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.

Perhaps we are using the phrase 'mental gymnastics' differently. How about 'extreme wishful thinking and imaginative subtextual narrative creation' to describe the level of retconning required to make the Bible make sense as a divinely inspired text that should be the basis of a world religion, while not being aware that said retconning has taken place. Particularly once you start to study history of said book/s

Your prerogative, @JassyRadlett. But as I said upthread, it affects me in the sense it offers meaningful hope. Without that I might not even be here. Certainly outcomes would have been less positive. My son was said to have severe learning difficulties but now is at uni and looking forward to a career in research. I had stage 3 ( I think didn't pay a great deal of attention at the time and then a stage 2 reoccurrence) cancer a few years ago and am still here. Since then potential Lymes - hopefully caught in time. Shingles which again could've been nasty but wasn't. Tbh it's all up in the air.

I live by faith. Not much room for mental gymnastics. Does try to creep in but not as a result of the Bible. (More) Negative stuff has happened too. lot of close family bereavements (cancer mainly). The surprise from people I'm actually ok is where the gymnastics comes in. My DNA is probably not any protection!

The bible... is not sentient.

Ah... that's where our belief differs. 'Spirit and truth' ring any bells?

The other post should have said Jesus IS God, not was God!

We cannot eradicate what we are. Human. Imperfect. Conflicted. The Bible recognises this and offers hope.
@faretheewell I know what you're saying and agree with you.

@JassyRadlett I did answer you - none so blind as those who will not see springs to mind. I am well aware some of the gospel writers met Jesus (bit of an understatement). This makes Jesus' words as recorded in the New Testament all the more credible.

Aaand we're back to the divergence between the idea a divinely-inspired set of texts and the evidence that they actually were, based on both the content and the history.

You're able to make the mental leap! Good for you. The mental leap required was what finally destroyed my faith, and so I should be quite grateful for the absurdity.

And in any case, totally irrelevant if only the book itself and the beliefs of its adherents would become equally irrelevant to my life.

What atheist tenets or beliefs would you like to keep out of lawmaking and the offices of the state?

The Ellsberg paradox: the preference of a known risk over an unknown one, even though the outcome of the known risk may be less favourable than the known one.

Subtle, I know but meaningful for me. I feel the hunger for data a bit too pertinently.

I did answer you - none so blind as those who will not see springs to mind.

No. You're struggling with words here. You answered a question that wasn't asked, which was 'what might Jesus have thought about homosexuality based on what he said about other things.' That wasn't the question I asked. It's ok, I knew the answer anyway.

I am well aware some of the gospel writers met Jesus (bit of an understatement). This makes Jesus' words as recorded in the New Testament all the more credible.

So the words recorded by those writers who didn't meet him are less credible? Interesting approach.

I'm loving this thread. It's just full of answers to questions that people haven't asked.

(A is hint to the PP who suggested there was an atheist equivalent to removing Christianity's privileged position in the state - there are no atheist tenets or beliefs that you'd have to work to keep out of a fair, secular state. Because the only thing all atheists have in common is their lack of belief in any deities.)

(And perhaps you're just too subtle for my too-simple, also data-loving mind. Do feel free to enlighten. I'd be interested.)

Aaand we're back to the divergence between the idea a divinely-inspired set of texts and the evidence that they actually were, based on both the content and the history.

You talk as if the history is totally 'sewn up' and established as fact! I've come across nothing that conflicts with my faith! I've read the apocryphal texts and other contemporaries that were discovered. And hermetic texts, other 'origin' myths and stories. Just makes sense to me somehow.

This is getting tiresome now. If I'm struggling with words, you're twisting them. I did not say or imply that the other gospel writers had less credibility. I'm sorry you lost your faith, but don't try to pull others down with you.

(And perhaps you're just too subtle for my too-simple, also data-loving mind. Do feel free to enlighten. I'd be interested.)
Just that I am more than the sum of my data. More than the sum of other people's data also. But without God, data is all that is left.

No history is entirely sewn up, ever! That's part of the point of studying history.

I'm pleased for you. It didn't work out the same way for me. The more I learned, the less I was able to believe.

And back to the subject of the thread - the only reason I'm interested and engaging on this (apart from genuine historical interest, it's fascinating) is the fact that the Church of England does not exist separate from the lives of those of us who aren't followers; as the established church it maintains a unique (and to me, inappropriate) constitutional position that makes it all of our business.

(The issues around faith schools and in particular faith admissions of course go beyond the CofE but the CofE is the biggest beneficiary of state-funded faith education. And as long as taxpayers' money is being spent on faith schools in the state sector, all of us have a legitimate interest in the teachings of those faiths.)

And back to the subject of the thread - the only reason I'm interested and engaging on this (apart from genuine historical interest, it's fascinating) is the fact that the Church of England does not exist separate from the lives of those of us who aren't followers; as the established church it maintains a unique (and to me, inappropriate) constitutional position that makes it all of our business.

(The issues around faith schools and in particular faith admissions of course go beyond the CofE but the CofE is the biggest beneficiary of state-funded faith education. And as long as taxpayers' money is being spent on faith schools in the state sector, all of us have a legitimate interest in the teachings of those faiths.)

And do you really think atheism/secularism doesn't affect society? As I'm sure you will have argued upthread atheists form a large proportion of society. Why aren't you affecting people's hearts and minds?

This is getting tiresome now. If I'm struggling with words, you're twisting them. I did not say or imply that the other gospel writers had less credibility. I'm sorry you lost your faith, but don't try to pull others down with you.

I'm not! You made statements that I disagree with, in a public forum. I have zero belief that I could change anyones's faith. However, when things are stated as fact that are at best disputed, then it's not unreasonable to challenge them.

I'm sorry you felt I twisted your words. What did you actually mean when you said that the fact that some of them may have met Jesus made them more credible? More credible than who? I assumed you meant the other writers of the NT, and I apologise if I got that one wrong.

Atheism and secularism aren't the same thing. Why are you conflating them here? There are plenty of people of faith who are secularists.

I haven't argued anything of the sort upthread. That's an interesting assumption.

@JassyRadlett
Appreciate the apology. I just meant their general credibility, as in the texts weren't written down 500 years later by someone who knew someone who knew someone who heard of a bloke called Jesus Christ. These men had a close relationship with Jesus - travelled with him, heard his sermons, ate and drank with him and witnessed his miracles with their own eyes.

This unfortunately is quite a complex matter. The Church of England is also the Anglican Church across many other countries and cultures.

Those other countries congregations do count when making top-level policy decisions like these.

At individual church level, some are more Liberal than others, after all its a broad church made up of different local communities and congregations.

I think it is good Archbishop Justin Welby met with her. But, when will she meet with the Chief Rabbi or Imam, for talks.

They all know things are changing, but religion based on beliefs and written works can only ever change so slowly. Look, at how long it took us to get women priests. And it's sad to say some more old-fashioned/extra traditional members don't like. Whereas, at at least 8/10 don't care. In most churches all are welcome, there is no questionnaire at the door.

It is unfair to label all Christians as unkind.... we are all just individuals, some nicer or more generous with their time than others. We are no better or worse than anyone else, we make bad and good choices, have bad and good days and some even swear. Some are not so nice, but, we are all human.

But, most of us believe in God and Jesus Christ, and that faith keeps us going, even when the world seems against us.

“Some parts of the bible are pretty explicit in their meaning, homosexuality is one of those parts.“

Thats a cop out, lending money is one of the most explicit and people have managed to argue that into being ok, That isn’t the only place to mention modesty of women in the NT.

Atheism and secularism aren't the same thing. Why are you conflating them here? There are plenty of people of faith who are secularists.

Just that secular means nothing to do with religion/religious belief. As a Christian,I find it difficult to divorce any aspect of my life from my (Christian) beliefs.

I haven't argued anything of the sort upthread. That's an interesting assumption

Sorry it was an assumption, as I acknowledged. The assumption is that it follows in an argument the state should be secular in organisation if society is viewed as being largely secular.

@tabulahrasa
I don't see it as a cop out at all. You can't compare apples and oranges.
Could you note which other verses mention money lending and modesty?
I'll have to get back to you later.

Whilst the CofE/Anglican church drags its heels in this issue, other Christian denominations welcome same sex marriage. It's not beyond the realms of possibility to be Christian and Gay.

I'm an atheist, verging on the fundamentalist end. But I still believe in marriage as an institution and I get very pissed off when institutions exclude some people because of their sexuality, disability or race. That includes religious ones.

If the CofE still wants it's privileges then it should move with the mood of the country. Or it should be disestablished. I see no compromise on this issue. If God lives all his children, why are there Ts&Cs attached to lesbian, gay and bisexual Christians?

I think ST is absolutely using her celebrity for good. It's a free country, and she can say whatever she likes to bring focus to this issue. Good for her.

Because only the C of E is involved in passing laws that we all have to obey.

This.

Money lending isn’t just in a few passages , it’s one of the most explicit messages there are, it’s repeatedly multiple times in many different books throughout both testaments, it used to be that anyone lending money and charging interest couldn’t take sacrament and couldn’t have a Christian burial, Aquinas wrote about it, Luther wrote about it.

It’s why Jewish banks and bankers exist and are the reason Jews are expelled from countries... it’s not just mentioned in the bible, it’s fundamental.

Then slowly as we moved towards capitalism it’s a weaker and weaker message until the church goes, yeah, you know what, that’s not what all that meant at all, charging interest on loans is actually fine, Loan sharks obviously are bad, charity is good, but bankers are fine, a bit of profit doesn’t count actually.

It’s a massive u turn, much bigger than homosexuality would be.

There isn’t a special place in the House of Lords for atheist leaders to sit and pass laws based on their beliefs…