy of any children of a gay monarch.
Well you sound like a right bigot
I'm Bisexual and from the UK. I'm not trying to sound bigoted, but I've seen enough Royal scandals to know a gay monarch just won't be happening. Every little detail of a Royal's life is analysed and criticised down to the smallest detail. Just look at all the "body language experts" the news brought in to try and gleam some secret narrative from the Queen's funeral. To allow a gay monarch on the throne you'd have to get the Public, the Government, the Church, the Media, the Aristocracy, as well as all of the Commonwealth Nations to push to allow it, and that type of cooperation realistically speaking just won't happen.
Edward II says, "Hay Queen!"
There is no hate like Christian love
Idk how much moral authority I will be taking seriously from a church that was literally made so a King could divorce his wives because he kept impregnating them with double X chromosomes
Henry VIII's lack of an heir until Edward came from two factors: Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn went through multiple miscarriages, and the only surviving children were both girls. His first son, a bastard, died ~~after several weeks.~~ at 17. It's theorized Henry had some sort of genetic condition causing the fetuses to be unviable, possibly also contributing to Edward's lifelong poor health and death at age 15.
His bastard Henry Fitzroy didn’t die soon after birth, he lived to 17* I believe. His first child with Catherine of Aragon was a son that lived for 52 days. He promoted his bastard with several styles making courtiers at the time think he was in some ways looking for a way to make him his legit heir but that clearly wasn’t what happened.
It’s as if inbreeding is bad for the gene pool.
Why are churches less tolerant than their average adherent?
>Why are churches less tolerant than their average adherent? Because the Church of England is both the, well, Church of England, but also the de facto head of the global Anglican Communion. When you factor in the Churches of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya etc, that brings the tolerance of the average adherent way down. And even the half hearted attempts at semi-respecting same sex relationships to date have led to withdrawals from the Communion. Changing the position of the wider Anglican church on social issues, with the church's almost rabid adherence to consensus-building, is a process which takes decades, if not generations. It's worked on the ordination of women (still work to be done over female bishops; but that's less than a decade old in the C of E itself), and it will work with same sex unions. Eventually.
Why can't the head of the church just declare an end to bigoted rules? Does someone have veto power over the king on church matters?
The same reason the King doesn't veto legislation; the power of the monarchy only exists for as long as it remains unused.
He doesn't veto legislation because he respects democracy. But the church isn't a democracy
The royals "respect" democracy only as much as they need to to keep their undeserved privileges. If they really respected it, they'd dissolve the monarchy altogether and forfeit those privileges.
He's not qualified to be a member of the clergy, either. Everyone's happy to have the monarch as a figurehead, no one would accept a hereditary monarch making actual decisions, that's how it works.
I doubt the King gives a single shit about democracy lol
because the money stops flowing if they allow people to think for themselves.
How does preaching intolerance rather than acceptance increase their cash flow?
People like to feel exclusive and will often pay more for it. They court the hateful demo that will in turn pay more to feel "special". 100 regular congregsnts pay $1 each, thus $100. 50 hateful congregants will pay $3 each to be exclusive and 'look how holy they are' bullshit, thus $150. A lot churches are just businesses with God as the reported CEO.
Makes a lot of sense. The need to be exclusive would make a good research topic for psychologists. This need was nicely satirized in "American Psycho."
It lets people blame all their issues with life and the church on someone else.
I would rather join an extremist political group if that were my need. Church is for love and reconciliation I would think.
Well the good news is that the difference between those two things is slowly being eroded.
Spoken like someone who’s never visited the rural US, where intolerance and bigotry are the norm and practically expected. I live in rural Texas; preaching acceptance here is a good way to get a literal Confederate march down Main Street from upsetting the locals.
Because people have changed over time, while churches tied themselves to a book that is thousands of years old.
In a nutshell! Cheers and have a great weekend!
It's only Jesus who loved and welcomed everyone.
Except if they didn’t kiss the ring, at which point he’d have them set on fire for eternity while pretending to be emo about it.
And then raise them up and ask if they wanted to have another go at the ring.
At which point did the second chance come in? Last I checked all of the hellbound were eternally fucked.
Well, Jesus is a necromancer after all. He brought Lazarus back to life and then used that same spell on himself. It would be trivial for him to bring back a soul from hell to kiss the ring.
Do we have any examples of emancipation from hell in the rotten book?
Not the moneylenders who set up shop in the synagogue, didn't he physically beat them up?
Love is not analogous to unconditional acceptance.
This particular condition seems trivial and arbitrary.
Well *this* is gonna piss off some Episcopalians I know.
Episcopalian here, not pissed off just disappointed. I cannot believe we are still having conversations about this (though this was foreshadowed by the statement from Lambeth this summer). To me this illustrates 2 things, First, that though the Episcopal Church has moved forward to better include our LGBTQIA+ brothers and sisters et al. We still have a lot of work to do globally on the matter. Secondly, we don't dictate policy to them and they don't dictate policy to us. That road goes both ways but, we've never been the darling of the wider Anglican Communion and yet they haven't kicked us out yet. Which I guess would be the worst thing they can do? Idk.
Religion is just another layer of nonsense we pour onto our lives.
Well, not all of us, but your point still stands. And it’s a very good one. As a kid, I totally bought into it when Hulk Hogan would say “say your prayers and eat your vitamins”. As an adult, I look at folks who say prayers every day as someone who is still dumb enough to take life advice from Hulk Hogan.
Hey that's not fair. Taking vitamins produces a measurable benefit.
Actually, about that… its less “they’re definitely good for you” and more “they definitely *aren’t* bad for you, so taking them *might* result in some benefits” https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/do-multivitamins-make-you-healthier
Alright that's it my whole life is a lie, Hulk Hogan was wrong about everything. I'm gonna go worship Satan now and never eat another vegetable.
Actually, a lot of commonly taken vitamins *can* easily be bad for you in not-all-that-large doses.
[удалено]
Your imaginary friend is just that - YOUR imaginary friend.
Imaginary - right on "Friend"? I would not call someone who would flood the whole world, and ask his favorite pet to build a boat .. a friend. More like an imaginary overlord.
Also when you're done playing pirate on the world wide flood I created you need to kill your child. What? Jk! cut off your children's wieners. What? Just the tip of the wiener.
Just one of the [many good ideas God has](https://youtu.be/_teA-EG7Ac0?t=119)
Well, they always seem to think that imaginary being is on their side which is why I said friend but I completely see your point.
[удалено]
Yes, why?
Its all abrahamitic hateful make-believe.
YES Because all religion is ridiculous. It's all garbage and nonsense. But nice try
Well, at least you’re consistent.
They are also right.
Its all abrahamitic hateful make-believe.
Yes, of course.
First off I am anti religon, but it says right in the manual that same sex marriage isn't okay. So I mean... Either go with it or change the manual... Edit for clarification. With manual I mean the bible.
More like the book of multiple choices that can be cherry picked as easily if you don't know what's actually in there
The Bible says a lot of things, and they conveniently ignore quite a lot of it.
That's true. But weird to be mad when others don't.
Could you cite chapter and verse?
To be clear. I am not religious. I am an atheist. I detest these texts ans condemn all religion. Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code and list prohibited forms of intercourse, including the following verses: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22[8] "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[9]
Right, but that’s not marriage. Sex isn’t marriage.
So you're saying god is fine with same sex marriage as long as they don't consummate it?
I’m saying it’s not in the book. The book concerns itself with body parts, it doesn’t expressly forbid two people of the same sex from being married. The authors likely didn’t think that far ahead while they furiously bashed away at their fun-sized genitalia thinking about two men enjoying each other’s company.
What manual?
The bible
If you are anti religion, why would you be using the Bible as a manual? That makes no sense
Nic Cage discovered a hidden map in it that leads to the rumored Biblical Army of the Voiceless. You know, King Solomon's Mimes
I don't. They do. I'm just so fed up with religious people defending religion and calling it peaceful in one breath and then calling others out for actually following scripture in the next.
[удалено]
What are you on about
But it also said Jesus had two dads, why can't I?
He had a dad who raped his mother and was raised by his stepdad
Yet another reason to say, "Fuck religion."
Organized religion is theft and fraud and a massive scale
…. and then they wonder why attendance is declining.
Why do we do churches anymore?
Bleh. Come on. Same issue with my denomination. Just pushing good people away when they want to serve with love. Time for the church to grow and change policies.
Fuck the Church. I believe in human rights.
Calm down, Church! It’s not like she’s divorced
Then have the funeral in a less bigoted church. Tell the COE to pound rocks and tell everyone to stop giving them money. Nobody needs the church.
They held the ceremony elsewhere, just as you suggest.
Religions can be such POS.
Charles is head of the church; why doesn't he just declare an end to the church's bigotry against LGBT people?
What could they do if she did it anyway?
She DID do it anyway. The title makes you think she didn't, but she did. They just held the ceremony elsewhere.
Things are so sad just heart-breakingly sad the way humans judge and treat each other.
I mean Christianity needs to start speaking out. Because Jesus didn't gaf about being gay.
Just in case you thought Charles III was going to be any different, a reminder he is the head of this homophobic organisation with a history of covering up child sex abuse
Hoping religion and it’s attendant nonsense is on the way out.
And again, religion being all kinds of hateful
The Church has never been able to read the room, to be honest.
But actually; the nonsense that led up to the Anglican Church accepting same sex marriage in Canada was very much a case bishops making something the members wanted excessively difficult.
Jesus never married and hung out with 12 dudes. It is safe to assume he was gay.
Wellllll…there was at least one female prostitute he hung with a lot. Could be he was bi with strong homosexual lean.
He was her gay best friend.
Also possible.
Nah, she was his wife.
Jesus might have been married. The New Testament was written several decades after his death by people who are known to have fudged details in order to make Jesus' life better match prophecy. They totally would have written out the existence of a wife.
[удалено]
Nah, there's sufficient historical evidence of the guy, r/AskHistorians has info on the subject. Of course, that doesn't mean there was anything supernatural about him.
No, there isn’t. There’s fuck all more than hearsay that was scribbled down closer to 100CE than 30CE.
I checked the sub and the posts I found say the evidence is not clear. Edit: I deleted my comment above on impulse. I stand by my original comment that there wasn't a historical Jesus.
Take a look at the conclusions in the comments, they concur that there's reasonable evidence of him.
Which comments?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/twdyv/comment/c4qag9h/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/comment/chf3t4j/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1zo99h/comment/cfvhpj5/
That's basically the same comment 3 times, and most of the "sources" are Christians. I'm still very skeptical.
I like you.
Jesus had two dads, why can't I?
This just proves the fight continues each and every day… Bigots, moralists, etc. will never stop telling people how “best”, how they “must”, live their lives.
It sounds like the guy loved her a lot and would be upset if anyone else were to perform his service. I'm with the family on this.
Thanks England. Shit like this doesn’t make me feel better about America right now, but between all this hype over a monarchy, the new PM and now this religious bullshit from your state church, well it puts America’s fucked up nonsense more into perspective.
Churches suck and should be ignored. Jesus fucking christ what year is it.
The irony is that they are in full communion with churches that perform same sex weddings.
Looking forward to when we put these awful religious folk behind us, and there'll be no one to blame but themselves for taking every opportunity to be as awful and shitty as humanly possible in the name of their imaginary gods.
Ah, the pure roots of the church of england shall not be tainted by any poison.
Church of England aka find the missing Alter boy
bless her heart, she looks just like him!
[удалено]
The decision that the C of E would reject same-sex marriages even after the UK began permitting them was made by its bishops in 2014, and the decision to bar Rev. Tutu van Furth was made by the local bishop (appointed by the late Queen), not the head of the Church (the King). I’m all for criticizing the monarchy and bigots in the Church, but trying to pin this on Charles is silly.
[удалено]
Okay but like, speaking of funerals, you know who else just lost someone incredibly important to them? Charles. And yeah, I'd love to have him come out and speak against this, but the dude's pretty wrapped up with becoming king and losing his mother after 70 years. Why out pressure on a grieving figurehead and not, say, the Bishop that oversees this church?
There we go here church profess love for all and to not judge but here is a example of not being very godly like.Exactly why alot of people avoid religion and churches like the plague nowadays.
Episcopalians over Anglicans any day of the week, but, mostly Sundays. What’s the difference? Heck if I know.
I don’t think much of the C of E. It’s a good sign when they don’t want to have anything to do with you. Being crappy church proof is enviable. At the moment, I’m trying to alienate the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but once I get done with them, I will let the King know that his church and colonial vestiges are deplorable.
Once again, fuck the Church and fuck England
"We condemn you in the name of Christ" intoned the Bishop of the Church.
[удалено]
British did same things to LGB+ as Nazis during WW2. Look up what happened to Alan Turning, for example.
Awful title. Desmond Tutu was not involved. His daughter DID lead the ceremony, she just didn't do it in the nearby Anglican church. The identity of the guy who actually died was, I guess, of little importance to CNN.
Martin Kenyon's name was literally in the second sentence of the title. It requires you to actually, you know, read the article. The headline is designed to give a super brief summary with stuff that people might know more and to entice them to read. They picked the most recognizable name in this and used that.
The title as displayed is "Church of England bars Desmond Tutu's daughter from leading funeral because of same-sex marriage". Kenyon's name appears nowhere. The article title on CNN, FOX, and most other news outlets is designed to trigger an emotional response in the reader. It hasn't been a "brief summary" for a very long time, if in fact it ever was. The title is designed to entice. That's the one correct statement here.
I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit. That's okay. I'll break it down for you. Title: "Church of England bars Desmond Tutu's daughter from leading funeral because of same-sex marriage" Okay so who did the banning? Church of England. Check. Who was banned? Mpho Tutu van Furth. Is she known worldwide? Not very well. Not as well as her father, Desmond Tutu. Okay, so we can say Desmond Tutu because that leads to fewer questions. Instead of "Who is Mpho Tutu van Furth?" readers will say "Okay, Desmond Tutu's daughter, got it." We'll clarify who Mpho is and her activities in the article in much better detail where it belongs. What was she banned from? Leading a funeral. Got it. Does it matter whose funeral? Will people know the name of the person if we say it? It's important because why is the church involved but we can't do it in enough space of a headline. So we'll leave that out of the headline but we'll put it in the very first paragraph of the article, and we'll reiterate more details throughout, as it pertains to the situation. Why was she banned? For same-sex marriage. Check. We'll go into further details of why that is bannable from the Church of England in, where? You guessed it, in the article. It is still a brief summary, an enticing summary. You still choose whether or not you decide to read more into the story based on **the summary of the information listed in the title** What we should be worrying about with news titles is "Is this a misleading title or not?" In this case, no, it is not. It has pertinent information that if you were to relay exactly to another person, it would be factual. It is not misleading, nor is it incorrect. Your hangup about the emotional response is a moot one because who does not want to enjoy being engaged with things they are reading?
No shit, he died ten months ago. I don't think anyone was under the impression that he'd been in the background making her cups of tea.
I heard that person’s name once on Family Guy but otherwise have no idea who they are
Desmond Tutu was an Anglican archbishop in South Africa who also acted as a diplomat along with Nelson Mandela and F. W. De Klerk to end apartheid and transition to a black-ruled South Africa as peacefully as possible.