tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239313829122603192.post3910919900961095530..comments2023-12-28T23:52:54.169+00:00Comments on Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream: Is sexuality a communion-breaking issue?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239313829122603192.post-70194860970964174912007-07-17T23:33:00.000+01:002007-07-17T23:33:00.000+01:00Evening John,I know this is going back a bit, but ...Evening John,<BR/><BR/>I know this is going back a bit, but thought I'd offer a comment or two anyway. <BR/><BR/>I think you're right about what Ndungane's implicit argument is (your third para). I'm not about to offer any vigorous defence of his argument, partly because you've convinced me on several points about its weaknesses, and also because, linked to that, I think that his piece is like Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239313829122603192.post-2798314706055875762007-06-24T23:15:00.000+01:002007-06-24T23:15:00.000+01:00Hi Blair. I think Ndungane's argument is structura...Hi Blair. I think Ndungane's argument is structurally much weaker than he himself supposes.<BR/><BR/>The argument rests on a series of logical comparisons, each of which is taken to have a bearing on the issue of homosexualism (shorthand for the practice, not the inclination).<BR/><BR/>His implicit conclusion is thus: "The Church admittedly once believed 'a' about homosexuality but may be about Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239313829122603192.post-19722932095228437512007-06-24T22:20:00.000+01:002007-06-24T22:20:00.000+01:00Evening John,to be honest my answer to both your q...Evening John,<BR/><BR/>to be honest my answer to both your questions is no. I think with all the examples he gives, Ndungane is simply stating that the church has changed its position without splitting. My historical knowledge is minimal so i wouldn't know whether, at the time of the anti-slavery campaign, there was a risk that this would split the church (or a branch of it). Ndungane doesn't Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239313829122603192.post-84548455989806836462007-06-23T19:42:00.000+01:002007-06-23T19:42:00.000+01:00Also, doesn't Ngundane's argument also suggest (go...Also, doesn't Ngundane's argument also suggest (going from the example of usury) that the Church might be able to reverse all these decisions - on slavery, women, contraception, etc?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239313829122603192.post-86418535817310875402007-06-23T19:40:00.000+01:002007-06-23T19:40:00.000+01:00Excuse me blogging my own blog, but isn't the logi...Excuse me blogging my own blog, but isn't the logic of Ndungane's position that slavery is still a Christian option - ie not a communion-breaking issue?<BR/><BR/>Comments, anyone?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.com