Gay rights debate triggers record flight from church

[Smoke]

YLE gay rights debate triggers record flight from church

A televised debate over gay rights has prompted a record number of people to leave the Finnish Evangelical-Lutheran church over a 24-hour period, Vata, an association with links to the Freethinkers, said in a statement Thursday.

The association runs an internet-based service, eroakirkosta.fi, that provides an easy way for church members to leave the church.

Vata added that 2,633 people had logged their resignation on Wednesday, beating the previous 24-hour record by 1,500.

Thursday's tally was higher than the number recorded throughout July.

Heikki Orsila, a spokesman for eroakirkosta.fi, attributed the record to the Finnish Broadcasting Company's live gay rights debate, aired Tuesday evening.
​

According to Eroa kirkosta, 2633 people resigned from the church on Wednesday, 2032 resigned on Thursday, and 3473 resigned on Friday. The usual 3-day total for this time of year is 400.

Good for the Finns!

 

[jonman122]

8000 people in 3 days, impressive. i guess people are starting to generally accept same-sex couples, maybe the world isn't becoming such a terrible place after all.

 

[Meow Mix]

Maybe because I'm a few double whiskeys deep, but why did they leave? I never got an indication of whether the church was supporting or rejecting LGBT equality. Oh, unless there was a link... I bet tehre was and I didn't click it. I blame knob creek.

Edit: yep there was a link. Carry on

 

[Smoke]

Maybe because I'm a few double whiskeys deep, but why did they leave? I never got an indication of whether the church was supporting or rejecting LGBT equality.

According to a report here, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland's

12 bishops decided in February to recommend against instituting any formula for a church blessing on same-sex unions. In May, the bishops plan to propose a resolution to the Synod that would authorize prayers for couples in same-sex unions, according to the news report. The chairman predicts that several people will leave the church if the Synod decides to ban even holding prayers for same-sex couples.​

 

[Wessexman]

I wish such people, and similar types, would leave the Church of England.

 

[Smoke]

From here:

Earlier in the week Archbishop Kari Mäkinen said on a current affairs programme on YLE television that it would be appropriate to guarantee officially registered couples of the same gender the same legal rights as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples without changing the concept of marriage.

“In the summer there was so much confrontation over the issue. These statements will possibly ease fears that emerged at that time. Now we will perhaps move toward a more civilised type of debate, talking about the marriage law, without going into fear-mongering in politics”, Hannula says.

A majority of Finns were found to support equal rights for homosexual and heterosexuals, according to a poll released by the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE) on Saturday.

The survey, by the polling organisation Taloustutkimus found that 54 per cent of Finns are in favour of a gender-neutral law on marriage, which would give all married couples the same rights, without regard to gender.​

I took the story to mean that people were leaving the church because they didn't like the church's opposition to same-sex marriage. But I guess some could just as well have been because the church favors registered partnerships, although Finland has had registered partnerships since 2002.

 

[Meow Mix]

I wish such people, and similar types, would leave the Church of England.

Which ones? Those who support LGBT equality or those who oppose it?

And why do you wish that, whichever way it is you're wishing?

 

[Wessexman]

Basically modernists of any sort, I'm not even wild about the more extravagant sort of Calvinists, but yes those who support homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality.

One of the main reason I wish this is it contrary to traditional Christian thought and practice and I have never seen any of its modern, Christian supporters give any sort of argument in terms of traditional Christian doctrine, theology and metaphysics to support it. Indeed they all seem to in fact argue for it in ways grounded in the modern mindset that is opposed to this traditional Christian way of thinking.

 

[Midnight Pete]

All this is a sign of death, rebirth, and renewal inside the Christian church which is a good thing IMO. The church is responding to her environment. I wonder how it will look after this round of renewal is over. Some things have to die and be born again before they can improve. Gay, lesbian, and transgender clergy could make for a very interesting future ... But I think the Vatican must survive in some form or else the church as a whole will be critically destabilized.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Basically modernists of any sort, I'm not even wild about the more extravagant sort of Calvinists, but yes those who support homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality.

One of the main reason I wish this is it contrary to traditional Christian thought and practice and I have never seen any of its modern, Christian supporters give any sort of argument in terms of traditional Christian doctrine, theology and metaphysics to support it. Indeed they all seem to in fact argue for it in ways grounded in the modern mindset that is opposed to this traditional Christian way of thinking.

With all due respect, it seems to me that Christ's most urgent instruction to mankind--as a matter of fact it was a message so central to his life and his teachings that he said all the laws and all the prophets hang upon these particular commandments--was that we should love God with all our heart, and that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

Loving God and treating people the way we'd want to be treated. To me, these seem to be the most 'traditional' aspects of Christian thought and action.

I certainly don't visit this forum to proselytize nor do I even expect to change anybody's own particular way of thinking. But I am curious to learn myself, how do you justify a point of view that claims homosexuals should NOT be treated as equals to heterosexuals, that they should NOT be treated as you yourself would want to be treated, when that seems to be the very central and most traditional message of Christ's teachings--one of two commandments that Christ himself claimed all the laws and all the prophets hang upon?

 

[Wessexman]

The most central thesis of Christianity is that God became man that man became God. Loving God and loving Man does not necessarily mean loving all the acts of man, hence Christ said the laws of the prophets hang upon these commandments, they are a reflection of these commandments then, so one cannot say that he was suggesting their commandments were incorrect.

What he is suggesting at its core is the esoteric position that it is the inner virtues, our being, that matters more than our actions and that those who are capable acting directly cultivating these virtues need not pay attention to moral commandments. However this does not mean that Christ is rejecting moral actions, or suggesting we should give in to mere sentimentality, indeed to act according to our inner virtues alone is more strenuous than simply following external commandments.

 

[Eliot Wild]

The most central thesis of Christianity is that God became man that man became God.

Why do you believe that? Why do you think the most central 'thesis' of Christianity is that 'God became man that man became God'? Why do you believe this to be more central to Christianity than the teachings of Christ that I previously mentioned?

Loving God and loving Man does not necessarily mean loving all the acts of man, hence Christ said the laws of the prophets hang upon these commandments, they are a reflection of these commandments then, so one cannot say that he was suggesting their commandments were incorrect.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I understand that one does not have to love sin, those acts of man that run afoul of Christ-like behavior, to love the sinner. But you completely lost me with the 'reflection' thing. And I don't know what you mean when you write about 'suggesting their commandments were incorrect'.

I'm not suggesting that Jesus claimed all the laws of the prophets were incorrect, if that's what you mean. I am asking what law do you believe overrides Jesus's instruction to treat homosexuals the same as heterosexuals, in exactly the same manner as you yourself would want to be treated?

It seems to me that Jesus was very clear when he said we are to, above all else, love God and love everyone the same. We are instructed to explicity love others as we love ourselves, to treat others as we ourselves would want to be treated.

If we adhere to this instruction, how can we possibly ostracize others? How can we not treat sinners as equals, regardless of their sin?

What he is suggesting at its core is the esoteric position that it is the inner virtues, our being, that matters more than our actions and that those who are capable acting directly cultivating these virtues need not pay attention to moral commandments. However this does not mean that Christ is rejecting moral actions, or suggesting we should give in to mere sentimentality, indeed to act according to our inner virtues alone is more strenuous than simply following external commandments

Granted. I believe I get what you're saying. People shouldn't sin. And if you believe that means people shouldn't be gay, I undertand. I disagree with you, but I understand.

We should strive to cultivate virtues. We should not give in to mere sentimentality, and we should act according to our own inner virtues.

I agree.

But is it a virtue to treat people differently because of their sin? As a matter of fact, would Jesus have even needed to instruct us in this regard if we weren't supposed to accept those with whom we are diametrically opposed on matters of virtue? Do we need to be told to treat others equally if they already think and behave just as we do?

 

[Wessexman]

Why do you believe that? Why do you think the most central 'thesis' of Christianity is that 'God became man that man became God'? Why do you believe this to be more central to Christianity than the teachings of Christ that I previously mentioned?

Because it is at the heart of traditional Christianity, the phrase goes bacn to St Irenaeus of Lyon in the 2nd century. No offense but I'm unsure though how profitable a deep debate on Christian theological issues will be with an agnostic not deeply read in these issues. This at least has been my past experience. In fact they are rather ironically close in their arguments to fundamentalists(though I do consider fundamentalism to be modernist.) in many ways, in the sense they look to a very literal reading simply of the NT whereas traditional Christian is also reliant on Patristic authority, sacred tradition, councilar authority and so forth.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I understand that one does not have to love sin, those acts of man that run afoul of Christ-like behavior, to love the sinner. But you completely lost me with the 'reflection' thing. And I don't know what you mean when you write about 'suggesting their commandments were incorrect'.

I'm not suggesting that Jesus claimed all the laws of the prophets were incorrect, if that's what you mean. I am asking what law do you believe overrides Jesus's instruction to treat homosexuals the same as heterosexuals, in exactly the same manner as you yourself would want to be treated?

It seems to me that Jesus was very clear when he said we are to, above all else, love God and love everyone the same. We are instructed to explicity love others as we love ourselves, to treat others as we ourselves would want to be treated.

If we adhere to this instruction, how can we possibly ostracize others? How can we not treat sinners as equals, regardless of their sin?

I had thought we were disputing over whether it was a sin or not. I do not think one should be offensive to homosexuals or anything like that.

Granted. I believe I get what you're saying. People shouldn't sin. And if you believe that means people shouldn't be gay, I undertand. I disagree with you, but I understand.

We should strive to cultivate virtues. We should not give in to mere sentimentality, and we should act according to our own inner virtues.

I agree.

But is it a virtue to treat people differently because of their sin? As a matter of fact, would Jesus have even needed to instruct us in this regard if we weren't supposed to accept those with whom we are diametrically opposed on matters of virtue? Do we need to be told to treat others equally if they already think and behave just as we do?

Virtue here is meant, to put it briefly, ontologically. The Intellect discerns and unites with the virtue and the will actualises it. What Christ is saying is that one should be virtuous rather than simply act according the commandments. To love God is to love virtue, and infinitely more of course, and to love humanity is to love them because they are a reflection of God.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Because it is at the heart of traditional Christianity, the phrase goes bacn to St Irenaeus of Lyon in the 2nd century. No offense but I'm unsure though how profitable a deep debate on Christian theological issues will be with an agnostic not deeply read in these issues. This at least has been my past experience. In fact they are rather ironically close in their arguments to fundamentalists(though I do consider fundamentalism to be modernist.) in many ways, in the sense they look to a very literal reading simply of the NT whereas traditional Christian is also reliant on Patristic authority, sacred tradition, councilar authority and so forth.


I had thought we were disputing over whether it was a sin or not. I do not think one should be offensive to homosexuals or anything like that.




Virtue here is meant, to put it briefly, ontologically. The Intellect discerns and unites with the virtue and the will actualises it. What Christ is saying is that one should be virtuous rather than simply act according the commandments. To love God is to love virtue, and infinitely more of course, and to love humanity is to love them because they are a reflection of God.

With all due respect, I am not looking to debate WHAT you believe. I am curious as to WHY you believe it.

You're right, as an agnostic who is not deeply read on your particular religion, I am certainly not going to try to educate you on it or argue with you about it. I am, however, extremely curious as to how your religion, with its Patristic Authority, sacred tradition, counselor authority and so forth and so on and all the Saints of Lyon combined, leads you to state the following:

I wish such people, and similar types, would leave the Church of England.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood you, but I thought in writing the above, you were talking about homosexuals and/or those who would support treating homosexuals as the equals of heterosexuals. I thought you were saying you wished such people would leave the Church of England.

Obviously, since you have outrighted stated so, you believe homosexuality to be a sin. And that's understandable. I've encountered a lot of Christians from all kinds of Churches who believe homosexuality is a sin. You are now among them on that list.

Again, not being 'deeply read' in your religion, I am not arguing whether or not homosexuality is a sin. For the sake of debate, profitable or otherwise, I will concede for this particular matter that it is.

What I don't understand and what I don't feel you have clearly explained, is WHY, in the light of Christ's instruction for us to love others as we love ourselves and treat everyone as we would want to be treated, WHY would you want homosexuals and/or people who want to treat homosexuals equally to be leave the church. It seems to me that you wish to treat homosexuals differently than you would want to be treated.

Do you want all sinners to leave your church? Or is it just particular kinds of sinners? Although I'm not deeply read on the issue, doesn't Christianity also teach that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? If it is desirable that all sinners leave the church because of their sin, where does that leave the church?

It seems to me that you are singling out people for a particular type of sin and choosing to treat them differently.

And again, that's fine with me. I'm not trying to change your convictions nor debate either the virtousness of your beliefs and/or the orthodoxy of your particular Christian religion.

I do, however, question your use of the term 'traditional Christianity'. I will concede that Christians have 'traditionally' held homosexuality to be sinful; but I find nothing more 'traditional' about Christianity than Christ's own instructions to love everyone as equals, to in fact love everyone as we love ourselves.

It may be 'traditional' for Christians to mark homosexuality as sinful, but how is it in keeping with Christ's instructions for you or anyone else to desire that homosexuals should leave the church, that they should be treated differently from other sinners?

Of course, you certainly don't have to explain yourself to me or anyone else. I am not so presumptuous as to 'demand' a clearer explanation. Hell, I might not understand it anyway. I was just hoping to gain a better understanding of why you believe what you believe, be it profitable or not.

 

[Muffled]

YLE gay rights debate triggers record flight from church

A televised debate over gay rights has prompted a record number of people to leave the Finnish Evangelical-Lutheran church over a 24-hour period, Vata, an association with links to the Freethinkers, said in a statement Thursday.

The association runs an internet-based service, eroakirkosta.fi, that provides an easy way for church members to leave the church.

Vata added that 2,633 people had logged their resignation on Wednesday, beating the previous 24-hour record by 1,500.

Thursday's tally was higher than the number recorded throughout July.

Heikki Orsila, a spokesman for eroakirkosta.fi, attributed the record to the Finnish Broadcasting Company's live gay rights debate, aired Tuesday evening.
​

According to Eroa kirkosta, 2633 people resigned from the church on Wednesday, 2032 resigned on Thursday, and 3473 resigned on Friday. The usual 3-day total for this time of year is 400.

Good for the Finns!

Thank God the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church has not become apostate. There is no question that there is a separation of sheep and goats occurring. Those who belong to Jesus will stay those who do not will leave.

 

[Muffled]

I wish such people, and similar types, would leave the Church of England.

Just be thankful you don't have the situation we have in America where the Apostates runt he church and those faithful to Jesus have to leave and form another church.

 

[Muffled]

With all due respect, it seems to me that Christ's most urgent instruction to mankind--as a matter of fact it was a message so central to his life and his teachings that he said all the laws and all the prophets hang upon these particular commandments--was that we should love God with all our heart, and that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

Loving God and treating people the way we'd want to be treated. To me, these seem to be the most 'traditional' aspects of Christian thought and action.

I certainly don't visit this forum to proselytize nor do I even expect to change anybody's own particular way of thinking. But I am curious to learn myself, how do you justify a point of view that claims homosexuals should NOT be treated as equals to heterosexuals, that they should NOT be treated as you yourself would want to be treated, when that seems to be the very central and most traditional message of Christ's teachings--one of two commandments that Christ himself claimed all the laws and all the prophets hang upon?

Should thieves be treated the same as honest people who do not steal? Should thieves have a guild recognized by the government and given a state pension and medical benefits? Jesus never preached equality that I know of.

As for the law of reciprocity. I would never wish for someone to treat me as though I believed that homosexuality were not a sin. I would consider it a very unloving act. However, my wife once pointed out that my actions would be unethical (sinful) and that was a loving thing for her to do. I ceased from what I had planned and probably saved myself a lot of grief in the process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Should thieves be treated the same as honest people who do not steal? Should thieves have a guild recognized by the government and given a state pension and medical benefits? Jesus never preached equality that I know of.

Why not? Many churches are effectively guilds recognized (and subsidized) by the government for the promulgation of hate. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, isn't it?

One thing that Jesus did preach against was hipocrisy. If you want to continue your offensive behaviour unimpeded, then it would be hypocritical of you not to extend the same courtesy to others when they engage in conduct you find offensive.

As for the law of reciprocity. I would never wish for someone to treat me as though I believed that homosexuality were not a sin. I would consider it a very unloving act. However, my wife once pointed out that my actions would be unethical (sinful) and that was a loving thing for her to do. I ceased from what I had planned and probably saved myself a lot of grief in the process.

You find homosexual people's behaviour offensive and want it curtailed. I find your behaviour on this matter offensive; how does the law of reciprocity say I should act toward you?

 

[Muffled]

Why not? Many churches are effectively guilds recognized (and subsidized) by the government for the promulgation of hate. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, isn't it?

One thing that Jesus did preach against was hipocrisy. If you want to continue your offensive behaviour unimpeded, then it would be hypocritical of you not to extend the same courtesy to others when they engage in conduct you find offensive.


You find homosexual people's behaviour offensive and want it curtailed. I find your behaviour on this matter offensive; how does the law of reciprocity say I should act toward you?[/quote]

I don't see any evidence of this.

I think you are laboring under a delusion. Hypocrisy would be if I stated a belief that homosexuality is a sin and then practiced it. I do not so I am not a hypocrite. I do not condemn being an offense. I condemn sin. I am not a hypocrite in this either.

You should be true to your evil desires and try to curtail any effort on my part to promote good. When those who are evil control society then evil will abound and those who are good will be put in jail for being good.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Should thieves be treated the same as honest people who do not steal?

Thieves are in violation of criminal law, and they should be appropriately dealt with by the state, whose function it is to maintain civil order.

But when it comes to the "Christian" persepctive, then I would say "YES", most certainly, as I understand and interpret Christ's teachings, theives should be treated just like anyone else. When it comes to the Christian perspective so too should child molesters and murderers.

It is the role of the state to appropriately deal with criminals, to segregate them from society if the law requires it. It is certainly not the place of Christian's, as least not from my interpretation of Christ's message, to ostracize those who 'fall short of the glory of God."

I hate falling back on cliches, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Or at least it seems to me. You are comparing criminal prosecutions to Christian perspective. The two are very different things, very different things indeed, or so it seems to me.

The state punishes thieves and other criminals, treating them differently from law-abiding citizens, because the behavior of criminals makes it impossible for us to maintain a functional society lest we deal with it. We simply cannot allow people to run around taking others property and expect to maintain civil order. However, this is not the case with homosexuals. Their behavior doesn't make it impossible for society to function.

Jesus never preached equality that I know of.

Then you and I have VERY, VERY different interpretation of Christ's teachings. To me, Jesus plainly and directly said that we are to treat everyone the same, even as we would want to be treated. How is that NOT equality?

How can you read such a statement from Christ and interpret it any other way? Out of curiosity, how in the world do you interpret Christ's instruction to treat everyone as we'd want to be treated? How do we treat absolutely everyone the same, in a manner such as we ourselves would want to be treated, and not practice 'equality'?