...on gay marriage and Anglicans

So, no doubt that all the anti-establishment (and needlessly anti-Christian sometimes) supporters will have a field day on this, but this is my blog and it's my opinion

Here is the Guardian's article and if you read the first page of comments at the bottom as well.

Everyone (including the Guardian) seem to be missing something here - the process
1. The government publishes a consultation on plans to change marriage laws, inviting interested groups/people to respond.
2. The Church of England write in with their response, which is, as it has to be, based on it's beliefs. It states what it's beliefs and opinions are and then states what possible measures it might have to implement if the law is indeed changed. All very procedurally correct.

Everyone suddenly berates the CofE for 'forcing' it's opinions on the government. Comments like this by waywardwind

"Boo hoo. If the CofE can't make the rules, it's going to take it's bat and ball and go home"

No, you've completely misunderstood the process! The CofE are simply stating their opinions and the effects on them, which is what the consultation is for! If the CofE didn't comment then everyone would moan that the church is being too passive and not voicing it's opinion. So really the problem all these people have is with the CofE's influence on government. That's a completely different matter.

As for whether the CofE is right or not then, as I currently interpret the Bible on this issue, I agree with the CofE. The Bible makes it clear that marriage is between man and woman (I'm not going to get into the polygamy debate), and I'm very frustrated at Christians (of all denominations) who try and blur the lines in order to fit in with society.

...on Hayley Stevens and HOTS... again...

OK, so Hayley has posted this as her original and real reason for complaining about HOTS. As I read it I drew out 2 main reasons for her complaint...

"...no evidential basis..."

and

"...offer people false hope..."

Firstly can I say that she did go through an awfully traumatic experience that no doubt affects her life to this day and (I) thank God that she is still alive. I also applaud her statement..."I have nothing against Christians."

But to get back to her original 2 reasons.

 1. She has simply not seen any evidence and I wonder how much research she did into real authentic God-caused healing. Unfortunately, there is precious little evidence of God healing people because it is rarely done in a time and place where recording the healing reliably (video etc) is possible. And even if there is evidence, no doubt the skeptics would rebuff it for some reason or other (doctored video, unreliable camera angles etc). Christianity always comes down to 'faith', in the end it is simply a choice whether to believe or not and there will never be any scientific proof either way - that's the whole point of 'faith'! Hebrews 11:1 says "Now faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see."

2. HOTS has never offered anyone false hope. I just don't see how this is an issue. It is an offer of prayer rooted in the faith of the person doing the praying. I would have thought that if the person receiving the prayer doesn't believe in Christianity or even God, then they would put absolutely no hope at all in it's success!