And only nineteen years into the 21st Century!
https://forward.com/fast-forward/429010/canadian-anglicans-will-stop-pra...
Scaries line in the story:
"A similar resolution had failed in 2016."
And only nineteen years into the 21st Century!
https://forward.com/fast-forward/429010/canadian-anglicans-will-stop-pra...
Scaries line in the story:
"A similar resolution had failed in 2016."
Former Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong on anti-Semitism:
I can try and track down more from Spong on this topic if people are interested.
Oh my bloody luck. Here I was, just about to open my heart and see and confess the Lord Jesus to be God's Son and my true Messiah. Now they pull the rug out - and I get no extra credits? WTF. Bunch of antisemites if you ask me.
You could try Harper's church.
Or a good NDP United Church - with similar politics to some of the local synagogues even...!
United Church of Canada Should Come Clean on Anti-Palestinian Accord
https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/08/united-church-of-canada-should-come-c...
"Toronto church Trinty St Paul's shameful suppression of a Palestinian youth cultural event highlights anti-Palestinian rot festering in the United Church of Canada. It ought to also shine a light on a little discussed anti-Palestinian accord UCC leaders signed with Israel lobby groups five decades ago..."
Just give unquestioning support to the govenment of Israel and you'll be fine.
Back in high school I had a good friend who was a Baptist. I remember them being quite fond of John, so much so that I called them "Johnists". Not big fans of the Gospel of Matthew, though.
Do you mean for things like John 3:16, which the fundamentalists generally take out of context?
I agree from personal experience that many Christians emphasize the Gospel of John, precisely because of the literalist interpretation that Spong describes in the interview. When I read the opening chapters, it reminds me of the creation myths that open the book of Genesis. I like to read those openings right beside each other at the same time.
Will they stop trying to convert everyone else, too? I have high hopes for a future where all religious solicitation is treated as discrimination against those who aren't part of the religion.
Only if Political and Social solicitation is lumped in with that
Still trying to get my head around the fact that as late as 2016, the AC of C couldn't get the votes to remove that prayer. At that late stage of the game, why would any Anglicans, a generally NON-zealous, not-at-all-religious extremist communion, still want to retain such a hateful set of words within their liturgical tradition?
Like so many other things typically Canadian, probably hadn't a fucking clue it was even there...
For the overwhelming majority of Christians, their theology dictates that anyone who doesn't share their religion is in for eternal torture. [i]Not[/i] trying to convert a group, then, in their minds, is like withholding a vaccine for a deadly disease. Sincere believers consider [i]that[/i] a hateful act. Christianity's tried to publicly make peace with Judaism since the Holocaust, but aside from the Unitarian Universalists, I don't think I've ever met a practicing Christian who believes Jews aren't going to hell, just like they believe I am.
The same thing could be achieved by offering a general prayer that anybody who isn't Christian might eventually be converted(on edit: I have no idea why I originally ended that sentence with the word "created").
As a Jew born and growing up in Canada... that's been my experience too. Besides Unitarian Universalists, I would include a significant section of United Church devotees I think. As for the rest - as I said, I agree with you.
I was raised United and I don’t recall any of that garbage. I went to a Lutheran school for grades 10 and 11 and I experienced massive culture shock. The religious judgement was very pronounced there and I found it offensive.
Before I resigned from the church we had a minister who used the word sin in her sermons and I found even that to be extreme.
My happiest day was telling the United Church to F••• off! I am ashamed of Christianity’s brutal history and I am ashamed to be associated with that religion.
But I do tend to agree with Unionist that the United Church sets itself apart as being more tolerant and accepting of other religions.
I was raised Catholic and was never taught that that non-Christians were going to Hell. I’ve rarely met a practising Christian who believes that, though I know there are many.
The Anglican Church in Canada No longer does missionary work.
Not knowing exactly how it played out, my guess is that some of the more established clergy who were higher up voted to keep that language on the basis of tradition and resistance to change that is typical of established institutions.
At the private school I went to which I mentioned earlier, I got into an argument with a Bible teacher who told me that only Christians go to heaven and that everyone else goes to hell. I asked him rather bemusedly what about people before Christ and he said that they went to hell as well.
It really scares me what some people think.
I do know, however, that seeing a sign on a kiosk in London which referenced that basic idea(posted directly above another sign which said "Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!" which prompted the British songwriter Leon Rosselson to create this athiest anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=EKR6xj-6RjA
@Aristotleded24
That sounds about right. Good the Anglicans finally did the right thing. Nobody with even a passing acquaintance with the history of the Abrahamic religions will be unaware of their darker aspects or 'believers' periodic violent animus towards others. It wasn't always 'do unto others' or 'love one another', by any means. And the 'good books' of all of them still contain things to make one's blood run cold.
Here's Pete Seeger doing Joe Hill's 'The Preacher and the Slave':
https://youtu.be/aIQpuKHHI-E
The UCC was also slightly ahead of the federal government(at that time Liberal, so supposedly leading the way on social progress) in regards to marriage equality...
In 2003, at the 37th General Council, commissioners affirmed that "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God and part of the marvellous diversity of creation." When later that year, courts in Ontario and British Columbia ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, church leadership called upon the government of Canada to extend these rulings across the country.[1][7]
https://tinyurl.com/y4jgd6o7
So why such an awful fail on the Palestinian file? (see #5)
Don't trinitarians consider Unitarians non-Christian?
The unicity of God is an important point among Muslims (perhaps Jews take it for granted?)
There are at least two meaning of the word "Unitarian".
Originally, it meant someone, like the theologian Arius, who rejected the Trinity. These days, that definition would include groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses. Many trinitarian Christians, indeed, do not regard them as Christian, even though these unitarian groups regard themselves as such.
However, more commonaly these days, it's used to mean the churches that explicity go by that name. They are mostly decended from the earlier unitarian Christians, but embrace and accept a wide variety of beliefs, including but not limited to Christianity, humanism, Buddhism, paganism, etc. Most traditionalist Christians would indeed not consider any of these people(including the Unitarian Christians) to be Christian, and for that matter, MOST of these Unitarians would not regard themselves as such.
I myself am a Unitarian Universalist of theistic beliefs. One observation I've heard about the faith is that it attracts people who have abandoned Christian belief, but are still attracted to the general structure of church worship. While I think there is a lot more to it than that, I can't say the formulation is entirely without resonance.
My God is the only God and He can beat the crap out of your God any day of the week.
Well Unionist that certainly does sound like the Old Testament God for sure. And the fig leaf justification for many a war in Ancient ( as well as more modern times)
No way. I think Allah wins on Fridays and Jehovah on Saturdays and Christ on Sundays. The rest of the days its the biggest baddest god takes the hindmost. Is that Buddha a secret sumo warrior and really who wants to argue with Lord Shiva about anything?
All other deities tremble in fear at the might of The Flying Spaghetti Monster!
That's actually a big misconception about the Bible that the God of the Hebrew Bible* is different than the God of the New Testament we see in Jesus. In truth, the tension between the angry, vengeful God and the loving, forgiving God is found throughout the entirety of the Bible. The best example in the Hebrew Bible I can think of is the God of the Israelites showing mercy on people the Israelites considered their enemies upon repentance. In the New Testament, you see a progression away from Jesus overturning the tables in the temples to the idea that the earthly authorities are established by God and should be respected.
*Out of respect for the Jewish faith, it is common practice in biblical scholarship to refer to what is commonly known as the Old Testament as the Hebrew Bible. That is the way that I have heard these texts introduced when I go to church for many years.
Oddly enough I have always heard of it referred to as the Old Testament both at University and at Church, though truthfully I have not set foot ina church for many many years
The proper term would be the Tanach, right?
Yes, exactly, thank you Ken.
Interesting. We've always referred to it as the "Right Testament", and the one where we picked Barabbas over Jesus as the "Wrong Testament".
I compare it to everybody who lived through the Great War saying to, some smug Yank, "what do you mean...'World War ONE'?".
I first heard about replacing "Old Testament" with "Hebrew Scriptures/Hebrew Bible" in the mid-1990s. We've used those replacements in the United Church since then, but I suspect that most churches still use the term "Old Testament."
If nothing else, they could switch to "Testament Classic".
In any case, I promised more material from Spong, and here it is:
Jesus did not die for your sins
Spong explains how the Jewish themes in the gospels were missed, and the gospels later misunderstood:
Tensions within Jewish community around the then-burgeoning Christian sect are reflected in the gospels:
More about how John's gospel has been used to justify anti-Semitism:
Was Judas Iscariot a real person or a literary creation?
Hmm thought provoking, Thanks
If you took that thought to its logical extreme, Mary, Joseph and the older Apostles, as well as John the Baptist, would all end up becoming metaphysical crispy critters, since they existed BEFORE Jesus.
(self-delete. dupe post).
Not just the logical extreme – mainstream Christian doctrine (including Anglican, no matter how softly they sell it these days) teaches that almost nobody got into heaven before Jesus opened the gates. (The theology varies by denomination as to whether they all went to hell or just became regular worm food.) That is, in fact, the big "selling point" of Christianity: ol' JC's suicide mission handing humanity a gift card to the premium lounge. Terms and conditions apply.
As I understand it, Catholic doctrine says there may well be no one in hell, it's perhaps a state of choosing separation from God rather than a real place. But this is words and talk by Catholics reflecting lived faith, not theology.