Why is Sandi Toksvig so interested in the C of E?

[Sausagenbacon]

and why does Justin Welby bother with her?

www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/26/sandi-toksvig-laments-untenable-church-of-england-stance-on-gay-marriage

She's not a christian, but feels entitled to have a chummy chat with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is wet enough to indulge her.

I'm not particularly invested in the subject, and I am an Anglican, but I do think there is something frankly, pitiful about it.

I expect an article in next week's Guardian with a sad-faced Sandy talking about how the local Mosque/Synagogue won't marry her and her partner, and how 'unsafe' she now feels. Or not.

What's a 'gay lifestyle'? I feel like I'm missing out on something.

I know, right? I'm not even gay, but my kids are. From what I can see, it means 'going to uni/working, enjoying life with friends, volunteering, museums/poetry/music/theatre, and oh, sleeping with someone the same sex'. So very like my lifestyle except I'm happily single and staying that way.

@pointythings @Catinabeanbag don't forget The Gay Agenda, too 🕵🏻‍♀️🕵‍♂️

So the video promoting conversion therapy is still up, but my comment pointing out that conversion therapy is sick isn't?

It's a meaningless term that honophobic counts like to use.

@AnorLondo I'd wear that deletion with pride. Shows a lack of any valid argument refuting your very valid point.

@Marths agreed, 'gay lifestyle' is a dogwhistle term for 'being gay is a choice therefore it's OK to vilify gay people'.

According to my DC, the gay agenda is like the agenda for a meeting but with multiple pauses for snacks. I like this concept. (Of course if one is a homophobe, 'the gay agenda' is a dastardly plot by gay people to convert people to 'the gay' because as we all know, gay people never have children and are never born to straight couples/ Which would be hilarious if it weren't so awful).

Hey, @HandyLady, you never clarified which version of the Bible you think hasn't changed since it was first written down?

(Not that we have the original sources anyway so couldn't possibly know. We'll put that to one side for now.)

It’s always that verse from Romans because there’s only that and Corinthians (well and Timothy, but that’s quoting Paul) to support that viewpoint in the New Testament... and both contain words Paul literally invented and are in fact the very opposite of being clear, but that’s all there is, so without that people would have to accept that it’s not actually in the new testament at all.

It’s always that verse from Romans because there’s only that and Corinthians (well and Timothy, but that’s quoting Paul) to support that viewpoint in the New Testament... and both contain words Paul literally invented and are in fact the very opposite of being clear, but that’s all there is, so without that people would have to accept that it’s not actually in the new testament at all.

And then they would have to look themselves in the eye and ask themselves why they want it to be in the New Testament. But that kind of 'Christian' doesn't do self-examination.

@tabulahrasa
It is if you include all the verses relating to sexual immorality, like Ephesians 5:3 . Then there's 1 Corinthians 7 about marriage and so on.

@HandyLady

Are you in the UK? I was under the impression that all that 'pray-away-the-gay' shite was fast dying out, and hopefully will be banned eventually.

Which say nothing at all about homosexuality.

Without Paul’s 2 unclear words it literally isn’t mentioned.

@Bruuuuhhhh the problem is that sexual immorality is pretty much in the eye of the beholder, unless you believe that sex should only happen between two married people of the opposite sex. Of course everyone is entitled to hold that belief, but they are not entitled to apply it to people other than themselves. We've seen what happens when you bring those beliefs into legislation: it plays itself out in Iran, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia - the list is endless. Those are Islamic countries, but the motivation is the same: oppression. In countries where sexual interactions between consenting adults are policed in that way, what you get is the oppression of females and their sexuality while men usually get of scot free or with lessed punishments.

That's why we need secular laws - they keep people a great deal safer than religious ones.

@tabulahrasa That's because it comes under the umbrella term of "sexual immorality" ie any sexual activity outside of the marriage bed.
Besides, you can't deny it is referenced in the Old Testament, which remains relevant as I explained up thread.

It is definitely in the Old Testament... but that takes you back to, so are lots of things that are no longer considered part of Christianity, what you should eat, what should be grown, slavery and so on... it’s no more integral than any of those.

@pointythings I do believe that yes. I don't think it should be legislated against in that way. However, the fact is that at the moment secular laws are dictating what happens within the church not the other way around.

@tabulahrasa It is for several reasons, as I've already been through.

How?

@Bruuuuhhhh this is why I would favour moving to the Dutch approach - you aren't considered married without a civil marriage. The religious one actually doesn't matter in the legal sense. However, I do feel that churches should be scrutinised and criticised for not adapting their stance to the time we all live in. The argument that a thing is 'traditional' just doesn't hold water any more - if it did, we would still have slavery, women would not have the vote, rape in marriage would still be legal. Just because something has always been a certain way that does not make it right or even socially acceptable. And that is why C of E clergy should not be permitted seats in the HoL.

@pointythings Let's just scrap the HOL already, it's rotton to the core anyway, no complaints here. The other things you mentioned weren't in place because of Christianity, though I'm sure you'll argue differently.

That’s why slavery was on my list...

Funnily enough, it’s mentioned more in the New Testament than homosexuality even if you accept Paul’s dodgy two words.

@Bruuuuhhhh I'm broadly in favour of scrapping the HoL, but not until we have got rid of FPTP. Right now the Lords are the saner of the two chambers.

I'm absolutely not saying that Christianity is responsible for the now-abandoned 'traditions' I mentioned above. The point I was making is that doing something just because you've always done it and in that way leads to stagnation and corruption, and that no movement, religious or secular, should be exempt from scrutiny, criticism and necessary change. Equal rights for LGBT people are necessary change and we have a looooong way to go in that area.

I don't think that anyone rational can argue that in the world we live in right now, religion is used as a tool of oppression, which primarily falls on women. In the Middle East that tool is Islam, in places like Poland and the US as well as in some African nations, it's Christianity. In Israel it's Judaism. No religion is immune from this.

@pointythings, I think you make a valid point regarding stagnation, corruption and oppression due to traditions.

However, to convince the wider church I think there discussion over the biblical basis for church rulings. If these arguments are coming from atheists based on societal norms there will always be the underlying truth that there isn't the same level of care over what is could be considered 'Godly' from people who don't believe in God.
And let's face it societal norms can really change in a very short space of time. Look at how quickly the trans movement has taken hold which potentially could change dramatically how a woman (or man) is defined with far reaching consequences.

It's not straightforward because agnostics and non believers need to be made welcome in churches if they are ever to consider a Christian point of view.

I very much think dialogue needs to continue between the wider global church but taking Welby's reasoning into consideration over the consequences don't know where that would leave the church here.

@echoesacrosstheether so the question is how do we get believers to question their long held traditions, go back to the Bible and access scholarly sources that support alternate interpretations. It's a big ask, and faith is going to be a barrier to many, not a conduit.

I do have hope that it's possible, because as mentioned above I know there are progressive movements in all the major faiths, and I have friends across the faith spectrum who are thoughtful and insightful people not mired in tradition.

@tabulahrasa I'll bring back Dr Bernard on the slavery issue -

@pointythings God is the same yesterday, today and forever, we must not change what God has declared to suit the whims of our current society.