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.

@pointythings, there needs to be continued discussion which cannot happen by cutting people off.

I wouldn't say faith necessarily is a barrier. It depends where an individual's convictions lie and indeed whether they are convictions or an internalised version of other people's points of view.

Good job I'm not making these kind of decisions, eh?

Yes, I think we need hope. We all certainly need that.🙂

I’m not listening to his word soup again... other than to point out, that clip and the last one start by directly contradicting each other.

The problem is, god didn’t declare that homosexuality is a sin, people did, churches are people and people belonging to some churches are tying themselves in knots to prove that churches are right and not the bible.

@tabulahrasa
The problem is, god didn’t declare that homosexuality is a sin, people did

Only if you believe the Bible to be nothing more than a collective work of men driven by political motivations (which I don't).

I can't see anything contradictory in the video.

@Bruuuuhhhh that's basically the 'we must not change anything because God says so' argument that is used to justify all the evils that religions commit. (Please note this is not just aimed at Christianity, they're all at it).

Problem is nobody knows what God wants, so people just claim it's certain things. Man makes God in his own image, nastiness, selfishness, prejudice and all.

"Problem is nobody knows what God wants, so people just claim it's certain things. Man makes God in his own image, nastiness, selfishness, prejudice and all."

@pointythings, this hits hard! It's the way false Gods are created. Is God being served or self, love of money and power?

@pointythings
Problem is nobody knows what God wants, so people just claim it's certain things. Man makes God in his own image, nastiness, selfishness, prejudice and all.

You're naturally looking at it as somone who doesn't believe there is a God.
I think we do know what God wants, as demonstrated through the Bible, although admittedly it has been twisted by man throughout history to evil ends.

No, that’s not what I mean at all.

I mean, if you go back to the actual bible as the word of god and study it - it should be obvious that homosexuality isn’t a concern, for lots of reasons.

The big two are...

there’s no logical reason within it that the second commandment of the new covenant doesn’t apply to homosexuality - that’s just certain churches viewpoint.

If Paul meant homosexuality, he could have used completely clear existing words to say that, he didn’t, so it stands to reason that that is not in fact what was meant.

@echoesacrosstheether this is the problem. You'd think that since we cannot know what God wants, we'd work our backsides off to be the best human beings we can be. As someone who doesn't believe, this is what I try to do. But instead people judge, exclude, condemn, hate and oppress - in the name of their God and using their holy books as justification.

@Bruuuuhhhh my unbelief is just that - a belief. But if my other option is to believe in a deity who genuinely thinks it is OK to allow gay people to exist and then tell them that they cannot have the joys of love, sex and family, atheism is definitely the better moral option.

"this is the problem. You'd think that since we cannot know what God wants, we'd work our backsides off to be the best human beings we can be. As someone who doesn't believe, this is what I try to do. But instead people judge, exclude, condemn, hate and oppress - in the name of their God and using their holy books as justification."

@pointythings but then people's view of what 'the best' will differ. People have different socialisations, cultures and differing physiological drivers. And working for it? In one sense yes but working (too hard) can also inhibit if we want to act in a way which feels genuine.

In my view Christian faith isn't a done deal at the outset. If it were there would be no growth. The faith is interactive on an individual as well as a group level. Interaction with the text, worship on a multi sensory level and other people, in the present and those throughout history. From there we get a 'knowing' but it's not always one that can be immediately or easily verbalised.

@pointythings
Jesus was sinless, he said that if possible it's better to be able to control lusts and focus on serving God. Christians are called to "put to death the deeds of the body" and live in self control.
There are others who lead by example and remained celebate.

“Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Matthew chapter 19 verses 11 to 12.

"But instead people judge, exclude, condemn, hate and oppress - in the name of their God and using their holy books as justification."

@pointythings

People don't need the name of a god to do this!

Not discriminating against gay people is not a whim.

@tabulahrasa It isn't obvious though, that's the problem. My "obvious" is the complete opposite to yours. I'm sorry, but I find your over simplified conclusion doesn't really hold water as an argument.

It is obvious if you go back to the bible as a primary source and not the church.

Which ironically enough you’d think more Protestants would want to do.

@echoesacrosstheether I agree that people don't need holy books as a justification for being awful to each other, but they're so convenient. Other 'coathooks' for intolerance also exist - skin colour, nationality and gender spring to mind. I do still believe that people are mostly good, but I also believe they are easily indoctrinated into hate and bigotry.

I agree that people's view of what is best differs, but it also evolves - it's in change and evolution that the hope lies. Getting there is going to be a complex business.

@Bruuuuhhhh you see, this quote from the Bible only reinforces what I said earlier. What's the point of giving us bodies that allow us to have children, enjoy all manner of pleasures and freedoms and then tell us not to use them? That smacks of sadism to me. It's along the lines of 'Don't eat the fruit of that tree, just because I told you so'. It paints the Creator as a petty tyrant. And then he and his followers brainwash us into believing that this is actually a Good Thing which makes you a better person who is closer to God. Naaaah, not ever buying that one.

'Don't eat the fruit of that tree, just because I told you so'. It paints the Creator as a petty tyrant. And then he and his followers brainwash us into believing that this is actually a Good Thing which makes you a better person who is closer to God. Naaaah, not ever buying that one.'

@pointythings, you see I find it rather beautiful. If you have unity with the creator where is the need for knowledge? You already have access to it all! Can act intuitively, instinctively in harmony connected with everything in existence. Like one big organism. That's being truly free! Then to eat of the fruit and break unity, get big brains (too big for a painless childbirth) knowledge of good and evil (with all that inevitable internal conflict) and have to work hard for everything,

@echoesacrosstheether we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I see our ability to use our brains, to grow and to develop as beautiful. Creating a being that will in effect remain childlike forever, locked into unquestioning obedience, bypasses the whole point of creating sentient life in the first place. You might as well not bother with humans and stop at sheep.

"Creating a being that will in effect remain childlike forever, locked into unquestioning obedience, bypasses the whole point of creating sentient life in the first place. You might as well not bother with humans and stop at sheep."

@pointythings
But the being wouldn't be childlike if in complete unity with the creator. In that unity they would have all knowledge. And act in unity with it in harmony with everything else. Is it obedience if in complete unity or acting as one- with the same desires, interests and motivations?

Tree's don't have a brain structure as we know it, yet they interact with families of their own kind and other species. They will keep alive an elder which has lost the ability of life independently by feeding their roots into that tree. They have even been shown to recognise colour.

Sentience comes in lots of different forms.

I’m just going to take the opportunity to point out that sheep aren’t obedient, they’re ornery little bastards.

No clue how anyone ever decided sheep should be used as a synonym for blindly following tbh.

😁

@echoesacrosstheether then God should have stopped at trees. Deliberately setting your creation up to fail is wrong. If you do it as a parent of an actual child, it's rightly called abusive.

@tabulahrasa you're quite right about sheep. I once lived on a farm that had Soays. Fabulous critters, but definitely not obedient. The sheepdogs couldn't do a damn thing with them.

I don't think we are set up to fail @pointythings.

"Deliberately setting your creation up to fail is wrong. If you do it as a parent of an actual child, it's rightly called abusive."

@pointythings

If we were set up to fail that would mean it would be it wrong to have children, wouldn't it? I don't believe it is.

The whole setup with the fruit on the tree was setting Adam and Eve up to fail. He should have been honest with them about what eating the fruit would do and then allow them to exercise their free will, making an informed choice. Valid, informed consent. If we can do our utmost to embed that in our medical practice and sexual mores, the least the all-powerful Creator can do is set the example. He got this one massively wrong - which is why I do not believe God exists. No all knowing, all powerful, all loving entity would do such a thing.

"He should have been honest with them about what eating the fruit would do and then allow them to exercise their free will, making an informed choice."

It was somewhat obvious that by going against the creator's wishes we split unity. We already had all knowledge in that unity. We had freedom in that we could split that unity.

Valid, informed consent. If we can do our utmost to embed that in our medical practice and sexual mores, the least the all-powerful Creator can do is set the example

Informed? With access to all the available knowledge as an independent individual we still can't be truly informed without knowing the future. How much information do you need? How much can one person (designed for unity) absorb? How much does selfish motive affect this?