NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, the other day, my homework was to do some research on the Anglican church. And, your know what, there's much we could talk and say about that community, but, bottom line, the ONLY REASON WHY IT EXISTS IS BECAUSE KING HENRY VIII WANTED TO GET DIVORCED FROM HIS WIFE AND THE POPE WOULD NOT ALLOW IT!

I doubt a religious community built on such grounds has any theological grounds of existence - if you have different views on certain theological aspects, okay, then you have a valid reason, you can presume that your position is right and that of the religious group you split from is wrong. But, if there's absolutely no theological debate, and this is done solely for some earthy pragmatism, there's no point to it. IMO , all anglican protestants should return to the catholic church!

Now, if you smack me with the argument that they won't become catholics no more, since they enjoy having the right to get divorced whenever they like, think about it for a moment: The right Henry VIII granted himself by creating his own church has NO basis in Christianity. So, if you decide to follow his church, you simply follow Christianity sans a rule central to that religion. So, you do not actually follow Christianity. I say: either return to the catholic church or stop calling youself members of a christian church, because there is absolutely no theological dispute in the difference between catholicism and anglican church, merely an earthly pragmatism.

Am I right?

Am I right?

no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant)

I could go into the precise reasons for the split between Catholics and Protestant nations but considering your doing homework on Henry VIII maybe I should just mention the divide that was going on in Europe at the time

It was not the only reason, just one of many including how far the catholic church had moved from the bible, changing it meaning, over the years please do a little research before you say these thing. i only did a little, (i made the same assumption as you but i'll research it) but i found other reason pretty fast.

I think the Anglican Church is a pretty cool guy. eh loves divorce and doesn't afraid of anything.

The Henrician church is not really Anglican, it's basically just Catholicism minus the pope, with a few superfluous reforms here and there. The Anglican Church only properly began to develop under Elizabeth, and was a natural centrist all encompassing Church that would satisfy both moderate Catholics and Lutherans, aimed at avoiding conflict between the two in the UK, but is also a position agreed upon by many theologians.

I think the Anglican Church is a pretty cool guy. eh loves divorce and doesn't afraid of anything.

and 500 years of cake making excellence :)

I'm an English atheist, so I'm not overly fond of it.

I'm an English atheist, so I'm not overly fond of it.

I am a English atheist too, but i still think it the lesser of two evils.

I am a English atheist too, but i still think it the lesser of two evils.

Yeah, better than Palpatine.

Bah, let people think whatever the heck they want. You want to worship your big toe?, go ahead. Its none of my concern.

Bah, let people think whatever the heck they want. You want to worship your big toe?, go ahead. Its none of my concern.

It'd be nice of have separation of church and state in England though.

It'd be nice of have separation of church and state in England though.

True.

Yeah, better than Palpatine.

Angleton better then Palpatine?!? well it true but come ion now lesser of 2 evils

S'ok, really. Never met any Massive Fundamentalist Anglicans, as opposed to Catholics.

I don't think it should be the state religion of the UK.

Well, the other day, my homework was to do some research on the Anglican church. And, your know what, there's much we could talk and say about that community, but, bottom line, the ONLY REASON WHY IT EXISTS IS BECAUSE KING HENRY VIII WANTED TO GET DIVORCED FROM HIS WIFE AND THE POPE WOULD NOT ALLOW IT!

I doubt a religious community built on such grounds has any theological grounds of existence - if you have different views on certain theological aspects, okay, then you have a valid reason, you can presume that your position is right and that of the religious group you split from is wrong. But, if there's absolutely no theological debate, and this is done solely for some earthy pragmatism, there's no point to it. IMO , all anglican protestants should return to the catholic church!

I think the theology underlying the Anglican communion is as well founded as the theology underlying any other religious group. ;)

Now, if you smack me with the argument that they won't become catholics no more, since they enjoy having the right to get divorced whenever they like, think about it for a moment: The right Henry VIII granted himself by creating his own church has NO basis in Christianity. So, if you decide to follow his church, you simply follow Christianity sans a rule central to that religion. So, you do not actually follow Christianity. I say: either return to the catholic church or stop calling youself members of a christian church, because there is absolutely no theological dispute in the difference between catholicism and anglican church, merely an earthly pragmatism.

Am I right?

Jesus told people to sell all of their possessions and give the money to the poor if they wanted to follow him, but most Catholics don't seem to be empoverished (at least not voluntarily). The Bible also recommends that nobody should get married, as the end of the world is due any minute (and has been for the best part of two millenia now...)

Do you consider the Catholic break from these traditions to be an example of 'earthly pragmatism' as well?

As an English atheist also, I would probably say that the CofE is the most harmless of the major Christian denominations. The liberal branch of the Church is probably the only form of religion I could stomach. That said, its views are based on an irrational belief in a non-existent God.

To sum up, they are completely wrong, but they're quite pleasant.

It’s been effectively neutered in the UK — even with Rowan Williams’ occasional attempts to be politically or spiritually significant — though in Africa and other places round the globe it’s taken on a more ‘hardline’ edge to its theology.

I reckon we might see a split in the next few years/decades.

As an English atheist also, I would probably say that the CofE is the most harmless of the major Christian denominations. The liberal branch of the Church is probably the only form of religion I could stomach. That said, its views are based on an irrational belief in a non-existent God.

To sum up, they are completely wrong, but they're quite pleasant.

Up until a few years ago that would have been my position, but the CofE is becoming increasingly aggressive in trying to influence the running of the country. IIRC they're bidding to increase the number of schools under their control by 50%, and they're borrowing tactics from the Religious Right in America ('War on Christmas' anyone?)

As an English atheist also, I would probably say that the CofE is the most harmless of the major Christian denominations. The liberal branch of the Church is probably the only form of religion I could stomach. That said, its views are based on an irrational belief in a non-existent God.

To sum up, they are completely wrong, but they're quite pleasant.

Ditto. They are completely benign.

In fact, I think CofE people can be divided into two groups:

1) Those who believe in God, but really don't care about organised religion. For example no CofE bishop will ever come on TV and be worried about the deplorable state of their church - at most they will say "Well times change, and we've been doing better in the past but oh well". Their only concern seems to be of ethical nature - they will occasionally preach traditional values, or tolerance, or environmentalism etc.

2) Those that really are in fact agnostic, but say they are CofE out of sheer laziness.

If you are looking for a theological basis for the origin of the CofE you will run into all sorts of apologetic arguments. I do agree that the purpose of setting it up was mainly political, that is, having a state religion, independent of the Church of Rome. I also believe that that is perfectly legitimate. And if you must add a twist to the whole thing, contesting the principal of Papal Primacy (i.e. the Bishop of Rome is the descendent of St. Peter and thus somehow superior) is a perfectly valid theological argument as well - and one as old as the Great Schism between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Up until a few years ago that would have been my position, but the CofE is becoming increasingly aggressive in trying to influence the running of the country. IIRC they’re bidding to increase the number of schools under their control by 50%, and they’re borrowing tactics from the Religious Right in America (‘War on Christmas’ anyone?)
Certain CoE members, perhaps, but I don’t think the CoE’s British congregation as a whole is anywhere near as politically active or politically united as the US religious right.

Certain CoE members, perhaps, but I don’t think the CoE’s British congregation as a whole is anywhere near as politically active or politically united as the US religious right.

Agreed, but the hangers-on give the activists the illusion of mass support, and shore up religious privilege. Personally I have high hopes for the proposed 'Church tax' which some of the bishops are pushing for (basically it obliges taxpayers to pay for the repair of churches): tell people they have to pay for it and they'll soon lose their apathy and vague respect for tradition. :p

ONLY REASON WHY IT EXISTS IS BECAUSE KING HENRY VIII WANTED TO GET DIVORCED FROM HIS WIFE AND THE POPE WOULD NOT ALLOW IT!


That's not entirely true. First of all, the Pope did not deny Henry a divorce because of Catholic teaching. Plenty of other monarchs had gotten rid of their old wives with help from the Pope, but Catherine happened to be a relative of his. So while the Pope may have done the right thing by denying Henry a divorce, it was not for the right reason.
Secondly, there was plenty of of buzz already in England about Protestantism. There are some slight differences between Catholic and Anglican theology, and most of these differences existed before the split.

As a funny aside, Henry had the title "Defender of the Faith" because of his indictment of Martin Luther. The title was bestowed upon him by the Pope, and English monarchs to this day hold it; the initials F.D. are even printed on money. No one in the royal family seems to have realized the irony in being the defender of one faith and being the head of a separate one.

As for the validity of the Anglican Church, I'm not Anglican, and so clearly don't see it as the best denomination. I don't like the fact that its head is born into the position, unlike the meritocracy of the Catholic Church, but I don't take issues with many of its teachings. The ones that I do take issue with are boring ones that only other Christians care about, like transubstantiation, the sacraments, etc.

2) Those that really are in fact agnostic, but say they are CofE out of sheer laziness.

what does CoE have to do with religion?

you can't escape it for it lies in your genes :)

they're borrowing tactics from the Religious Right in America ('War on Christmas' anyone?)


Which should terrify you.


Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Am I right?

No. Do some more research.

And some better poll options would be appreciated.

No. Do some more research.

keep in mind the age that you learn about Henry the VIII :p

keep in mind the age that you learn about Henry the VIII :p

Pfft. Not an excuse.

And when did you get 10,000 posts?

Pfft. Not an excuse.

I was far more puzzled at that age as to who stole Ann Boleyn breasts

And when did you get 10,000 posts?

I just noticed that myself

do you thinks its fatal?

edit: *picks on the noob*

I was far more puzzled at that age as to who stole Ann Boleyn breasts
That depends on whether you’re talking to the BBC (http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/85/16/0000038516_20070315143513.jpg) (who seem to have found them all right) or Hollywood (http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/03/13/Boleyn_080313085816102_wideweb__300x375.jpg) (who seem to have lost them).

Though to be fair to Hollywood, they found them again (http://rapnix.com/stuff/OtherBoleynGirl_1918/otherboleyngirl_1.jpg) in time for the poster.

I'll start taking christianity seriously when (among other things) they realize that they should not use a tiorture implement as their symbol.

and 500 years of cake making excellence :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pAOLOGGftTY&feature=related

I'll start taking christianity seriously when (among other things) they realize that they should not use a tiorture implement as their symbol.

I think Christianity will start taking you seriously when you realise that, although you think you're being supremely clever, that is in fact a supremely stupid thing to say on so many levels.

I'll start taking christianity seriously when (among other things) they realize that they should not use a tiorture implement as their symbol.

Go and learn why we do it in the first place and then we'll talk.

Bah, let people think whatever the heck they want. You want to worship your big toe?, go ahead. Its none of my concern.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/respect.gif*Adoración el dedo del pie grande de Nanatsu*http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/respect.gif
:D

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pAOLOGGftTY&feature=related

Gotta love Eddie Izzard :D