Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Archbishop aims rebuke at bishops

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 19 February 2007
THE Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday gently rebuked those whose wrangling over gay clergy threatens the Anglican church.
"There was a great saint who said God was evident when bishops were silent," Dr Rowan Williams told a congregation in Zanzibar, to some laughter.

The full article contains 47 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

19/02/2007 04:36:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

,

19/02/2007 07:20:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 381348, Article id was mapped to record!
3

entropent,

19/02/2007 10:13:12

The problem with the Archbishop of Canterbury is that he is busy "gently rebuking" "to some laughter" while the Episcopal Church is in its death throes. What a lack of leadership. I believe it was the bishop of Nigeria (?) who pointed out that the road to Jerusalem doesn't necessarily have to go through Canterbury. Get relevant, Rowan!

4

entropent,

19/02/2007 10:15:35

Archbishop of Nigeria, sorry.

5

lisa,

perth 19/02/2007 14:02:24

Maybe its just me but I could never accept criticism from someone who wears such a ridiculous hat.

Besides, who needs all these clothes? It's hard enough to get through the eye of a needle these days in just your bra and pants.

Try it, your grace.

6

Finnking,

Finland 19/02/2007 14:29:18

5 Lisa: As the Big Yin pointed out: "Never trust a man who can sit in a room, all alone, with a tea-cosy and not try it on."

Or Rowan Atkinson (?): "God hates poofs!"

7

Kdv,

19/02/2007 17:13:48

2. Media 1
Shame on you for leaving such a comment and we wonder why we have homophobia.

8

Media 1,

cape town 19/02/2007 17:21:50

#7 KDV: I am a supporter of gay marriages and gay adoption, there is nothing homophobic about me...If your gay then thats your choice and who am I to tell you different.

I was just saying that I find it strange how the church are always at loggerheads surrounding anything gay when their saviour and his 12 man friends were also clearly gay.

9

Marie1,

19/02/2007 18:01:36

Media 1
You sound like a homosexual fascist your views are well out of order.

10

wicked_grey,

Miami, Fl 19/02/2007 18:16:15

If God created everything, he must have created homosexuality as well. Why would he create something that he considers an abomination? For the sake of argument, let's say that there is a God and that he is as the major religions represent him. Is it possible that humans added in their own intolerance to their sacred books? Perhaps God does not care at all what we do in our bedrooms, so long as it is consensual...

"Any kind of love is allright." -XTC- Ballad of Peter Pumpkinhead.

11

Maximus,

Glasgow 19/02/2007 19:41:14

#10.

Yes, God did create everything. But notice how He created Man and Woman, then came the fall. When did homosexuality occur?

The intolerance toward homosexuality is toward it's practice not the homosexuals themselves. The reason is simple - how can homosexuality without artificial aid become fruitful?

I admit, the church has always struggled with the pratice of embracing the sinner without encouraging the sin, but it's teaching is clear.

12

Em,

19/02/2007 21:53:43

10.wicked_grey

I think you are a bit misguided in saying
"If God created everything, he must have created homosexuality as well."

God created man and woman and gave them free will, it is then up to man and woman what they do with there free will, weather that be to live the life that God has taught us to, or go against his teachings and live life in a sinful manner.

13

maestra,

19/02/2007 23:21:28

#8 - Hey Media - it's not a choice, anymore than you 'choose' to be het (if indeed you are).

#10 - There's an awful lot of heterosexuality that isn't fruitful.

And God sure isn't the church...

14

Em,

19/02/2007 23:34:38

Horrible Cankers,

You said, "who's to say he got it right", well with the same reasoning, who's to say he got it wrong?

I believe that life is a test in which our strengths are tested and weaknesses revealed in the face of adversity.

The failures in this world are down to humanity and the choices we make, not God. As I said before, free will allows us to make these choices, the outcome of which manifests itself in the world in which we live.

15

wicked_grey,

Miami, Fl 20/02/2007 04:07:34

Maximus, #11,

"Yes, God did create everything. But notice how He created Man and Woman, then came the fall. When did homosexuality occur?"

He must have created humans with flaws then. He could have chosen to make us flawless. A perfect being can still have free will, after all. God, the Judeo-Christian one anyhow, is supposed to be all good, all knowing, and all powerful. With all that going for him, he chose to create creatures that can lust after their own gender. If he didn't want that, he could just have created us all heterosexually...

"The intolerance toward homosexuality is toward it's practice not the homosexuals themselves. The reason is simple - how can homosexuality without artificial aid become fruitful?"

I'm a married heterosexual. That said, my wife and I have chosen not to have children. Is this immoral on our part?

16

wicked_grey,

Miami, Fl 20/02/2007 04:14:27

Em, #12,

"God created man and woman and gave them free will, it is then up to man and woman what they do with there free will, weather that be to live the life that God has taught us to, or go against his teachings and live life in a sinful manner."

God could have made us flawless and with free will. There are plenty of good people out there that make choices every day... Why did he have to make child molesters? Why does he let his creations do terrible things to each other?

Here's an analogy to clarify my stance:

Imagine that we are living in a time when we can genetically engineer our children before they are born. Would you want a flawed child or a 'perfect' one? Further, imagine that you have more than one child. Child1 finds where you hide your gun, and points it at child2 with the intent to kill. Do you stop child1 from killing child2? Or do you let it happen? If you let it happen, isn't the fault with you?

If there is a God and he is as represented in the Bible, then is he not more guilty than any of his creations for letting them commit so many atrocities against each other?

17

Mines an 80 bob,

Edinburgh 20/02/2007 04:15:48

Something's just weren't meant to be put in the dumpster....

18

Em,

20/02/2007 12:39:26

17. wicked_grey,

You say "God could have made us flawless and with free will."

But the thing is, free will allows us to choose to be flawless or not, we can choose to commit sin and act against our conscience. If God were to intervene each time a person was to act in a flawed manner in order to prevent them from commiting sin this intervention would in effect remove free will from humanity.

As I said before life is a test, what would be the point in taking a test where all the correct answers are already filled in for us, because if this was the case then for what purpose would life serve?

19

wicked_grey,

Miami, Fl 20/02/2007 15:32:20

Em, #19,

"If God were to intervene each time a person was to act in a flawed manner in order to prevent them from commiting sin this intervention would in effect remove free will from humanity."

I agree with you there. If I were a parent and I hovered over my children constantly, that wouldn't be effective parenting either. However, if one of my kids were systematically eradicating my other kids, I'd still have to step in.

But take a sin like envy for example. Why make us with the ability to be envious in the first place? God would have to have wanted us to have that ability. The reason I don't like the free will argument is that if He wanted us to truly have free will, why not create even more options for us? If just being good is not enough, he might have made more options for us than good and evil.

20

Em,

20/02/2007 19:12:27

21. wicked_grey

Good and evil are just the two opposing ends of the spectrum in which many options fit, things such as envy, slothfulness and selfishness would come nearer the evil side, while others such as selflessness, love and compassion would be nearer the good side, but each case would be judged on it's own merits.

You are correct when you say
"But take a sin like envy for example. Why make us with the ability to be envious in the first place? God would have to have wanted us to have that ability."

God did want us to have the ability to be envious, this does not mean that God would prefer us to be envious, but simply that all of the options are open to us and we make the right choice, afterall, if we did not have the ability to be bad then we would also not have the choice to be good because good would be the only way and therefor would not be a genuine choice from the heart.
For example, a child could be made by his parents to share his sweets with his brother, while another child chooses to share his sweets without being encouraged or forced to do so by there parents. The second is a genuine choice that comes from the heart.

Regarding what you said, that mankind should have more options other than good and evil, as I said before these are just the two opposite ends of the spectrum into which everything else fits and as it is mankind has a hard enough time just trying to be good with all the temptation in the world, perhaps in this life good is the peak of mans capabilities, perhaps if we make the most out of being good in this life other options will be opened up for us that go beyond our current spectrum of abbilities.

21

wicked_grey,

Miami, Fl 20/02/2007 20:32:58

Em, #21,

Yours is a good argument. I am still not utterly convinced, since our 'spectrum' of choices could have been from 'really good' to 'not-as-good-but-still-not-evil.'
I still can't believe that an all good God could stand by the Holocaust, Darfur, etc...
I did, however, once come across a very good argument for the problem of evil in the world, which I will share with you. I unfortunately don't remember who came up with it, but here's the gist of it. If a painter used only so-called 'beautiful' colors, his/her painting as a whole would not be beautiful. He/she must incorporate so-called 'ugly' colors into the painting to make it beautiful.
The philosopher then makes the connection of God being the painter, evil being the ugly colors, and good being the beautiful colors. God can stand back and admire the work, which from His vantage looks beautiful. In our limited scope, we only see the patch we're in (hopefully a beautiful one!)


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Anglican Church

More Anglican Church >>

More Gay and Lesbian issues

More Gay and Lesbian issues >>

Web Links:

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.