Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Now, be honest, Adeodatus: you put a splash of whisky into your morning cup of joe, didn't you?
Nobody's that mellow.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Mistake 1: Assuming that you can happily encompasses every single shipmate with the word 'you'. Spend some time in Purgatory and you'll realise that there's almost nothing that we all agree on.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Hi. I read about your quest to find the "worst" Bible verse in the Daily Telegraph.
Why not just set up a new religion? Or declare yourselves atheist? Or join a political party instead?
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.quote:And right-wing, prejudiced, racist, homophobic, chauvinism isn't politics?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
In other words, your "religion", if you can put it that way, is equivalent to left-wing politics - equality, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, feminism, diversity, environmentalism. It seems odd to pose as a religion, when in fact social religion is just politics.
quote:So Christianity is all about killing those dirty ragheads and keeping England English. I see it all now.
The Old Testament teaches us that God commanded the ancient Israelites to strike down the Amalekites and the practitioners of false religion - and in our day today an application would be to oppose multiculturalism and prevent England from sliding into Islamism. In fact, those verses are important for reminded us that Christianity is not meant to be a limpwristed religion and has nothing in common with left-wing "social religion". Think of St James of Compostela, Santiago Matamoros as he is known in Spanish, he slaughtered the Moors, and took part in a centuries-long campaign to recover Spain and restore the Christian religion in Spain, which was finally successful by 1492. Think of the Crusades. Think of how our Empire spread Christianity around the globe. On a personal level we should not judge, but as a matter of policy of the church and of a Christian society, we should oppose false religion, and do what we can to uproot it.
quote:Fuggin'A, Dood! Power to the Sheeple! <raises clinched fist>
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
...Or alternatively, reading between the lines, you don't believe in any God at all but believe in cultural Marxism. Why not register with the Electoral Commission as a political organisation?
quote:Why not? You regularly blow a load into your metaphorical socks, so what's the difference?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...and it wouldn't do for a Host to be posting Dead Horses all over his own board, would it?
quote:Say what?
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:Why not? You regularly blow a load into your metaphorical socks, so what's the difference?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...and it wouldn't do for a Host to be posting Dead Horses all over his own board, would it?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:*Hic*
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Now, be honest, Adeodatus: you put a splash of whisky into your morning cup of joe, didn't you?
Nobody's that mellow.
quote:Translation: I'm a posturing asshole who's trying to appear sympathetic to a clueless noobie Christian's conservative concerns.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Anglican2009, out of all the posts that will appear on this thread, you can put me down as The Nice One.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Think of St James of Compostela, Santiago Matamoros as he is known in Spanish, he slaughtered the Moors, and took part in a centuries-long campaign to recover Spain and restore the Christian religion in Spain.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:You're either innocent, stupid or a bad actor. My money is on bad actor.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Say what?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Heh.
Originally posted by Gort:
My money is on bad actor.
quote:I'm fairly sure you're to the left of someone who thinks Christians should rise up (with the help of zombies) and put the Muslims to the sword in the manner of the Reconquista.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Left-wing social religionist"? Moi?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I simply fail to see what (metaphorical) masturbation has to do with Dead Horses.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... and it wouldn't do for a Host to be posting Dead Horses all over his own board, would it?
quote:yeah, you're an old softy. Rumour has it you let Mrs Black sit in the front seat of the car recently.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Left-wing social religionist"? Moi?
quote:This joke needs to be addressed. It's easier to laugh than address the issues Angliacan2009 raises. If he made the mistake of thinking this was a Christian website, then what kind of website is it?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Wow. An OP that goes straight for "I thought this was a Christian website" -NOT- without passing go, without collecting $200.[/URL]
quote:No, don't be silly: you have to push the car into a lake first with her attached to the roof rack and if it floats then she's a witch and you have to burn her, but if she drowns, then she's OK.
Originally posted by The Man With No Name:
Oh hang on - is that the ritual where you drive at 100 miles an hour with your wife on the roof rack and either she falls off and is mortally injured or she's a witch?
quote:Could be a contender for the Best First Post, ever.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Hi.
snip
Or alternatively, reading between the lines, you don't believe in any God at all but believe in cultural Marxism. Why not register with the Electoral Commission as a political organisation?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Obviously, The Church of the Subgenius or Cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That's why your spiritual conviction was victimized, §Andrew. Your brains were stirred into a savory liberal pesto sauce.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
It's easier to laugh than address the issues Angliacan2009 raises. If he made the mistake of thinking this was a Christian website, then what kind of website is it?
quote:"Sometimes I'm so sharp, I cut myself!"
Originally posted by PeteC:
Just what you did, eh, Squig? Like a few months ago.
[damn, Matt Black is fast!]
quote:Surely, following the Second Vatican Council, full immersion of one's potentially heretic sorceress wife is no longer required?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:No, don't be silly: you have to push the car into a lake first with her attached to the roof rack and if it floats then she's a witch and you have to burn her, but if she drowns, then she's OK.
Originally posted by The Man With No Name:
Oh hang on - is that the ritual where you drive at 100 miles an hour with your wife on the roof rack and either she falls off and is mortally injured or she's a witch?
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:It would seem that you don't get the joke. The point of which is that this is a Christian website, but fuckwits like our OPer don't realise that Christianity is a wonderfully broad and diverse religion, and thus come here expecting to see a whole bunch of clones who believe, like and dislike exactly the same things as them. And then say we're not Christian when they find that we don't.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
If he made the mistake of thinking this was a Christian website, then what kind of website is it?
quote:One or two outrageous parts do not an outrageous religion make. Unless you're the sort of fuckwit who thinks you have to either accept all of it or none of it.
It's very clear to everybody but those engaged with the Ship that Chapter & Worse is an excellent example of Christians denying parts that traditionally belonged to their religion, because said religion is so outrageous not even Christians can accept it today!
quote:All-Or-Nothing-Andy strikes again.
Of course, this raises some very interesting questions. If you cannot stand your own religion and feel the need to revise it constantly so that it matches your sensitivities, then why not do away with the whole thing instead of creating your own religion as you see fit?
quote:Ye cannae die St. James of Compostela! Ye are immortal!
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Think of St James of Compostela, Santiago Matamoros as he is known in Spanish, he slaughtered the Moors, and took part in a centuries-long campaign to recover Spain and restore the Christian religion in Spain.
Nobody is this stupid, are they?
St James of Compostela was dead by then, you know ... Unless you think he rose up, zombie-like, from the cathedral in Santiago, armed with his evil instrument of torture.
quote:Not everyone is like you, dissecting faith with a laser scalpel, telling everyone else on the Ship they really should be truly holy like an Orthodox saint, and then chucking the lot when you achieve Secular Enlightenment by reading one book that strikes an intellectual chord and frees you from poring over the writings of Church Fathers.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:This joke needs to be addressed. It's easier to laugh than address the issues Angliacan2009 raises. If he made the mistake of thinking this was a Christian website, then what kind of website is it?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Wow. An OP that goes straight for "I thought this was a Christian website" -NOT- without passing go, without collecting $200.[/URL]
It's very clear to everybody but those engaged with the Ship that Chapter & Worse is an excellent example of Christians denying parts that traditionally belonged to their religion, because said religion is so outrageous not even Christians can accept it today!
Only the odd fundamentalist still believes that stuff.
Of course, this raises some very interesting questions. If you cannot stand your own religion and feel the need to revise it constantly so that it matches your sensitivities, then why not do away with the whole thing instead of creating your own religion as you see fit?
quote:If your house has a leak in the roof, is it better to repair the leak or to knock down the house and start again?
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Of course, this raises some very interesting questions. If you cannot stand your own religion and feel the need to revise it constantly so that it matches your sensitivities, then why not do away with the whole thing instead of creating your own religion as you see fit?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Not necessarily. As Adeodatus said:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
It's very clear to everybody but those engaged with the Ship that Chapter & Worse is an excellent example of Christians denying parts that traditionally belonged to their religion, because said religion is so outrageous not even Christians can accept it today!
quote:Also, often the reason people have submitted verses to Chapter & Worse isn't because of the verse itself, but because of how those verses have been taken out of context and misused by so many people. As Springy said,
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There you'll find, among a good deal of humour and self-mockery, a lot of thoughtful and mature engagement with what anyone must admit are some very difficult pieces of scripture.
quote:A good example is the very verse Anglican2009 quoted on women teaching.
There is nothing wrong with the Bible, just man screwing around with it trying to justify being a bunch of plonkers and dick heads
quote:Actually, no, I haven't. Is that like an extended warranty contract where the dealer can change the terms of service?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...Ever heard of continuing revelation? Things change. Deal.
quote:Aw Gort, ya big schnuggly cuddlebunny! Get over here and give us a hug. Go on! Go on, ya know ya want to!
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:Translation: I'm a posturing asshole who's trying to appear sympathetic to a clueless noobie Christian's conservative concerns.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Anglican2009, out of all the posts that will appear on this thread, you can put me down as The Nice One.
quote:My money's on Our Lady. Never piss off a virgin with a broadsword.
Originally posted by Gildas:
It's clearly the plot of the latest Highlander franchise. The world will end neither with a bang, nor a whimper, nor the rapture of the faithful but in a duel to the death with fuck-off great big broadswords between St. James of Compostela and Our Lady of Medugorjie whilst everything around them blows up spectacularly and the spectral figure of St. Frederick of Mercury keens the unearthly sound of Give Me The Prize.
quote:No. The "contract" doesn't change, but our understanding of it does.
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:Actually, no, I haven't. Is that like an extended warranty contract where the dealer can change the terms of service?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...Ever heard of continuing revelation? Things change. Deal.
quote:9-2. My personal hunch is that here's another, unrelated diatribe in the offing.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What are you offering on never posting anywhere on the Ship, ever again?
quote:Yes, that's what we Christians do.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Christians denying parts that traditionally belonged to their religion, because said religion is so outrageous not even Christians can accept it today!
quote:which doesn't seem right for a Telegraph reading believer in revealed religion.
End of.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:A non-Christian lecturing Christians about the Truth of their faith, and where they have abandoned it? Oh, that's precious. Even after you've renounced the religion, you still think you're the only one who actually knows what it's all about.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
It may well be a useful coping mechanism, it may satisfy psychological or even spiritual needs, but it's not the Truth and many of you already suspect that.
quote:We don't expect you to do either of those things. It would be nice if you'd shut the fuck up about them though.
But do not expect others to take your Christian claims seriously.
...
By all means, keep your DIY Christianities. But don't expect me to accept it as well.
quote:You say that like it's a bad thing.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
You have created Christianity according to your image and likeness. The liberals have created a liberal Christianity, the conservatives a conservative, the traditionalists a traditional, the fundamentalists a fundamentalist, the wackos a wacky, the moderates a moderate...
quote:Thank you, I will. Near as I can tell it's about the best any of us can do.
By all means, keep your DIY Christianities.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Andy, you don't get it.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
So, you have no problem dethroning holy texts and holy people, changing the faith of those long dead to fit your own sensitivities.
quote:Is this your argument or is it just a rephrasing of what the Phrases said to Jesus before they decided he had to go?
Originally posted by §Andrew:
[QUOTE] If you cannot stand your own religion and feel the need to revise it constantly so that it matches your sensitivities, then why not do away with the whole thing instead of creating your own religion as you see fit?
quote:So, youe "Chapter and Worse" candidate would be that verse that says something like "There's neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. For we are all one in Christ Jesus". I'm glad to see you're capable of ignoring verses that don't conform to your prejudices. A pity you're not quite as honest that that's what you do as those who did actually engage in the Chapter and Worse project.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Social equality is impossible to achieve and not part of the Christian remit.
quote:Oh good, another newbie -- with all of two posts to his name -- wants to make the rules.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
May I call on all members of this Ship of Fools to refrain from foul language. I could dig out some Bible verses on that subject too it necessary. I don't expect to read the F-word on a Christian website. Or is that part of your trendy "social religion" too?
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The tradition of the church in the first 19 centuries of its existence is clear.
quote:What is the traditional family and where does the Bible support it?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Bible ... does support the traditional family ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.quote:Tomayto, tomahto.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Marvin the Martian: "And right-wing, prejudiced, racist, homophobic, chauvinism isn't politics?" The Bible is not homophobic and chauvinistic, but does support the traditional family and gives the headship to the husband.
quote:It also means hatred of homosexuality. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Homophobia means an irrational atavistic phobia of homosexuals.
quote:Ha ha! Christianity as an agent for the social status quo - I think not!
Christians have never had a chauvinistic hatred of women, but they taught women to accept their role in society and the family. Social equality is impossible to achieve and not part of the Christian remit. The BCP catechism is clear: order yourself reverent and lowly to all your betters and accept that station in life to which it shall please God to call you.
quote:Since the practice of Islam was legalised in this country under the Trinitarian Act of 1812, I rather think they would. Muslims, of course, had been living on these shores since at least two hundred years before that date.
The CofE in 1900 would never had accepted Islam in England
quote:The evidence would appear to prove you wrong on that one as well - there are a lot of Christian churches with sometimes large differences in belief and practice.
No, Christianity is not wonderfully broad and diverse: if you disagee with the consensus fidelium then you are just not in the church, that's all.
quote:I don't give a flying fuck what you expect to see on a Christian website. We're not answerable to you, or to your fucked up version of the faith.
May I call on all members of this Ship of Fools to refrain from foul language. I could dig out some Bible verses on that subject too it necessary. I don't expect to read the F-word on a Christian website.
quote:Did you even read what I wrote about not assuming (often incorrect) things about people then judging on the basis of this?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Prettybutterfly your "religion" boils down to this: "Jesus was a nice guy who was misguided. He said some pretty nasty things about hell and was rude to the Pharisees, but that reflected the cutlure of the time. He was personable, and although we can't believe anything the Bible said, I believe Jesus was a nice guy".
quote:And how exactly this is different from your philosophy of life?
Originally posted by §Andrew:
[QBYou have created Christianity according to your image and likeness. The liberals have created a liberal Christianity, the conservatives a conservative, the traditionalists a traditional, the fundamentalists a fundamentalist, the wackos a wacky, the moderates a moderate...[/qb]
quote:OK, since you can read my mind so effectively, tell me:
It may well be a useful coping mechanism, it may satisfy psychological or even spiritual needs, but it's not the Truth and many of you already suspect that.
quote:I was arguing with Andrew, not you. Until very recently Andrew would have said you were not a Christian, because you are not a member of the Orthodox Church, which he then believed was the one that had it right, but possibly only bits of it that agreed with him. Now, he's no longer a Christian so he'll tell you you're wrong about everything whatever you say, but he still wants to say we're wrong because we disagree with the apostles, with whom he doesn't even agree himself.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
GreyFace: the truths that were taught by the apostles are the Christian Faith. To claim you can teach the direct opposite of what the apostles said and still be a Christian is ridiculous.
quote:There is? Why did nobody tell me this until now??!!!
There is not just the Bible but the tradition of the church, which interprets the Bible.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:I haven't stated my position on any of these matters. However, I consider your attribution of such motives to those who interpret Scripture and Tradition differently from you on one or more of these matters as bearing false witness. How do you respond?
The Bible and traditional Church teaching show clearly: there is no salvation outside the church; only men can be ordained and celebrate Holy Communion; sexual activity is to be conducted within marriage only and not between people of the same sex. To suddenly reverse on all of this just shows your beliefs amount to no more than "we should try to be nice and not upset the Muslims/gays/feminists".
quote:Oh good, if you're right then parishes across the line will breathe a sigh of relief at no longer having to pay parish share to fund clergy stipends. Or you could just be wrong. And there are other Anglican Churches than the Church of England, you know. You might not have noticed yet, most of them have only been around for a few centuries.
Actually Anglican clergy are paid using the £7bn built up over the centuries, largely from Queen Anne's Bounty and the Church Commissioners -- Anglicans of centuries ago would have been astonished to see that out-and-out heretics, blasphemers and perverts are living on the money today!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Supporting the abolition of slavery, female suffrage, and equal rights for all races makes one a Communist? I spy with my little eye, something beginning with 'T'!
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Why pretend you are a Christian when you are a Communist? Because you think it adds a veneer of goodness or morality to your socialist views? Is that it?
quote:No I am not. Because from the very beginning, there was no single Christian faith. There were all sorts of canons, and gospels, and teachings, all sorts of stances and opinions, all sorts of ethical norms and rituals.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Andrew me old mate, if I ask nicely, would you tell Anglican2009 why he's a heretick for believing in
quote:Yes, let's take Saint Paul as an illustration. I was recently reading "This is from the Lord... this is from me..." from him. What's his point? I can't get anything from that other than that his own opinions and commandments are not to be taken as having the same authority as that of Christ. Presumably there is some room for disagreement with him, in his own thought. I conclude that to take Saint Paul's words on all matters as the definitive commandment of God is thus to contradict Saint Paul.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Or Apostle Paul?
quote:Perhaps, but only a fool would claim that every last bit of the faith is as critical as every other. I'll take the risk. The alternative is to take your path and abandon Christ.
By rejecting what those whom you consider as your ancestors in faith held sacred, you are introduce inconsistencies and undermine your own faith.
quote:You are mistaken. It is not intellectually consistent to believe that every last element of the faith must be held for the faith to have any meaning. You are like someone who says, Newton's laws of motion do not apply at relativistic speeds, therefore all science is claptrap.
However, this is not intellectually consistent. In other words, the fluid Christianity you defend is full of holes.
quote:Andrew, you didn't agree with anybody as far as I can tell. And now you're in a church of one, making up your religion. And you have the gall to accuse us.
I must have been a fundamentalist Christian sticking to idiosyncratic versions of Christianity because I didn't agree with your Supermarket version of Christianity that is so fluid you split and split and split and revise and revise and revise.
quote:You've finally got it! Hooray! If there was no single faith from the beginning, then there was no all-encompassing apostolic teaching, was there? So the Christians who followed had to work it out didn't they? Don't they?
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Because from the very beginning, there was no single Christian faith.
quote:1. You have no idea about my religion, faith, or what I believe about anything. So don't assume you do.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Goperryrevs: it is not a question of my hermeneutics. The tradition of the church in the first 19 centuries of its existence is clear. Your "social religion", otherwise known as socialism/liberalism, is simply heresy/apostasy - as indeed Pope Pius' Syllabus of Errors made clear in the 19th century. It's not a question of lack of sense of humour. Your game of mocking the Bible shows you do not believe in revealed religion, especially when it contradicts your socialist/liberal political views.
quote:Nah, youse tinkin' a someone else.
Originally posted by Redolent Spilogale Putorius:
(Ain't youse the same blokes dat didn't want an Asshat of the Year award?)
quote:But also an enthusiast for the idea of St. James taking a spiritual part in the Reconquista (a common-enough Counter-Reformation idea I believe, although not heard much these days) and for the Bulls of nineteenth-century Popes. So a whacked-out BCP Anglo-catholic fundamentalist. Pastor Hummerstone's evil twin, perhaps.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Oh wow! The OPer is a BCP fundamentalist. I've never met one of those. How exotic!
quote:You'll find it's not only about the bad Bible verses in the Daily Telegraph. It's about a lot of other rotten stuff in said rag as well. It's about Torygraph bashing.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
[Informal greeting] I read about your quest to find the "worst" Bible verse in the Daily Telegraph. [Yadda yadda]
quote:Pay closer attention to what I said.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
You've finally got it! Hooray! If there was no single faith from the beginning, then there was no all-encompassing apostolic teaching, was there? So the Christians who followed had to work it out didn't they? Don't they?
quote:There's very little actual difference between the two versions. The arrogance and assumptions of bad faith haven't changed, only the perspective that feeds them has.
Originally posted by Loveheart:
I never thought I'd say this, but I want the old Andrew back!
quote:It's not that that pisses me off. It's your arrogance, and your deliberate refusal to understand anything anybody posts that disagrees with whatever your deeply-held conviction is this week. I've explained several times why your argument there is utterly inapplicable, but you just can't get past it.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
at the same time, you cannot go back and pretend Christianity got it right when everything in life tells you that the exact opposite is true. So, you end up holding intellectually untenable positions and getting pissed off the moment someone points that out.
quote:Sounds like a refugee from Have Your Say
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm beginning to think he's a Sock Puppet instead of a Troll (or maybe a trolling Sock Puppet). He knows the Ship too well, knows which buttons to push, knows which people to go after. Some of it just sounds too familiar, I just can't place him.
quote:Yep. The OP is just a little too OTT, a little too contrived. And why are they posting a long rant about an obscure Torygraph article at 7.40 am? Chronic insomnia?
I'm beginning to think he's a Sock Puppet instead of a Troll (or maybe a trolling Sock Puppet). He knows the Ship too well, knows which buttons to push, knows which people to go after. Some of it just sounds too familiar, I just can't place him.
quote:Well done
Originally posted by Yorick:
It's not me.
quote:Uh huh. I reckon there's a decent chance everyone on the Ship is you.
Originally posted by Yorick:
It's not me.
Just saying.
quote:'Yorick is God' explains a LOT.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Uh huh. I reckon there's a decent chance everyone on the Ship is you.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:Actually I thought we were on BST at the moment (don't forget to insert 'ull' and 'hi' in the appropriate places
Originally posted by prettybutterfly:
Although, most people that read the Telegraph are in GMT.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
)
quote:While perhaps not in my right mind, I to find the crusades a valid Christian effort. I recognize the horrible excesses of the times and of wars in general, but Christianity was under threat of extermination. Nowhere in the Bible or the history of the Church are we told to allow our faith to be destroyed.
I was prepared to give Anglican2009 the benefit of the doubt of possibly being someone with the irony bar set on very high, because surely no Christian in their right mind would think crusade is a good case for validating the Bible or Christianity if it's not done as a joke.
quote:Oh I see - I should be running amok down the High Street with a broadsword, perforating all those horrid foreigners?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Old Testament teaches us that God commanded the ancient Israelites to strike down the Amalekites and the practitioners of false religion - and in our day today an application would be to oppose multiculturalism and prevent England from sliding into Islamism.
quote:If I correctly read this to mean you are talking about the OP'er, I seriously doubt it.
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
She (I'll assume she's a she)...
quote:Sadly, the only Christian jewellery I have is this (which is considerably more battered these days than in that picture), and you're not having that.
Originally posted by Geneviève:
Well then, Rosamundi, hand back all your Christian jewelry and other gewgaws; you just do not have "revealed" religion.
quote:Ain't that the truth! The old Squiggle was absolutely positive that every single one of his crazy, idiosyncratic interpretations of the mumblings of some stoned beardy hermits had to be correct, or the whole of Christianity was a massive crock. The new version believes exactly the same thing, but favours the other option.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:There's very little actual difference between the two versions. The arrogance and assumptions of bad faith haven't changed, only the perspective that feeds them has.
Originally posted by Loveheart:
I never thought I'd say this, but I want the old Andrew back!
quote:GMT +1:00 at the moment, which makes it more likely. And given what I remember of tone of the Torygraph's religious coverage, it's depressingly likely Anglican2009 is for real (although quoting Pope's past or present is bad form for an 'Anglican'). Although I admit that was back in the day of William Oddie's "contributions" to the Women's ordination debate.
Originally posted by davelarge:
GMT is not the only time zone on the planet.
quote:I know this is just me being anal retentive, but this is just so, so, so, so WRONG that I don't know where to start.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Of course this spans 1000 years of history, but the Crusades were a desperate attempt to prevent the Muslims from conquering the Holy Land. If you just think of the methods of conversion by the sword used by the Arabs, you can see the Crusades probably saved Europe proper from a dreadful fate.
quote:My dear Jeff, please read for comprehension. Given the rant in the OP is about people not taking the bible seriously and that therefore they couldn’t possibily be Christian. He then used crusade and slaughter of non-Christians as an example for us to learn from (albeit not necessary on a personal level). I responded by saying that crusade does not provide a good case for validating the Bible or Christianity. Crusade to the Holy Land may very well be a valid effort, but a valid effort is not the same as validating Christianity as a faith to the world.
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
Pooks wrote,quote:While perhaps not in my right mind, I to find the crusades a valid Christian effort. I recognize the horrible excesses of the times and of wars in general, but Christianity was under threat of extermination. Nowhere in the Bible or the history of the Church are we told to allow our faith to be destroyed.
I was prepared to give Anglican2009 the benefit of the doubt of possibly being someone with the irony bar set on very high, because surely no Christian in their right mind would think crusade is a good case for validating the Bible or Christianity if it's not done as a joke.
quote:I don’t dismiss any verses, because I believe whether we like it or not they provide a context to our understanding of how our faith has developed over time. How well I understand it and how I respond to it is a different matter.
I agree with Anglican2009 that sometimes we go to far in dismissing verses we don't agree with. But I also see the counter-point that love requires openness and acceptance. There's a fine line between the two and we must each do our best to find it.
quote:From the tone of the fuckwit's posts, I wouldn't be surprised if he considers the "Holy Land" to be England. Or Western Europe at a push.
Originally posted by Figbash:
Jerusalem was taken by 'the Muslims' in the seventh century. The First Crusade recaptured it in 1099. So 'desperate attempt to prevent the Muslims from capturing the Holy Land' my arse.
quote:Funnily enough I do know that, but the OPer does seem to be in the UK...
GMT is not the only time zone on the planet.
quote:I would so love to read the Hansard record for that day.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Matt Black: yes the CofE is hopelessly apostate. But we had one Reformation and I would like to see Parliament order another.
quote:"And the Spirit of the LORD came upon the Rt Hon Member for Milton Keynes South West and he spake and said..."
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
Am I the only one to find this bit the funniest?
quote:I would so love to read the Hansard record for that day.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Matt Black: yes the CofE is hopelessly apostate. But we had one Reformation and I would like to see Parliament order another.
quote:Wouldn't it be Ian Paisley who, moved in sundry places, rose to his feet and declaimed 'No Popery!'
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:"And the Spirit of the LORD came upon the Rt Hon Member for Milton Keynes South West and he spake and said..."
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
Am I the only one to find this bit the funniest?
quote:I would so love to read the Hansard record for that day.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Matt Black: yes the CofE is hopelessly apostate. But we had one Reformation and I would like to see Parliament order another.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's wrong with pot pourri - it gets rid of nasty niffs in my toilet. I hate to think what Big Ian's khazi smells like...
Gah. Brain bleach. Now.
quote:And this is prett good too !
Originally posted by Matt Black:
more frothing fundies
quote:'You are not alone ... '
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
Am I the only one to find this bit the funniest?
quote:I would so love to read the Hansard record for that day.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Matt Black: yes the CofE is hopelessly apostate. But we had one Reformation and I would like to see Parliament order another.
quote:You forgot Feminist and Gay-lover.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Depending on the Speaker it is likely to be more direct, such as:
"Order, order. The Hon. Member will sit down."
Of course if the Hon. Member is a Torygraph-reading revealed-Christian that would be a sure indication that the Speaker is a Communist-Liberal-Socialist-Anti-Racist-Environmentalist.
quote:Do you know John Bercow personally? Sounds like my kind of Tory.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
...the Speaker is a Communist-Liberal-Socialist-Anti-Racist-Environmentalist.
quote:The OP reminds me not a little of a BNP rant. And the BNP have been trying to cosy up the the Church of England for some time in the fond belief that there exists a within the Church a core of racist bigots who will buy the BNP's white-supremecist bullshit by the barrowload in the interest of defending the faith, England, cricket, cucumber sandwiches, and All We Hold Dear. I've had intellectual (hem hem) debates with the likes of him elsewhere. Never met one quite so articulate, though.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:I'm fairly sure you're to the left of someone who thinks Christians should rise up (with the help of zombies) and put the Muslims to the sword in the manner of the Reconquista.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Left-wing social religionist"? Moi?
Heck, Nick Griffin is to the left of such a person ...
quote:Well, I would argue that my "left-wing politics" is certainly preferable to some neo-Nazi expressions of so-called Christianity that some have expoused. When we're clearly taught that "the first commandment is 'love the Lord your God' and the second 'love your neighbour as yourself'", and told that these two commandments sum up the whole Law and Prophets, what room is there then for anything less than loving our brothers and sisters (both those who share our faith and those who don't), regardless of secondary issues such as race, gender, sexuality, religious affiliation?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Alan Cresswell, just because male and females, Jews and Greeks, slaves and free can all be saved does not mean that you can pretend your left-wing politics is some form of Christianity.
quote:Almost as bad an idea as being rude to that smelly old tramp with a long beard, an injured hand, and one eye missing.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Never piss off a virgin with a broadsword.
quote:What have you done to your eye???
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Almost as bad an idea as being rude to that smelly old tramp with a long beard, an injured hand, and one eye missing.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Never piss off a virgin with a broadsword.
quote:Maybe, maybe...
Originally posted by hatless:
The more I think about it, the more sure I am, that no BCP quoting reactionary would say 'End of.' That was a mistake in Anglican2009's performance as she or he was settling into role.
I think A2009 is probably male, probably Anglican (no one who isn't would pretend to be, would they?), probably a vicar, and without question, very bored.
quote:Nope. Bollocks. Rubbish. Untrue lies. This smells of something copied verbatim from an anti-Anglican tract. And one written from a position of ignorance - whoever wrote it doesn't know what "Queen Anne's Bounty" was. Another clue that whoever wrote the OP they probably aren't either English or Anglican. (Or if they are they have such a cultural tin ear that they have no place to stand to criticise the rest of us)
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Actually Anglican clergy are paid using the £7bn built up over the centuries, largely from Queen Anne's Bounty and the Church Commissioners -- Anglicans of centuries ago would have been astonished to see that out-and-out heretics, blasphemers and perverts are living on the money today!
), through us died-in-the-wool left Socialists, thorough to proper Marxists and Communists. That kind of confusion of categories is a much more American right-wing thing than a British right-wing one. Were the old Soviets unwilling to slaughter their enemies? (with or without help from long-dead Judean rabbis) Anglican2009, if you really are an Anglican and really are a Christian and really are anywhere in England I suggest that you hie yourself to London and go to the Imperial War Museum and look at their T34 and thank God for the tank that saved Europe from the anti-Christian atheistic (with a bit of neo-pagan ritual round the edges) gay-friendly Nazis. And pray for the souls of the millions of Russians who died in the name of Communism while saving your sorry arse.quote:That's us men told!
For although the husband shall have power to force his wife to feare and obey him, yet he shall never have strength to force her to love him. Some husbands do boast themselves to be served, feared, and obeyed in their houses, because the wife that abhorreth doth feare and serve her husband, but she that indeed liketh, doth love him, and cherish him. As the wife ought with great care to endeavour, and by all good meanes to labour to be in favour and grace with her husband: so likewise the husband ought to feare to be in disgrace and disliking with his wife: for if she do once determine to fixe and settle her eyes and liking upon another, then many inconveniences will ensue and follow. The husband ought not to be satisfied with the use of his wives body, but in that he hath also the possession of her will and affections: for it sufficeth not that they be married, but that they be well married, and live Christianly together, and be very well contented. And therefore the husband that is not beloved of his wife, holdeth his goods in danger, his house in suspition, his credite in ballance, and also sometimes his life in perill: because it is reasonable to beleeue that she desireth not long life unto her husband, with whom she passeth a time so tedious and irksome.
quote:He was a bit taller than me. And had more of the smell of dead flesh about him.
Originally posted by The Man With No Name:
quote:What have you done to your eye???
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Almost as bad an idea as being rude to that smelly old tramp with a long beard, an injured hand, and one eye missing.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Never piss off a virgin with a broadsword.
quote:Tell that to the God who inspired the prophet Joel to preach that in the last days God will pour out his Spirit upon all flesh; and the sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and the young men shall see visions, and the old men dream dreams - the Spirit will be poured out on even the slaves and the slavewomen and they shall prophesy. And who inspired Peter to preach that same message to the people in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, and Luke to write into the Book of Acts, as a sort of manifesto for the Church. In the Kingdom of God (which is among us now, as well as in the future) the women and the children and the slaves have the Spirit of the God of Prophecy in a way denied even to kings and priests in the old dispensation. The last will be first and the first will be last (and it was Jesus who said that).
Social equality is impossible to achieve and not part of the Christian remit.
quote:Traditional Church teaching may - the Bible doesn't. Since when was Abraham a member of the Christian Church on earth? But his faith was counted to him as righteousness. Melchizidek wasn't even a Jew. (Neither, probably, was Caleb originally, but he and his children were given a portion in the land of Judah). Anglican2009, you don't read the Bible literally enough.
The Bible and traditional Church teaching show clearly: there is no salvation outside the church;
quote:It doesn't say either of those things in the Bible. Anglican2009, you don't read the Bible literally enough.
only men can be ordained and celebrate Holy Communion;
quote:No, he didn't. Or if he did its not in the Bible. He said that a man who divorces a women for any other reason than sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery. That's what it actually says. The most obvious rule to derive from that would be that if an unjustly divorced women remarries the sin is her first husband's not hers, though of course it doesn;t sayu that explicitly. But Jesus does explicitly say that divorce is not always equivalent to adultery (as does Paul later). If you take the gospel to mean that all divorce is adultery then you are adding your own cultural biases to the text. Anglican2009, you don't read the Bible literally enough.
Jesus specifically stated that divorce was equivalent to adultery.
quote:What, Bible verses that tell us not to say "fuck"? I bet you can't. And many Bible writers - most notably Paul and Ezekiel - used crude language in inspired scripture. Anglican2009, you don't read the Bible literally enough.
May I call on all members of this Ship of Fools to refrain from foul language. I could dig out some Bible verses on that subject too it necessary.
quote:Not in the New Testament it wasn't. There are a number of women prophets and at least one woman deacon. That's unarguable. There is room for argument about whether there ever were women apostles or elders but there were at least some women ministers in the undivided Church. The Bible tells us so. Anglican2009, you don't read the Bible literally enough.
The tradition of the undivided Church was to have a male ministry.
quote:Maybe you wrote your own, but the Bible God gave the Church says nothing at all about who may celebrate Holy Communion, nor whether or not that person stands in the place of Christ. Not one little verse on the matter at all. Anglican2009, you don't read the Bible literally enough.
Of course Jesus was a man, and a woman who conduct a mock Eucharistic celebration is guilty of blasphemy, because she cannot stand in the place of Christ. The Bible and the tradition of the Church are in agreement on this.
quote:Abu Hamza? Captain Hook?? It's been a long day.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:He was a bit taller than me. And had more of the smell of dead flesh about him.
Originally posted by The Man With No Name:
quote:What have you done to your eye???
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Almost as bad an idea as being rude to that smelly old tramp with a long beard, an injured hand, and one eye missing.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Never piss off a virgin with a broadsword.
quote:Really? Cause I don't see much difference between the people. If the Spirit was real and some had it while others didn't, I would expect the difference to be obvious. Rather, what we see in real life (as opposed to the beautiful -but imaginary- theology you allude to) is that people are people are people. No difference. Sorry.
Originally posted by ken:
In the Kingdom of God (which is among us now, as well as in the future) the women and the children and the slaves have the Spirit of the God of Prophecy in a way denied even to kings and priests in the old dispensation.
quote:I'm guessing he had a couple of tame ravens.
Originally posted by The Man With No Name:
Abu Hamza? Captain Hook?? It's been a long day.
quote:This is so educational, cos I was thinking Edgar Allen Poe, and then I googled "beard, hand, eye, ravens" and hit "I feel lucky" and got...
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:I'm guessing he had a couple of tame ravens.
Originally posted by The Man With No Name:
Abu Hamza? Captain Hook?? It's been a long day.
quote:Alan Cresswell, what room is there then for anything less than loving our brothers and sisters (both those who share our faith and those who don't), regardless of secondary issues such as race, gender, sexuality, religious affiliation?
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.
quote:
That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. Mk 7.
quote:
Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee. Prov. 4:24
quote:
But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Col. 3:8
quote:
Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. James 3:10
quote:
Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. Eph. 5:4
quote:
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
I am happy not to be supremacist - let them practice their cultures in their own countries, why shouldn't they?
How generous of you, my dear.quote:
This is outright apostasy. Christians believe that the Bible is inspired by God. Conservative evangelicals do not cherrypick at all. There is no hierarchy of Bible verses.
quote:Well now, that's Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Apostles put in their place, isn't it (Not to mention SS Cyprian, Athanasius, Augustine, Felicity and Perpetua et. al.)
As Hilaire Belloc said, the Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith.
quote:The Sack of Constantinople, the Spanish rule over the Netherlands, the Thirty Years War (to pick the first three examples off the top of my head) may be characterised in many terms but can hardly be described as a 'consensus' without a severe risk of terminological inexactitude. For that matter the most recent cases of Christians settling their doctrinal quarrels with one another through the medium of bloodshed in Europe were between conservative Catholics and Presbyterians in Ireland and conservative Catholics and Serbian Orthodox in the erstwhile Yugoslavia. Some consensus.
The Christian religion=the teaching of the Church from AD33 to ca. 1960. Over those 19 centuries, there were disputes about some things, but there was also consensus on most things. It may be convenient for left-wing socialists to pick and choose which parts of the traditional teachings to keep, but why they are even bothering is the key question.
quote:And I thought that it was God who judged the secrets of our hearts. Clearly He has competition.
It is clear that 99% of the people on this site are not Christians.
quote:I note he hasn't sold his computer and given the money to the poor, either.
Originally posted by Figbash:
So I'm guessing you don't wear polycottons, and are very careful about putting your arse down on chairs menstruating women might have sat on? Have you ever boiled a kid in its mother's milk?
Not cherry-picking means just that: you have to accept all of it, even the barking mad stuff about how psoriasis sufferers should be cast out into the outer darkness.
quote:And all us horrible terrible no-good bad non-Christians here should give a flying fuck about what you think about our not-Christianity exactly why?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
It is clear that 99% of the people on this site are not Christians.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Yes, because we're all arrogantly clinging to outdated purity laws rather than showing love for our fellow man, and we're all thanking God every day that we're not like those filthy sinners over there.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
It is like talking to a bunch of Pharisees - yes they were the self-righteous equivalents of the Ship of Fools in the 1st century.
quote:Told you! I said that was what he thought, and I was right!
I am happy not to be supremacist - let them practice their cultures in their own countries, why shouldn't they? But we need to believe in our culture and traditions too, and that means protecting Europe as the Citadel on the Hill. As Hilaire Belloc said, the Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith.
quote:I bet you love bacon sandwiches, though. I know the New Testament allows that in contradiction to the Torah, but if there's no heirarchy of verses then why do you follow what the NT says and not the Law?
This is outright apostasy. Christians believe that the Bible is inspired by God. Conservative evangelicals do not cherrypick at all. There is no hierarchy of Bible verses.
quote:Anyone who can so succinctly dismiss the Great Schism and the Reformation as merely "disputes over some things" has to be clinically insane.
The Christian religion=the teaching of the Church from AD33 to ca. 1960. Over those 19 centuries, there were disputes about some things, but there was also consensus on most things.
quote:Even worse, he may even like black pudding!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I bet you love bacon sandwiches, though. I know the New Testament allows that in contradiction to the Torah, but if there's no heirarchy of verses then why do you follow what the NT says and not the Law?
quote:The Flying Spaghetti Monster is female?
Originally posted by Otter:
Viva la FSM!
quote:Of course you have to assume that the writers were thinking of the word "fuck" when they were penning those verses. "Fuck" is a mild term compared to the hate speech propagated against homosexuals, women, and non-Christians spouted by evangelical bigots every Sunday. How can "fuck" be bad when it is commonly uttered during an activity that produces beautiful children?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Scriptures do oppose bad language.
quote:
That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. Mk 7.quote:
Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee. Prov. 4:24quote:
But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Col. 3:8quote:
Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. James 3:10quote:
Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. Eph. 5:4quote:
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:Even worse, he may even like black pudding!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I bet you love bacon sandwiches, though. I know the New Testament allows that in contradiction to the Torah, but if there's no heirarchy of verses then why do you follow what the NT says and not the Law?
quote:Goody.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Though he may just be setting us up for his next screed: People Who Eat Bacon And Black Pudding For Breakfast Are Wicked Heretical Apostates (And Probably Communists As Well), And Thus Are Not Part Of The Christian Church.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
This could be the best thread ever. Anyone for popcorn?
quote:Yet despite their disagreements, it was non-controversial in th 17th century that the Christian religion opposed homosexuality, opposed women ministers, and sought to maintain Europe as a Christian continent.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Only with a comfy chair.
And what a marvellous piece of revisionist history we have here: "the years 1618-1648 represent the zenith of religious consensus and goodwill between Catholic, Calvinist and Lutheran in central Europe, as does the period 1562-1598 between Catholic and Calvinist in France; everyone agreed on all matters of doctrine and practice and were Very Nice toeach other".
PMSWL!
quote:So, you don't mind their disagreements, but you expect us to take seriously their agreement on homosexuality, women and Christian imperialism?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Yet despite their disagreements, it was non-controversial in th 17th century that the Christian religion opposed homosexuality, opposed women ministers, and sought to maintain Europe as a Christian continent.
quote:No, that is not what Pharisees were. You really have misunderstood. You’re just using it as a catch-all insult without any understanding of what you’re saying. Pharisees were not self-righteous liberals allowing foreign religions and female clergy. They were self-righteous conservatives who stridently opposed foreign religions and would have stoned any female clergy. You’re not as bad as them but you’re the only one around here who’s on the same side of the fence as they were.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
It is like talking to a bunch of Pharisees - yes they were the self-righteous equivalents of the Ship of Fools in the 1st century…Why is letting England go Muslim "an act of love"? Why is approving of blasphemous pseudo-services by female "clergymen" "an act of love"? This is Phariseeism of the worst kind.
quote:Again, you have failed to understand what you’re saying. That is actually the definition of a supremacist. The clue’s in the name. You believe that Europe is supreme to all others. Just like the Pharisees were obsessed that Israel was supreme. Yet Jesus gave the great commission – to preach to all the world. Paul followed up on this and preached that all people were God’s children and equal. This is absolutely vital. Europe is not the faith, the faith is not Europe. Faith can not owned, possessed or controlled by a country, it is a gift from God to whosoever He wishes to give it to, Indian, Arab, African or Asian. What makes Europe the Citadel on the Hill? Why are our cultures and traditions more important than anyone else’s?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
I am happy not to be supremacist - let them practice their cultures in their own countries, why shouldn't they? But we need to believe in our culture and traditions too, and that means protecting Europe as the Citadel on the Hill. As Hilaire Belloc said, the Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith.
)quote:Absolutely wrong. You can’t just say that and make it true. You have to live your life like it. Do you eat shellfish? Do you sacrifice in the temple? Does Numbers 1: 5-16 have a place in your daily walk with God or indeed has it ever encouraged or helped you in your faith? It’s the word of God and shouldn’t be removed from the Bible, admittedly. But I think a Christian can get through his entire life and be no poorer for never reading it.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
quote:This is outright apostasy. Christians believe that the Bible is inspired by God. Conservative evangelicals do not cherrypick at all. There is no hierarchy of Bible verses.
Secondly no Christian believes every verse in the Bible is equal to every other verse. Even the conservative evangelicals who embrace inerrancy don't. Everyone cherry picks Scripture. Jesus did it. St. Paul did it. We do it.
quote:Which Church? We’re all dying to know. You obviously think that within a certain strain of tradition that you have personally subscribed to there was consensus. There is only a consensus if you artificially remove all the bits that don’t consent. If you believe in the Anglican Church then how can you possibly think that there is a consensus between it and the traditions of the Catholic Church? You obviously have the same grasp of history as you do about theology. None at all.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Christian religion=the teaching of the Church from AD33 to ca. 1960. Over those 19 centuries, there were disputes about some things, but there was also consensus on most things.
quote:Interesting musings, but not in the Bible. Perhaps you think your own speculations are equal to scripture?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
All of your points are false or tendentious - there is a deaconess in the Bible, but unless you can show that Phoebe, as I think her name was, ministered in the place of male ministers who were present you don't have a point. She was probably ministering to female members of the congregation.
quote:Well, the teaching of the Anglican Church is that women can be clergy in the 21st century. That is the teaching of the Church, why are you refusing to accept it?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Either way, the relevant Bible verse needs to be interpreted in the light of the teaching of the church over 19 centuries, and not subjected to a "private interpretation".
quote:Ah yes, the three key tenets of the Christian faith: no gays, no women and no ragheads.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Yet despite their disagreements, it was non-controversial in th 17th century that the Christian religion opposed homosexuality, opposed women ministers, and sought to maintain Europe as a Christian continent.
quote:What happened in 1960? Did the Holy Spirit go on strike?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Christian religion=the teaching of the Church from AD33 to ca. 1960.
quote:Independence for Upper Volta? Sarah Brightman was born? First episode of Coronation Street? Any of them could make a self-respecting Holy Spirit walk off in a huff.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:What happened in 1960? Did the Holy Spirit go on strike?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Christian religion=the teaching of the Church from AD33 to ca. 1960.
quote:for fuck's sake, sunshine, didn't mama teach you to summarize?
Originally posted by Hawk:
(whole lotta jabbering making my eyes cross and my tummy sour)
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Frankly, anything is possible with fruitloopery of this magnitude...
quote:Just a minute, Marvin, but we're talking about racism, xenophobia, sexism, and homophobia here. That is orders of magnitude worse than fruitloopery or asshattery: It is poisonous, dangerous, vile, and disgusting. Let's not trivialize what a horrible person Anglican2009 appears to be.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What an asshat.
quote:Well, it's a good job you're hosting a message board then.
Originally posted by comet:
I can't stand to read your long-winded shit.
quote:Oh, this is exactly so. But does his racism, xenophobia, sexism and homophobia have a basis in his religion? It appears so. Why don't you address this issue?
Originally posted by davelarge:
Just a minute, Marvin, but we're talking about racism, xenophobia, sexism, and homophobia here.
quote:Oooh, what a giveaway! Rowan Atkinson is such a Pharisee. Hello Trolly McTrollerson. And the posting style is so familiar, too. Going to rack my pain-addled* brain to think who this reminds me of...
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Hawk, the Pharisees were self-serving and self-righteous. It is that characteristic in particular that I am homing in on, and drawing a parallel to the Phariseeism of Rowan Atkinson and the Anglican higher-ups of today, who feel just as self-righteous while trying to abolish Christianity as the Pharisees did in the first century.
quote:That, of course, is one valid interpretation of the reason for the dietary laws. It's by no means the only valid interpretation. And, of course, the health issues relating to eating pork and shell fish would have been important to the early church as well, they didn't have fridges then either (though, perhaps you're sufficiently deluded to think that they did!). It might justify us saying the "no pork" rule isn't important, it would be irrelevant to Peter and Paul.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
But still the Pentateuch is the word of God, and the principles, eg the importance of holiness etc, therein are still applicable. Part of the Law was designed to protect the Jews from diseases in the desert - hence the dietary laws. I am not living in the desert, and indeed I have access to a refrigerator.
quote:Makes a change from his being a druid, doesn't it?
Originally posted by Earwig:
... Rowan Atkinson is such a Pharisee. Hello Trolly McTrollerson. And the posting style is so familiar, too. Going to rack my pain-addled* brain to think who this reminds me of...
*fiskin' root-canals....
quote:Alan, I have consistently explained that we should avoid private interpretations and look to the traditional teaching of the church. What verses on Hebrew dietary laws mean to Christians today depends on the teaching of the church that expounded those passages. Has the church ever taught that a kid shouldn't be boiled in its mother's milk? No, it hasn't, as the church has taught for over 1000 years that the Jewish religion was superceded by the new covenant.
That, of course, is one valid interpretation of the reason for the dietary laws. It's by no means the only valid interpretation. And, of course, the health issues relating to eating pork and shell fish would have been important to the early church as well, they didn't have fridges then either (though, perhaps you're sufficiently deluded to think that they did!). It might justify us saying the "no pork" rule isn't important, it would be irrelevant to Peter and Paul.
quote:Thanks for your insights, fuck you.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A quick note to the popcorn brigade:
Fuck off.
quote:Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee. Prov. 4:24
Originally posted by Lady Alicia of Scouseland:
quote:Thanks for your insights, fuck you.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A quick note to the popcorn brigade:
Fuck off.
quote:A fool does not care whether he understands a thing or not; all he wants to do is to show how clever he is. (Prov 18.2)
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
quote:Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee. Prov. 4:24
Originally posted by Lady Alicia of Scouseland:
quote:Thanks for your insights, fuck you.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A quick note to the popcorn brigade:
Fuck off.
quote:You assume people care. They don't. Except for a few fundamentalists.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The teaching of the Church today is a complete 180 compared to the traditional teaching.
quote:That wasn't his point. His point was that you pick-and-choose, same as everyone does. And you have reasons and criteria by which you pick-and-choose, same as everyone does.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
So your AHA! upon reading about kids-boiling-in-milk, thinking that unless anyone adheres to this dietary rule, he has no right to insist on any other principle mentioned in the Good Book, is quite wrong.
quote:But they're the only people who count. The rest just aren't Christians. End of.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:You assume people care. They don't. Except for a few fundamentalists.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The teaching of the Church today is a complete 180 compared to the traditional teaching.
quote:Technically, it's not picking and choosing, unless you are willing to accept that there is more than one religion spoken of in the bible, with the old testament and the new testament describing two different religions instead of being two parts of the same religion.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
That wasn't his point. His point was that you pick-and-choose, same as everyone does. And you have reasons and criteria by which you pick-and-choose, same as everyone does.
quote:Quite. Mr Bean a Pharisee? Complete nonsense!! I think, perhaps, he may mean Rowan Williams.
Originally posted by Earwig:
quote:Oooh, what a giveaway! Rowan Atkinson is such a Pharisee. Hello Trolly McTrollerson. And the posting style is so familiar, too. Going to rack my pain-addled* brain to think who this reminds me of...
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Hawk, the Pharisees were self-serving and self-righteous. It is that characteristic in particular that I am homing in on, and drawing a parallel to the Phariseeism of Rowan Atkinson and the Anglican higher-ups of today, who feel just as self-righteous while trying to abolish Christianity as the Pharisees did in the first century.
*fiskin' root-canals....
quote:While you feel comfortable following Paul and not Jesus? I think not.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You only noticing this now? That must have been a huge rock you crawled out from under out in Greece
quote:I think he wrote that deliberatly to wind people up...
Originally posted by kentishmaid:
quote:Quite. Mr Bean a Pharisee? Complete nonsense!! I think, perhaps, he may mean Rowan Williams.
Originally posted by Earwig:
quote:Oooh, what a giveaway! Rowan Atkinson is such a Pharisee. Hello Trolly McTrollerson. And the posting style is so familiar, too. Going to rack my pain-addled* brain to think who this reminds me of...
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Hawk, the Pharisees were self-serving and self-righteous. It is that characteristic in particular that I am homing in on, and drawing a parallel to the Phariseeism of Rowan Atkinson and the Anglican higher-ups of today, who feel just as self-righteous while trying to abolish Christianity as the Pharisees did in the first century.
*fiskin' root-canals....
quote:I make the mistake of assuming you actually mean what you post.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Sqiggle, how do you know what I think?
quote:
Proverbs 19:10 Delight is not seemly for a fool; much less for a servant to have rule over princes.
quote:
Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
quote:Adam Clark's Bible Commentary says:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Bible on democracy:
quote:
Proverbs 19:10 Delight is not seemly for a fool; much less for a servant to have rule over princes.
quote:
And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.1 Sa 15:33
quote:But DoS was so consistent in his erratic style, even on that financial website where he'd been posting for years. The personna didn't change.
Originally posted by Earwig:
DoS. That's who this monkey reminds me of. Similarly mangled posting style, similar trolly bigotry.
quote:You're funny. And by funny I mean, completely barking mad.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Samuel's response to multiculturalism ca. 3000 years ago:
quote:
And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.1 Sa 15:33
quote:God's response to multiculturalism ca. 3000 years ago.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Samuel's response to multiculturalism ca. 3000 years ago:
quote:
And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.1 Sa 15:33
quote:
Numbers 15: 15 - The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the LORD.
quote:
Exodus 22: 21 - You shall not wrong an alien, neither shall you oppress him, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt
quote:
Numbers 15: 15 - The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the LORD.
quote:[/QB][/QUOTE]
Exodus 22: 21 - You shall not wrong an alien, neither shall you oppress him, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt
quote:To British secularism?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Assimilate to what, exactly?
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:No it wasn't. Well, not about women ministers anyway. There were some, admittedly small, 17th century sects with women preachers and pastors.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Yet despite their disagreements, it was non-controversial in th 17th century that the Christian religion opposed homosexuality, opposed women ministers, and sought to maintain Europe as a Christian continent.
quote:Hey, careful there! Whatever Anglican2009 is, it doesn't seem to be an evangelical bigot. (And, as I said, probably not BNP either. Hilaire Belloc is a very unlikely hero for a BNP pawn - though there are some who like him)
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
"Fuck" is a mild term compared to the hate speech propagated against homosexuals, women, and non-Christians spouted by evangelical bigots every Sunday.
quote:From context I think he's thinking of Vatican II
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:Independence for Upper Volta? Sarah Brightman was born? First episode of Coronation Street? Any of them could make a self-respecting Holy Spirit walk off in a huff.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:What happened in 1960? Did the Holy Spirit go on strike?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Christian religion=the teaching of the Church from AD33 to ca. 1960.
quote:Er, um, yes, sort-of. Sorry.
Originally posted by Hawk:
You can’t just say that and make it true. You have to live your life like it. Do you eat shellfish? Do you sacrifice in the temple? Does Numbers 1: 5-16 have a place in your daily walk with God or indeed has it ever encouraged or helped you in your faith?
And an awful lot of naive Sunday-School literalism gets wrong - they ignore the geneaologies, which are the real history, and jump to conclusions from a couple of misread references to the number of years that have passed and so typically end up thinking that the period of Judges is much longer than the Bible in fact says it was. As well as missing he interesting factoid that the last few chapters of Judges and the first few of Samuel are set in pretty much the same timeframe and in exactly the same places - by some strange literary coincidence the nome places of Saul and David - and that the story of Ruth is only slightly earlier and also set in Bethlehem - so we have a little picture of pre-Kingdom society that all holds together (& was I believe intended to by the people who wrote it - which is, yes, a different claim from the claim that it is historically true rather than some post-exilic legends about the origins of the southern Kingdom and tribal divisions within it). And of course all that is a backdrop to the story of David, which is the literary centre of the Old Testament. As well as being a bloody good story. And very sad.
quote:The Bible on monarchy:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Bible on democracy:
quote:
Proverbs 19:10 Delight is not seemly for a fool; much less for a servant to have rule over princes.
quote:I have to say it never ceases to amaze me that fundies of the Orange Lodge variety declare themselves to be pro-monarchy. The Deuteronomic History must be one of the most sustained anti-monarchic satires in the whole of world literature.
1 Samuel 8: 11-18
He said, ‘These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; 12and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plough his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. 15He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. 16He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. 17He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day.’
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Er, um, yes, sort-of. Sorry.
Originally posted by Hawk:
Does Numbers 1: 5-16 have a place in your daily walk with God or indeed has it ever encouraged or helped you in your faith?
Amongst other things ...[snip]
Isn't it worth knowing that?
quote:So only those who submit to English rule and law should be allowed to stay? That's what muslims, immigrants etc are doing already. So far, so biblical. And people were stoned for worshipping other gods in those days but since we don't do that nowadays to Jews, Christians or Muslims (it's no longer part of the law - as well as the whole tricky "let he who is without sin..." thing), that part no longer applies. Again, so far, so biblical, no one is disobeying your strict interpreation of society as pictured in the Bible.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
aliens who submitted to Jewish rule and did not practce idolatry were afforded equal rights. For that matter, Jews who worshipped golden calfs could be dealt with harshly by God/the prophets, let alone aliens. Your verses are an indication that aliens in the UK today who accept an end to multiculturalism and are prepared to assimilate should be afforded the equal protection of the law. Since when did I say otherwise?
quote:That reminds me - doesn't the Sermon on the Mount say something along the lines of "ye have heard it said 'thou shalt not kill' and the one who killeth his brother shall answer before the judges, but I say unto to you that the one who shall say unto his brother 'thou twit' shall be in danger of hell"?
originally posted by Ken:
"Ship of Twits"
quote:There may have been small heretical sects that rejected the age-old teaching of the church.
No it wasn't. Well, not about women ministers anyway. There were some, admittedly small, 17th century sects with women preachers and pastors.
quote:Source?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
most women find the feminists to be boring,
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
assimilation requires joining the Church of England for a start as well as many other things.
quote:Really? Because I've always found it's patriarchs who are boring for the exact same reason.
It is not anti-women to believe in the headship. In fact, most women find the feminists to be boring, and they try to bully other women into following their agenda.
quote:It is not necessarily anti women, (although your own reasons for doing may be) but it is potentially anti- human, and probably also without your realising it, anti-man because you are putting an uneccessary burden of responsibility on the basis of an arbritary condition, (gender) with no other qualifications for doing so than that.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
[QUOTE]It is not anti-women to believe in the headship.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
[QBAgain, the Creator will be aware of this[/QB]
quote:My research shows I'm smarter than 98% of women and 99.9999% of men. It's my research, therefore it's true!
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Men are more suited personality-wise to the headship, owing to their created qualities. Research shows an average 4-5 point IQ difference between men and women.
quote:Nah, you just like those bell-shaped curves.
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:My research shows I'm smarter than 98% of women and 99.9999% of men. It's my research, therefore it's true!
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Men are more suited personality-wise to the headship, owing to their created qualities. Research shows an average 4-5 point IQ difference between men and women.
This must be why I'm more lesbian than straight these days....
quote:Or Mr Bean.
Originally posted by BillyPilgrim:
quote:Makes a change from his being a druid, doesn't it?
Originally posted by Earwig:
... Rowan Atkinson is such a Pharisee. Hello Trolly McTrollerson. And the posting style is so familiar, too. Going to rack my pain-addled* brain to think who this reminds me of...
*fiskin' root-canals....
quote:Yes, he did say Atkinson, didn't he. (I woke up in the middle of the night and realised that.)
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Rowan Atkinson is the devil.
quote:Name three.
Men are more suited personality-wise to the headship, owing to their created qualities.
quote:Left testicle. Penis. Right testicle.
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:Name three.
Men are more suited personality-wise to the headship, owing to their created qualities.
quote:The Creator would be aware of that, if any of it were true.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Research shows an average 4-5 point IQ difference between men and women. Also, the female bell curve is flatter - there are fewer geniuses. Again, the Creator will be aware of this as this is how he created us.
quote:Would that mean I ought to join the Church of Scotland (I'm assuming you don't think I should get in the car every Sunday morning for the 2h drive to Carlisle to go to church).
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
assimilation requires joining the Church of England for a start
quote:No, the Episcopalian Church of Scotland, whose episcopal orders are continuous with the pre-Reformation church. Arguably the abolition of episcopacy in the 1680s was illegal. If in power, I would merge the Presbyterians and Episcopalians by Act of Parliament, and ensure the KJV and the BCP (possibly the Scottish book of 1637 and not the 1662 one???? Food for thought?) were the sole legal services north of the border.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Would that mean I ought to join the Church of Scotland (I'm assuming you don't think I should get in the car every Sunday morning for the 2h drive to Carlisle to go to church).
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
assimilation requires joining the Church of England for a start
quote:Hey, the RCC isn't a convenient disposal zone for your extremists! Just ask Anglican2009 whether he thinks that the Anglican orders are valid. RC rad-trads and ex-RC sedevacantists generally do acknowledge Leo XIII as pope and Apostolicae Curae as normative.
Originally posted by ken:
This trolling sounds almost like a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic who is trying to pretend to be a Protestant Fundamentalist but can't quite get the tone of voice right.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Church_of_Scotland
In 1610 three ministers were called to London to be consecrated as bishops, as if there had till now been no bishops in Scotland; these on their return consecrated ten others. In 1612 the act of 1592 which established Presbytery was rescinded, and Episcopacy became the legal church system of Scotland.
quote:IQ tests were created by MEN, not women, and test the sort of skills that male brains tend to be good at.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Men are more suited personality-wise to the headship, owing to their created qualities. Research shows an average 4-5 point IQ difference between men and women. Also, the female bell curve is flatter - there are fewer geniuses. Again, the Creator will be aware of this as this is how he created us.
quote:Didn't know there were differences between Calvin's teachings and episcopal government. Isn't he the one who said:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, in 1638 the office of bishop was again abolished in Scotland, ending the compromise established by James VI which had Calvinist doctrine and episcopal government.
quote:
If the bishops so hold their dignity, that they refuse not to submit to Christ, no anathama is too great for those who do not regard such a hierarchy with reverence and the most implicity obedience.
quote:As a point of order, weren't these English monarchs also (and first) Scottish monarchs, of the House of Stuart? I agree that it gets a bit fuzzy after the 'glorious revolution', but an argument could be made that England was ruled by a Scottish royal house from 1603 to 1714, except for the time of Cromwell.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, in 1638 the office of bishop was again abolished in Scotland, ending the compromise established by James VI which had Calvinist doctrine and episcopal government. Of course, English monarchs tried to reimpose episcopal government on the kirk after that, but finally in 1690 Presbyterian government was firmly established by law.
quote:Exactly. Alan Cresswell, I hope you're taking notes. Anyhow, after 15 centuries of having bishops in the catholic (=universal) church, the Scottish Parliament had no business trying to replace episcopacy by presbytery. It was all essentially politics anyway. As King James said "no bishop, no king"!
So, if these impositions came from the monarch in that period, they could equally be described as impositions from the Scottish monarch. And wasn't it loyalty to the Scottish house of Stuart that finally did for the piskie bishops in Scotland (as non-jurors after the GR, and 'Jacobite rebels' thereafter?)
quote:What about testing patience?
Originally posted by leo:
If you test creativity, then women are likely to be better than men.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
IQ tests were created by MEN, not women, and test the sort of skills that male brains tend to be good at.
quote:Before you can test it, you have to define it.
If you test creativity, then women are likely to be better than men.
quote:Some do, some don't
Originally posted by leo:
Well, they started with Alfred Binet, Francis Galton, James McKeen Cattell, Wilhelm Stern, Lewis Terman, H. H. Goddard, Arthur Otis, Hans Jürgen Eysenck - all males.
Try Emotional Quotient and 'women come out top.'
quote:I don't know who that paragraph was addressed to but I didn't write the things it seems to be arguing against, and it doesn't talk about the things I did write. Which you have not and I am reasonably sure cannot refute.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Ken, I have read the entire Bible cover to cover. Who is vehemently anti-women or inherently anti-Semitic? While pressing all the leftwing buttons, your accusations are unfounded, and so un-Christian. It is not anti-women to believe in the headship. In fact, most women find the feminists to be boring, and they try to bully other women into following their agenda. The fact that the Jews were cast off by God does not mean Jews cannot be saved - you yourself quoted that there is no Jew or Greek - and so your claim that it is "anti-Semitic" to mention it is quite false. The Third Collect for Good Friday puts the point quite well.
quote:So what?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Men are more suited personality-wise to the headship, owing to their created qualities. Research shows an average 4-5 point IQ difference between men and women. Also, the female bell curve is flatter - there are fewer geniuses. Again, the Creator will be aware of this as this is how he created us.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
If in power, I would merge the Presbyterians and Episcopalians by Act of Parliament, and ensure the KJV and the BCP (possibly the Scottish book of 1637 and not the 1662 one???? Food for thought?) were the sole legal services north of the border.
quote:Certainly doesn't sound like one. Most Piskies are (broadly and not uniformly) Aff-Cath types; Anglican2009's comments would be enough to have us spilling our gin-and-tonics in shock...
Originally posted by aig:
Please God - don't tell me this numpty is an Episcopalian (of the Scottish variety).
quote:Throughout history the teaching of the majority of the catholic churches, defined as those which have preserved the apostolic succession, is that the Anglican communion is not part of the catholic church.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The whole catholic (=universal) church is the Historical Church TM, and not just that part of it in communion with the Bishop of Rome. As the episcopal orders of the Scottish church are valid and continuous with those of the preReformation church, the Scottish Epsicopalians ARE the Historical Church in Scotland. As the BCP says "the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England [or Scotland]"
quote:How confusing. I thought you no longer had any interest in the rightness of attitudes towards God, doctrines or rituals. I guess it is indeed very easy to misread a person's character. Ach well...
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Thank you God, that we are not like him. We respect women and gay people, and we aren't fundamentalist with respect to teachings and doctrines and rituals.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Bible is not homophobic and chauvinistic, but does support the traditional family
)
quote:So how come girls are doing better than boys in GCSEs, A Levels and degrees?
Research shows an average 4-5 point IQ difference between men and women.
quote:True, and the monarch (or, Roman Emperor) had no business imposing episcopalianism either. Just because one system had political support from secular powers before the other doesn't make it the right system. Episcopalianism certainly has no such claim when one of the reasons that it had secular support was that it more naturally supports monarchical government (as you quoted in the James VI bit of sound bite politics). The New Testament church was quite clearly much closer to a Congregational or Presbyterian structure than an Episcopal one.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
the Scottish Parliament had no business trying to replace episcopacy by presbytery. It was all essentially politics anyway. As King James said "no bishop, no king"!
quote:Is that the interpretation that accords with the magisterium of the church over 19 centuries? IF not you don't have a point.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:True, and the monarch (or, Roman Emperor) had no business imposing episcopalianism either. Just because one system had political support from secular powers before the other doesn't make it the right system. Episcopalianism certainly has no such claim when one of the reasons that it had secular support was that it more naturally supports monarchical government (as you quoted in the James VI bit of sound bite politics). The New Testament church was quite clearly much closer to a Congregational or Presbyterian structure than an Episcopal one.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
the Scottish Parliament had no business trying to replace episcopacy by presbytery. It was all essentially politics anyway. As King James said "no bishop, no king"!
quote:Cause IQ tests are basted on short questions whereas A'levels and degrees require discursive writing.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:So how come girls are doing better than boys in GCSEs, A Levels and degrees?
Research shows an average 4-5 point IQ difference between men and women.
quote:Solomon had 500 wives and 500 concubines
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Bible is not homophobic and chauvinistic, but does support the traditional family
(sorry ... came late to this party. Bloody day job reinventing God and peddling wet turpitudes
quote:And pandered her out to another man, let's not forget.
Originally posted by leo:
Abraham said his wife was his sister
quote:IQ tests do nothing other than measure how good you are at answering IQ tests. I have multiple degrees, I am generally considered quite bright. The one time I took an IQ test and sent it off I got a letter back from the testers saying something must have gone wrong because my IQ was so low that I shouldn't have been able to read the questions. I am not making this up.
Originally posted by leo:
Cause IQ tests are basted on short questions whereas A'levels and degrees require discursive writing.
quote:Reminds me of a hymn ...
Originally posted by Ricardus:
sweet white communion wine
quote:
Sweet white communion wine -
How sticky and how twee! -
I'm sure God would decline
To mix Himself in thee.
Cheap "Liebfraumilch" offends His Ma,
And as for boozed-up Hock - no ta!
Sweet white communion wine (x2)
quote:Ah. So now you think the Holy Spirit abandoned His church at the First Vatican Council.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Old Catholics all refused to accept heretic teachings peddled in Rome claiming the right to subject the whole world to the Pope.
quote:Yes and she actually was his half sister!
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:And pandered her out to another man, let's not forget.
Originally posted by leo:
Abraham said his wife was his sister
quote:Agree - my IQ score is very high because I am good at doing IQ tests. However, I cannot change a tap washer or assemble a kit from IKEA.
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:IQ tests do nothing other than measure how good you are at answering IQ tests. I have multiple degrees, I am generally considered quite bright. The one time I took an IQ test and sent it off I got a letter back from the testers saying something must have gone wrong because my IQ was so low that I shouldn't have been able to read the questions. I am not making this up.
Originally posted by leo:
Cause IQ tests are basted on short questions whereas A'levels and degrees require discursive writing.
quote:
Ezra10:2 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
3Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
quote:You mean one who dies, defeated, at the hands of the enemies of his faith, and leaves behind him a kingdom doomed to destruction?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
What we need is a Josiah-like king
quote:What is a powerless figurehead going to do either way?
What we need is a Josiah-like king who suddenly discovers the KJV and the BCP and decided to restore the Christian faith. However Prince Charles does not have the makings of a Josiah - he has already indicated that he will disregard the requirement to defend the Christian Faith.
quote:But weren’t the Jews themselves immigrants into the country from which the men took their wives? It might have been the land to which they were returning from exile, but other peoples were living there and had to be disposed of before the Promised Land was to become reality.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The Bible on immigration and multi-culturalism:
quote:
Ezra10:2 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
3Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
quote:you guys make me feel so much better. I never had the attention span to finish an IQ test. I suspect I would do poorly.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Agree - my IQ score is very high because I am good at doing IQ tests. However, I cannot change a tap washer or assemble a kit from IKEA.
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:IQ tests do nothing other than measure how good you are at answering IQ tests. I have multiple degrees, I am generally considered quite bright. The one time I took an IQ test and sent it off I got a letter back from the testers saying something must have gone wrong because my IQ was so low that I shouldn't have been able to read the questions. I am not making this up.
Originally posted by leo:
Cause IQ tests are basted on short questions whereas A'levels and degrees require discursive writing.
quote:So Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel? How do you equate this with His being "a light to lighten the gentiles"?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Yes, St Paul did argue all God's children are equal, at least in that God is no respecter of persons and created them all and is willingness to save them all. In the eyes of the God, then, they are equal, although they are not socially and politically equal in the earthly economies. How did St Paul reconcile this point? He told slaves and masters to just get on with, and to work out their own salvation by allowing their Christianity to mellow the social realities. He did not argue that Christians should overthrow the social order. Nor did Jesus, although the Pharisees did try to trick him on the issue.
Just think how the Syriac women touched Jesus robe and he said "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". She COULD have said, "how dare you be so discriminatory?" and indeed she would have had she been reading the Ship-of-Twits, but in fact she humbly pointed out that the dogs eat the crumbs that fall off the children's table.
quote:Hi. I was quoting Matthew 15:24. [But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.]
Originally posted by BillyPilgrim:
quote:So Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel? How do you equate this with His being "a light to lighten the gentiles"?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Yes, St Paul did argue all God's children are equal, at least in that God is no respecter of persons and created them all and is willingness to save them all. In the eyes of the God, then, they are equal, although they are not socially and politically equal in the earthly economies. How did St Paul reconcile this point? He told slaves and masters to just get on with, and to work out their own salvation by allowing their Christianity to mellow the social realities. He did not argue that Christians should overthrow the social order. Nor did Jesus, although the Pharisees did try to trick him on the issue.
Just think how the Syriac women touched Jesus robe and he said "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". She COULD have said, "how dare you be so discriminatory?" and indeed she would have had she been reading the Ship-of-Twits, but in fact she humbly pointed out that the dogs eat the crumbs that fall off the children's table.
And you keep referring to those among us who disagree with you as "Marxists". Can you supply chapter and verse from the works of Karl Marx in support of your contention? And please not the one about the "opiate of the masses".
Or did you mean Groucho?
quote:This sends a tingle down my spine. Strong women are SO sexy!
I can break into a car with two drinking straws, a clothes pin, and a hair tie
quote:Or indeed, ancient Israel, because it had Deborah as it's Judge and spiritual leader.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
And another thought. Anglican2009, by your definition of Marxist, is America a Marxist nation because they were prepared to consider a woman for the roles of President and Vice-President? Or the UK because it is ruled by a woman and has had a female as Prime Minister?
quote:By his definition of Marxist everybody in the world who isn't actively subjugating women, persecuting gays and vilifying people whose ethnicity is other than White European is one. Including, presumably, every single person who happens to be female, gay or an ethnicity other than White European.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Anglican2009, by your definition of Marxist, is America a Marxist nation because they were prepared to consider a woman for the roles of President and Vice-President? Or the UK because it is ruled by a woman and has had a female as Prime Minister?
quote:That’s the trouble with your method of apologetics by blind pick-and-mix proof texting. Taking a verse out of context to fit your own opinion can lead you into serious error. Jesus did not just say this and walk away, the chapter does not end with this verse. Jesus healed the Samaritan! He did this because, as the Samaritan herself recognised, ‘even the dogs eat the crumbs from the children’s table’.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Hi. I was quoting Matthew 15:24. (But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.)
quote:You don’t agree with left-wing ideology. Yet why do you dismiss those who believe in it as not Christians? Surely someone can believe in a political position and have a religious position as well, why does politics have to cancel religion out? We (or at least most of us) do not dismiss revealed religion at all. We are Christians, followers of the Bible and of church tradition. We accept the scriptures and believe in them, and in Jesus Christ. We have different political ideologies to you but believing in left-wing ideology does not mean we are not Christians. You say that “social religion” by which you mean I assume, ‘political ideology’, does not necessitate a belief in God. That is true, but it does not contradict it either.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Yes, you are Marxists, because you dismissed the revealed religion of the Bible in favour of your "social religion" of equality, multiracialism and gay rights etc. That social religion appears to not be religion at all - at least belief in God is not a necessary part of it - and curiously dovetails exactly with the left-wing views of the elite nowadays. It is politics, not religion, although you somehow want to pretend to be Christian while you're at it.
quote:I think he must be a troll as well. On account of how, despite claiming to have never logged onto the Ship until a couple of days ago, he knew straight away that his thread belonged in Hell (the terminally earnest usually head for the Styx or Purgatory or something, no?)
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
I can't help feeding the troll (which he must be since he called Rowan, Rowan Atkinson...)
But everything 'he' is saying is pure BNP [British National Party, Britain's neo-fascist party] rhetoric. They too claim not to be white supremacists, just opposed to 'multiracialism'; they too call everyone who disagrees with them [ie everyone who is not a fascist] a Marxist.
Could Anglican2009 be the same person who turned up here openly supporting the BNP a few years ago? I forget his name...
quote:Actually he posted in All Saints but was quickly moved by the hosts. I don't think he's a troll, unfortunately.
Originally posted by lady in red:
[I think he must be a troll as well. On account of how, despite claiming to have never logged onto the Ship until a couple of days ago, he knew straight away that his thread belonged in Hell (the terminally earnest usually head for the Styx or Purgatory or something, no?)
quote:Careful with the "we"s there, bud. You're making this place sound far more politically homogenous than it is.
Originally posted by Hawk:
We have different political ideologies to you but believing in left-wing ideology does not mean we are not Christians.
quote:Fair enough, but I would think that compared to him, everyone is left-wing!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Careful with the "we"s there, bud. You're making this place sound far more politically homogenous than it is.
Originally posted by Hawk:
We have different political ideologies to you but believing in left-wing ideology does not mean we are not Christians.
quote:Good question. Because in every case where modern socialist politics disagrees with the magisterium of the church over 19 centuries, you have chosen to "update" the teaching of the church in line with the politics. It is not I who says that politics cancels religion out, but you. Your socialist views have in every single case overwritten the teachings of the church. Social religion has cancelled out revealed Scripture.
You don’t agree with left-wing ideology. Yet why do you dismiss those who believe in it as not Christians? Surely someone can believe in a political position and have a religious position as well, why does politics have to cancel religion out?
quote:There you go, telling us what we believe again. Why don't you ask us, rather than assuming? And, as I said from the outset, we all believe a whole range of things anyhow.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
You are people who have no strong doctrinal beliefs - certainly not in anything written in the Bible - but you simply believe in "being nice people", and your definition of what that entails is informed, not by Christian tradition, but by socialist politics and the egalitarian culture pumped out by the BBC.
quote:Careful who you're saying doesn't have any strong doctrinal belief. Many of us here are very clear in what we believe, probably the vast majority would assent with the historic creeds (OK, we may disagree about little bits like just who exactly the Spirit proceeds from ...). And, some of us are even evangelicals who would put the teaching of Scripture above that of the historic church (not that the two are generally in disagreement).
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
You are people who have no strong doctrinal beliefs - certainly not in anything written in the Bible - but you simply believe in "being nice people", and your definition of what that entails is informed, not by Christian tradition, but by socialist politics and the egalitarian culture pumped out by the BBC.
quote:I love the way "egalitarian" is used as a perjorative.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
by socialist politics and the egalitarian culture pumped out by the BBC.
quote:I enjoy the use of "pumped out" in these foaming-at-the-mouth posts. The BBC is a Broadcasting Corporation, not a Fire Brigade.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:I love the way "egalitarian" is used as a perjorative.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
by socialist politics and the egalitarian culture pumped out by the BBC.
quote:Do you give lessons?
Originally posted by comet
but I can break into a car with two drinking straws, a clothes pin, and a hair tie. I'm not too worried about my problem solving skills.
quote:Funny, I could have sworn that quite a few of us strongly believe that Jesus is the Son of God. apparently that's not in the Bible. Then again, for your statement to be true God Himself would have to not be in the Bible either.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
You are people who have no strong doctrinal beliefs - certainly not in anything written in the Bible
quote:What the hell do you think "mollifying the unequal arrangements by means of Christian love" means, if not striving for economic equality?
For the record, the Bible teaches that all races etc are equal "in the eyes of God", but not necessarily so in earthly societies and economies, and it goes on to teach (see the epistles of Saint Paul inspired by the Holy Ghost) that Christians must accept socioeconomic inequality and mollify the unequal arrangements by means of Christian love.
quote:Translation: "I have proved my point as far as I am concerned. Anyone who disagrees is not of good faith".
I have proved my point to the satisfaction of people of good faith.
quote:hahaha congratulations on proving your point.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
[QUOTE]
I have proved my point to the satisfaction of people of good faith. I may log on de temps en temps, but I won't feel obliged to do so every 10 minutes just to see if some apostate twit is running down the Bible or preaching economic equality in the place of Christianity.
quote:Then I think that Canon IX of the Council of Trent would disagree with, nay anathematise you:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Yes, by faith alone. Thank you for your query Matt Black. Actually there is a false contretemps on the issue - as faith if genuine would be manifest in works, but none of us can work out his own salvation by his deeds alone.
quote:What, then, of your 'magisterium of the Church'? Which 'magisterium' would that be? The Catholic one or the Anglican one? You can't have both...
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
quote:But those few BNP who are into Christianity (they tend more to atehsism of synthetic neo-paganism)roe tare more likely to be looney Protestant types than looney Catholics. (large or small c) There are plenty of right-wing Catholics of course but in Britain at any rate they get thought of as cultural immigrants so tend to be wary of the likes of the BNP. Also the official teachings of the Roman Catholic church are utterly opposed to nationalism and racism (not that that stopped them supporting Franco in Spain) Its hard to see how anyone could be a BNP member in England and get through an honest session at the Confessional.
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
But everything 'he' is saying is pure BNP [British National Party, Britain's neo-fascist party] rhetoric. They too claim not to be white supremacists, just opposed to 'multiracialism'; they too call everyone who disagrees with them [ie everyone who is not a fascist] a Marxist.
quote:You are breaking the Ninth Commandment.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
You are people who have no strong doctrinal beliefs - certainly not in anything written in the Bible - but you simply believe in "being nice people"
quote:Who do you mean by "you"? I don't think it is wrong to evengelise Muslims. Loads of people who ppost here don't think its wrong to evangelise Muslims. I saw someone from a Muslim family confirmed in church yesterday, and rejoiced. We should go into the whole world with the good news of Jesus Christ.
Should we evangelize the Muslims? The Bible and the magisterium of the church are in accord: yes! But your political views, which are placed higher than anything in the Bible or the magisterium, hold that it would be "supremacist" to do so, or "offensive" or "culturally insensitive", or a number of other buzzwords.
quote:Aye, JonaMan. After 7 pages you should know by now that some of us have our own parallel universe and will not let reality get in the way.
Originally posted by JonahMan:
It's the first time I've seen it suggested that denizens of the Ship of Fools simply "believe in Being Nice People". Has he read anything that Erin or RooK have written??
quote:Your statements do not follow each other. Your logic is flawed. Your conclusion should have read, in order to be accurate and logical: “Some socialist views have in some cases overwritten previous teachings of the church. Social religion has cancelled out medieval church doctrine.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Because in every case where modern socialist politics disagrees with the magisterium of the church over 19 centuries, you have chosen to "update" the teaching of the church in line with the politics. It is not I who says that politics cancels religion out, but you. Your socialist views have in every single case overwritten the teachings of the church. Social religion has cancelled out revealed Scripture.
quote:And then you change the goalposts again, redefining your argument and arguing against a strawman fantasy of your own. It is not supremacist to want to engage with Muslims and convince them to convert to Christianity. Personally I believe that is what we are called to do as Christians, even if it does offend them. The definition of Supremacism is “the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, species, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not”. Isn’t this what you are arguing? Notjust the superiority of one belief over another, but also its right to dominate, rule and oppose any other position? I believe that Christianity is superior to other religious belief systems, but I certainly do not believe that gives me any rights over other people. Nowhere does it say this in the Bible. Where does Jesus say that his followers should seek worldy power, dominance or authority?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Should we evangelize the Muslims? The Bible and the magisterium of the church are in accord: yes! But your political views, which are placed higher than anything in the Bible or the magisterium, hold that it would be "supremacist" to do so, or "offensive" or "culturally insensitive", or a number of other buzzwords. The social religion, which is really just socialism, cancels out Christian belief entirely.
quote:You admit that all races are equal in God’s perspective. Therefore, I believe, as a Christian it is my duty to make my perspective more like God’s and in doing so, in my small way, make society more like God’s will for it. This is known as building the Kingdom of God on earth. St Paul’s instructions were to resist the temptation to force God’s Kingdom. Equality should never be brought at the point of a sword and IMO never at the point of revolution or armed struggle. Yet by the slow, incremental pressure of Christ-like individuals and reasoned debate the world can be made more like the Kingdom of God. Look at Paul’s letter to Philemon. He puts soft yet steady pressure on Philemon to forgive and to release his slave Onesimus because it is not appropriate for a brother in Christ to enslave another brother. See verse 15-17
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
For the record, the Bible teaches that all races etc are equal "in the eyes of God", but not necessarily so in earthly societies and economies, and it goes on to teach (see the epistles of Saint Paul inspired by the Holy Ghost) that Christians must accept socioeconomic inequality and mollify the unequal arrangements by means of Christian love. It does NOT teach that it is possible to make a society or economy on earth that is perfectly equal - that would be COMMUNISM.
quote:He des not try and force this or instruct it as God’s command, but he is certainly working towards the abolition of slavery, even if in just this one household. This is an attempt by Paul to make all people equal in a human society – something you have claimed is impossible and shouldn’t even be tried as it is against Christianity! In this you are in direct disagreement with the Apostle Paul. Was he Communist? Do you oppose his attempts at social equality?
Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good— no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.
quote:I could help you de-assimilate, if you want!
Originally posted by lady in red:
That presumably means that I am part of the Borg. Which is quite the most exciting thing that has happened to me this afternoon
quote:No he hasn't. He has said that he would like to defend ALL faiths. Good for him. As an anti-monarchist, I quite warm to him on that issue.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
What we need is a Josiah-like king who suddenly discovers the KJV and the BCP and decided to restore the Christian faith. However Prince Charles does not have the makings of a Josiah - he has already indicated that he will disregard the requirement to defend the Christian Faith.
quote:Congratulations is putting into words what I have been thinking as I have caught up with his pontifications today.
Originally posted by Erin:
Jesus Christ, you're a total fuckwit. If equality is to be mocked in your religion, not only can you keep it, but you can also shove it up your ass. Sideways.
quote:Ever since that mafia game I've been trying to persuade you to become a pentecostal. I don't think either of us is about to change our mind any time soon
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:I could help you de-assimilate, if you want!
Originally posted by lady in red:
That presumably means that I am part of the Borg. Which is quite the most exciting thing that has happened to me this afternoon
quote:Squiggle, is that your attempt at flirting?
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:I could help you de-assimilate, if you want!
Originally posted by lady in red:
That presumably means that I am part of the Borg. Which is quite the most exciting thing that has happened to me this afternoon
quote:I guess it could be. I have to admit to being more charitably disposed to Andrew than many people on the ship, having engaged in a gloriously successful murderous rampage together in a game of mafia.* However I hasten to add that we will never, ever, ever until-hell-freezes-over become more than good friends
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:Squiggle, is that your attempt at flirting?
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:I could help you de-assimilate, if you want!
Originally posted by lady in red:
That presumably means that I am part of the Borg. Which is quite the most exciting thing that has happened to me this afternoon
(or at the very least until he converts to a moderate, listening, enlightened form of pentecostalism, which I suspect is the same thing )![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Not at all surprising, I don't think Squiggle's had an original thought his entire life.
Originally posted by lady in red:
*I hasten to add that Andrew was a mere lowly mafia minion. I was the evil genius masterminding the operation
quote:Poof.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Yes, by faith alone. Thank you for your query Matt Black. Actually there is a false contretemps on the issue - as faith if genuine would be manifest in works, but none of us can work out his own salvation by his deeds alone.
quote:Yeah - centuries of debate resolved in a master stroke. If only this guy - with his towering intellect, rapier wit and deep theological insight - had been around in the sixteenth century: the Reformation need never have happened!
Originally posted by David:
quote:Poof.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Yes, by faith alone. Thank you for your query Matt Black. Actually there is a false contretemps on the issue - as faith if genuine would be manifest in works, but none of us can work out his own salvation by his deeds alone.
quote:Indeed, indeed ...
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
I have fully made my case that the faux-Christians around the Ship of Twits are not Christians at all.
quote:I know this is a waste of time, but...
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
For the record, the Bible teaches that all races etc are equal "in the eyes of God", but not necessarily so in earthly societies and economies, and it goes on to teach (see the epistles of Saint Paul inspired by the Holy Ghost) that Christians must accept socioeconomic inequality and mollify the unequal arrangements by means of Christian love. It does NOT teach that it is possible to make a society or economy on earth that is perfectly equal - that would be COMMUNISM.
quote:No. This is heresy. Since where did St Paul argue that slaveowners and slaves should seek to abolish slavery? He argued simply that they should be nice to each other but accept the institution of slavery. This is not "striving for equality". You are not a believer at all. Marvin claims he believes Jesus is the Son of God. PULL THE OTHER ONE, IT'S GOT BELLS ON. A believer in Jesus as the Son of God, but a disbeliever in the writings of St Paul? You are just an atheist who believes in left-wing politics, trying to borrow the moral authority of the church. I hope your vicar denies you the privilege of communication.
What the hell do you think "mollifying the unequal arrangements by means of Christian love" means, if not striving for economic equality?
quote:
it is not self-evident as to what has transpired
quote:
The dominant scholarly consensus is that Onesimus is a runaway slave who became a Christian believer. Paul now sends him back to face his aggrieved master, and strives in his letter to effect reconciliation between these two Christians. What is more contentious is how Onesimus came to be with Paul. Various suggestions have been given: Onesimus being imprisoned with Paul; Onesimus being brought to Paul by others; Onesimus coming to Paul by chance (or in the Christian view, by divine providence); or Onesimus deliberately seeking Paul out, as a friend of his master's, in order to be reconciled.
quote:
Several issues remain unclear about Paul's expectations for Philemon. Is he expected to forgive Onesimus or Manumit him? Is he to consider Onesimus to be Philemon's "brother" as well as his "slave"? Does this new brotherhood supplant his servitude?
quote:It seems St Paul sent the slave back to serve as a slave in Philemon's house, but asked Philemon to receive him as a brother - as a brother also as well as being as slave. Hawk, have you shown that your anti-slavery interpretation was taught by the Christian church for 19 centuries? How many of the Early Church Fathers believed those verses were anti-slavery? Otherwise, you are guilty of a private interpretation - you are twisting the Scriptures to your own destruction.
Luther insisted that the letter upheld the social status quo: Paul did nothing to change Onesimus's legal position as a slave—and he complied with the law in returning him.
quote:And you're skipping over whole parts of actual Scripture to support your own interpretation. As in verses 15-16, which says:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
[QUOTE]It seems St Paul sent the slave back to serve as a slave in Philemon's house, but asked Philemon to receive him as a brother - as a brother also as well as being as slave. Hawk, have you shown that your anti-slavery interpretation was taught by the Christian church for 19 centuries? How many of the Early Church Fathers believed those verses were anti-slavery? Otherwise, you are guilty of a private interpretation - you are twisting the Scriptures to your own destruction.
quote:Reading that, I can't see how you can justify saying that Onesimus was to remain a slave.
Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back for ever, no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a beloved brother.
quote:Missed the edit window: that last bit should probably read: "you accuse others of selectively reading the Bible to fir their own ends, but it seems to be you who's guilty of that".
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Again: you accuse others of selectively reading the Bible to fit their own ends, but you're just as guilty (perhaps even more so). [/QB]
quote:Rubbish. How have you been dominated by a Muslim lately? When was the last time an immigrant controlled you? When was the English race declared to be second class in England? You say immigration leads to English people becoming 2nd class. Please explain how this is true, using evidence, not random BNP propaganda from a pamphlet you’ve been handed.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Hawk, I do not believe in dominating controling or ruling others. That's why the Third World is independent - and they can practice what they like in their countries. By the same token, I do not believe in our being dominated, controled or ruled by others, and that's why I don't believe in immigration, which is leading to English people becoming 2nd class citizens in their own country. If you Hawk believe in immigration, then you are a supremacist - you are a patsy for the ethnic supremacists.
quote:Wikipedia is not an authority on Church or Biblical teaching – don’t stoop to quoting some anonymous wiki article to support your arguments, that’s just laughable.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Philemon is not a tract against slavery but rather a recognition that slaves can become our Christian brothers. I found some help in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Philemon. The writer their explains
quote:As Stejjie pointed out – you are wrong. This is your private interpretation, purposefully ignoring what Paul is saying in order to support your argument. Paul specifically says: “…and more than a brother.” Now you claim that someone who doesn’t believe in the teaching of St Paul is an atheist heretic. Does that apply to you now? Since you are opposing Paul’s teaching and refusing to accept his writings.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
It seems St Paul sent the slave back to serve as a slave in Philemon's house, but asked Philemon to receive him as a brother - as a brother also as well as being as slave.
quote:No, I haven’t, because that is not my position, that’s yours. You believe that the Church needs to claim a doctrine consistently for 19 centuries in order to make it true. Quoting an anonymous wikipedia summary of Luther’s opinion does not come up to your imposed high standards. Unless you can legitimately find evidence to back up your claim that slavery has been supported consistently by the Church for 19 centuries then, by your measure, you have failed to justify your argument.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Hawk, have you shown that your anti-slavery interpretation was taught by the Christian church for 19 centuries? How many of the Early Church Fathers believed those verses were anti-slavery?
quote:Against communism? Well, let's see...
Originally posted by Stejjie:
(Apologies for the double post)
Oh, and where does the Bible teach against Communism? (Leaving aside the fact that Communism was a philosophy developed in the 19th century). Or teach in favour of Capitalism?
quote:
Acts 4:32-35 (NIV):
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
quote:Oh dear.
From Dictionary.com:
com⋅mu⋅nism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] –noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
quote:Projection, projection, projection, it really is everywhere. Just change the word "left" to "right" and you get something remarkably accurate.
originally blathered by the troll:
You are just an atheist who believes in left-wing politics, trying to borrow the moral authority of the church. I hope your vicar denies you the privilege of communication.
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:Against communism? Well, let's see...
Originally posted by Stejjie:
(Apologies for the double post)
Oh, and where does the Bible teach against Communism? (Leaving aside the fact that Communism was a philosophy developed in the 19th century). Or teach in favour of Capitalism?
quote:
Acts 4:32-35 (NIV):
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.quote:Oh dear.
From Dictionary.com:
com⋅mu⋅nism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] –noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
- Chris.
It's beginning to look a lot like epic fail.
quote:Right then - I hereby declare that I, Eliab, do take you, Anglican2009, and enslave you, with immediate effect. I reckon I have as much moral right to make you my slave as any human being ever had to enslave another, and so I have done. You are henceforth my property. I own you, and you are bound to serve and obey me in all things until I release or sell you.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
No. This is heresy. Since where did St Paul argue that slaveowners and slaves should seek to abolish slavery? He argued simply that they should be nice to each other but accept the institution of slavery. This is not "striving for equality".
quote:You really are quite obsessed with power structures. Perhaps because you are a member of the "priviledged" class? ie white male. I don't see much Christian charity in you. Hardly worth the effort, but ...
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Philemon is not clear about the return of the slave. Where it says "have him back for ever no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a brother", it probably means the spirit in which he is received. Although he is a slave and is being got back "for ever", as a Christian he is also a brother, and so should be treated as "more than a slave". The sense is "no longer JUST as a slave, but as more than a slave, a beloved brother".
quote:
The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19).
quote:Just so that I can confirm something, would you want to see slavery reestablished? are you not aware that the very Church which you so idolise helped to bring about slavery's end?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
No. This is heresy. Since where did St Paul argue that slaveowners and slaves should seek to abolish slavery? He argued simply that they should be nice to each other but accept the institution of slavery. This is not "striving for equality".
quote:I think you'll find I am, and I do.
You are not a believer at all. Marvin claims he believes Jesus is the Son of God.
quote:pulls
PULL THE OTHER ONE, IT'S GOT BELLS ON.
quote:Yes. Jesus was the Son of God, Paul was just one more - and in many ways deeply flawed - human being. I fail to see how belief in the divinity of the former inherently requires belief in the writings of the latter.
A believer in Jesus as the Son of God, but a disbeliever in the writings of St Paul?
quote:Yes, I'm so left wing. So very very left wing.
You are just an atheist who believes in left-wing politics, trying to borrow the moral authority of the church.
quote:That's nice. I hope you fall out of a sixth-storey window onto a particularly sharp and pointy fence, which irretriavably skewers you but leaves you alive long enough to spend your last agonising moments watching your insides dribble out through the gash.
I hope your vicar denies you the privilege of communication.
quote:You are bearing false witness against your neighbours. You have said that they believe things they don't.And I think you know they don't. I don't think you are as stupid or as ignorant as the posts here make you seem. (Well I hope you aren't; because if you are then anyone around you must be having a really bad time)
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Ken, you are breaking the 9th commandment yourself.
quote:That's a heck of a reading into the text - if Paul meant that, why didn't he say it? Surely it's much more "literal" to claim that Paul meant Philemon was to free Onesimus - even your precious KJV reads that way.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Philemon is not clear about the return of the slave. Where it says "have him back for ever no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a brother", it probably means the spirit in which he is received. Although he is a slave and is being got back "for ever", as a Christian he is also a brother, and so should be treated as "more than a slave". The sense is "no longer JUST as a slave, but as more than a slave, a beloved brother".
quote:Again, you're missing out bits that aren't convenient to your argument. Acts 4:32:
Acts 4: "from time time those who owned lands or houses sold them". So they may have made donations to the community from time to time, but they did own their own land - so, no communism.
quote:Sounds like, even if they may have strictly speaking owned the possessions, in practice they didn't count them as their own possessions.
no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.
quote:Might not be "Communism" in the strictest definition of the term, but doesn't sound like a strong argument for full-blooded, free market captialism, does it?
All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.
quote:Again you have noticeably failed to provide Church teaching that supports your personal interpretation. “You are guilty of twisting the scriptures to your own destruction.”
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Philemon is not clear about the return of the slave. Where it says "have him back for ever no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a brother", it probably means the spirit in which he is received. Although he is a slave and is being got back "for ever", as a Christian he is also a brother, and so should be treated as "more than a slave". The sense is "no longer JUST as a slave, but as more than a slave, a beloved brother".
Either way, your interpretation of Philemon has to be reconciled with Paul's other pronouncements on slavery and the magisterium of the church. On both counts, your interpretation is therefore heretical.
quote:Now, please, support your personal interpretation in view of the teaching of magisterium of the Church that you supposedly follow. Your views are incompatible with the teaching of the Church over 19 centuries.
First, while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery, … He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order that he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor. 7:29-31).
…while the Christian Empire didn’t immediately outlaw slavery, some Church fathers (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) strongly denounced it.
…Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull Sicut Dudum (1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “all and each of the faithful of each sex… that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands . . . who have been made subject to slavery.”
…A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull Sublimis Deus (1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.”
…When Europeans began enslaving Africans as a cheap source of labor, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving innocent blacks (Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686). The practice was rejected, as was trading such slaves. Slaveholders, the Holy Office declared, were obliged to emancipate and even compensate blacks unjustly enslaved.
…Papal condemnation of slavery persisted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 bull, In Supremo, for instance, reiterated papal opposition to enslaving “Indians, blacks, or other such people” and forbade “any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse.” In 1888 and again in 1890, Pope Leo XIII forcefully condemned slavery and sought its elimination where it persisted in parts of South America and Africa.
quote:Birmingham New Street?
Originally posted by Eliab:
Please stop arguing with my slave. By engaging with him as an equal you might give him ideas above his station.
quote:To be honest, I'm not to bothered that he clearly hasn't read Scripture (or, at least, he's read it but failed to actually register what it says ... which is almost the same thing). Quite a lot of us make professions about what the Bible says without having read it in full; indeed, I suspect that there's no one who has ever in the history of the Church been totally immersed in Scripture that their views on some subject could ever be described as "Scriptural" without any taint of personal views affecting what they say. Some have come closer to that than others.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
if you're going to make professions about what Scripture says, you should read all of it, not just the bits you want to be there.
quote:I'm not going to start playing Mornington Crescent in Hell, because the Hosts would eat me.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Birmingham New Street?
Originally posted by Eliab:
Please stop arguing with my slave. By engaging with him as an equal you might give him ideas above his station.
quote:I'm impressed--A2009 is clearly not your average troll if he can elicit a response from David, whose postings these days are so rare as to be almost legendary. (I have read enough in the archives to wish they were more frequent).
Originally posted by David:
Poof.
quote:TBH, think that's what I was trying to get at: not just that he doesn't seem to have read Scripture fully, but does so while pretending he has and has a full understanding of it. That he could be condemned by so many of the accusations he hurls at everyone who else who dares to disagree with him, while providing very little justification for his views.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is, of course, only one word that fits as a description of Anglican2009. HYPOCRITE.
--that the Anglican Communion can produce proof-texters, hypocrites, and generally unpleasant folk right up there with the best our fellow denominations have to offer. We may be small but we (as a generalization represented by the aforesaid Anglicanwhatevernumber) can produce a mighty stink.quote:Could you also order him to start a "Be my slave" thread in Heaven so that those of us with vacancies can recruit?
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm not going to start playing Mornington Crescent in Hell, because the Hosts would eat me.
I'll order the slave to do it, if you like.
quote:I believe there's already a private board devoted to this subject.
Could you also order him to start a "Be my slave" thread in Heaven so that those of us with vacancies can recruit?
quote:Perhaps you'd like to explain how an infallible magisterium can vary.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The magisterium of the church on slavery has varied.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
You could argue Christians should be nice to their slaves, and should consider freeing them, and you would be a Christian in good standing. Once you argue for the abolition of slavery, you cross the line into worldly politics, and you are no longer a Christian in good standing.
quote:Where have you in any way shown this? All your examples, such as they are, stop around the 15-16 century.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
It turns out that the church was mainly in favour of slavery over the 19 centuries as a whole.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Once you argue for the abolition of slavery, you cross the line into worldly politics, and you are no longer a Christian in good standing.
quote:This has to be the least funny, most gruesome attempt at humor ever on the Ship of Fools.
I personally would purchase a slave if one were available for sale. I have skirting boards etc that need cleaning, and so a bit of help would come in handy. But I would be a kind slave-owner. I would only whip my slaves once a week
quote:There are all sorts of things I could call Marvin (and may have used some of them on these very boards in times gone by) but an ATHEIST? ROFLMAO!
Marvin claims he believes Jesus is the Son of God. PULL THE OTHER ONE, IT'S GOT BELLS ON. A believer in Jesus as the Son of God, but a disbeliever in the writings of St Paul? You are just an atheist who believes in left-wing politics.
Reminds me of an extremely noisy parrot we had once. You might want to see if the vet has any suggestions.
quote:A left-wing atheist, no less.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
but an ATHEIST? ROFLMAO!
quote:Shipmate status from one thread?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Anglican2009, what do you hope to accomplish by this conversation?
quote:I'm a believer in the writings of Paul. I find
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
A believer in Jesus as the Son of God, but a disbeliever in the writings of St Paul?
quote:Which, as it was issued by a late nineteenth century Pope, is just so much horse-shit as far as Anglicans are concerned. Get it into your head: the Pope has no authority over the Anglican Communion.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
was I believe condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.
quote:But you yourself are espousing political opinions every time you say how society ought to be run. Or is it somehow different if it's hate-filled bilge somewhat to the right of the BNP?
You could argue Christians should be nice to their slaves, and should consider freeing them, and you would be a Christian in good standing. Once you argue for the abolition of slavery, you cross the line into worldly politics, and you are no longer a Christian in good standing.
quote:
I personally would purchase a slave if one were available for sale. I have skirting boards etc that need cleaning, and so a bit of help would come in handy. But I would be a kind slave-owner. I would only whip my slaves once a week ;-)
Is that meant to be humour? 'Cos
quote:Interesting. So you're denouncing Pope Paul III (and many other popes)? In 1537 he issued a Bull, entitled Sublimis Deus, to the universal Church:
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
You could argue Christians should be nice to their slaves, and should consider freeing them, and you would be a Christian in good standing. Once you argue for the abolition of slavery, you cross the line into worldly politics, and you are no longer a Christian in good standing.
quote:And, obviously, you're arguing that your personal opinion counts for more than a papal bull. I thought you disagreed with that.
(Satan) has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians...be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals... by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples - even though they are outside the faith - ...should not be deprived of their liberty... Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery...
quote:
in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Everyone knows of the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery
quote:Nobody seems to have any authority over the Anglican communion. Someone wants to believe A is OK? He can believe it. Another wants to believe A is not OK? He, too, can believe it. Someone wants to take B as authoritative? He can do that. Another wants to get rid of B's authority? That's fine as well.
Originally posted by Figbash:
Get it into your head: the Pope has no authority over the Anglican Communion.
quote:So you are a racist as well as a liar.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Ken, you are bearing false witness. How dare you say that English people are not 2nd class citizens in Britannia today? So-called hate crime legislation has put in place harsher penalties for crimes committed against the beloved ethnic minorities, so we are 2nd class, aren't we? If you kill me, my family will not be treated like Doreen Lawrence and showered with cash in the same way.
quote:At least we can know that, should such a thing ever happen, we'll have you around to pipe in with some pointless comment accusing everyone of being ignorant apostates for not accepting your appointed version of Christianity which you reject anyway.
You sure like turning your focus from ideas to people... This thread is a whole joke. So many people whining about Anglican2009, while turning a blind eye to the evidence he gives that the Christian Church has been a very dark institution, and that this darkness comes from its holy books.
quote:No way. Franco-American did far worse only a few hours ago by soiling a stupid thread about T-shirts with a disgusting rape fantasy. That I hope was meant as a joke - I'd rather think he has no sense of humour than that he actually gets off on fantasising about raping pacifists. Or anyone else.
Originally posted by Zach82:
This has to be the least funny, most gruesome attempt at humor ever on the Ship of Fools.
quote:You sure like turning threads from ideas to yourself.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
You sure like turning your focus from ideas to people...
quote:Oh I so often hear this from those that like an authoritarian world.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:Nobody seems to have any authority over the Anglican communion. Someone wants to believe A is OK? He can believe it. Another wants to believe A is not OK? He, too, can believe it. Someone wants to take B as authoritative? He can do that. Another wants to get rid of B's authority? That's fine as well.
Originally posted by Figbash:
Get it into your head: the Pope has no authority over the Anglican Communion.
quote:Actually, I regard crime by black people as motivated by hate too, but the courts will usually only hand down tougher sentences for supposed "hate as an aggravating factor" where the victim is ethnic. So much for equality before the law!
* The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created a number of new racially and religiously aggravated offences
* The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced tougher sentences for offences motivated by hatred of the victim’s sexual orientation (this must now be taken into account by the sentencing court as an aggravating factor, in addition to race or religious hate motivation).
quote:Anglitroll1984 really seems to get you reacting faster than you type, Ken. Was that supposed to be "atheism or synthetic neo-paganism?" All I know of the BNP is what I read on these boards, but in the US our racist, right-wing neo-pagans are largely concentrated in the Asatru traditions (though there are many Asatru who are not racist or right-wing nut-cases like our Anglitroll1984 here). Asatru are Germanic pantheon revivalists and, generally, not eclectic and only synthetic to the extent that the historical sources available for reviving Germanic Pagan religions are limited (as is the case with many historical forms of Paganism) and some gaps must be filled in. There is probably some synthesis with the Nazi Thule Society of WWII within modern Asatru, I would wager.
Originally posted by ken:
But those few BNP who are into Christianity (they tend more to atehsism of synthetic neo-paganism)roe tare more likely to be looney Protestant types than looney Catholics.
quote:/nitpicking/ - I think that would be 'female clergypersons', Anglican2009. Or, even more correctly, seeing as you are using the plural, simply 'female clergy'.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Zappa - you may be right. In 200 years' time, female clergymen and anal sex amongst men may be accepted by the shell of the organisation called the CofE today. The triumph of Satan would then be total. Actually the Bible contains many examples of the backsliding of ancient Israel -- it is no surprise that we are following this trajectory too.
quote:The Admins must have checked out his IP by now. I therefore assume that either
Originally posted by IngoB:
Myrrh doing a Faustian dog, wonders me?
quote:To some extent, at least at surface level, a fair comment. The Lukan allusion is to a common proverb familiar to a myriad utopian thinkers ofthe time and earlier, and contrasts generosity of spirit with meanness; Acts 5.4 probably confirms that some degree of 'ownership' was retained - indeed to project Marx et al.'s notion of communally shared resources on a first century world is probably a little anachronistic. Still: there was in Luke's idealistic mind a sense that goods were no longer the property of the legal owner, but the property of Christ, shared by, in Paul's terms, those in christ, in the service of the gospel. It was a communal vision - which, funnily enough, is what the word 'communism' denotes.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Stejjie, you misrepresented Acts 4:32. The verse reads: "neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common". This is not communism. None of them SAID the things he POSSESSED HIMSELF were his own, but in law they still were. They just didn't bring it up amongst themselves and chose to allow their possessions to be used in a common pot. But they still possessed them individually in law.
quote:Unfortunately even the most conservative of the gospel writers has to embrace the fact that Jesus had a nasty habit of crossing racial divides, and therefore radically subverting the bitterly divisive ideologies of his day. Jesus irritatingly tended towards a preferential option for the outsider, equating pretty much with what you (in somewhat laden terminology) label as the error of 'multiculturalists'. If 'multiculturalists' are those who believe that socio-economic, educational, and medical opportunities should not be based on ethnicity, then I fear, whether or not they care a fig about Jesus, they nevertheless could if they chose cite some of his attitudes as a precedent. It's a nuisance, but never mind.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
"Let me get this straight: you actually think authentic, "good" Christianity not only accepts that some people will be treated as more equal than others, but it's a key part of Christian theology?" Look, it's the multiculturalists who believe the blacks and Pakistanis are "more equal" than us.
quote:On that I probably can't coment, as I live in another country. I'm sure ken will find some interesting facts. But I certainly know that 'hate crimes', rare though thy are in my country, are punished pretty mush equally no matter which direction the hate travels.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Ken, you are misinformed. Where a crime is judged to have been motivated by "hate", the courts now have the power to hand down tougher sentences. Read the discussion at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/oct/31/ukcrime.gayrights. There have been a number of killings of British people by ethnic minorities where the police refused to accept that racial hatred was a factor despite evidence to the contrary. It seems these "tougher sentences" apply only to protect minorities. The Home Office mentions the legislation at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/, where it says:
quote:Actually, I regard crime by black people as motivated by hate too, but the courts will usually only hand down tougher sentences for supposed "hate as an aggravating factor" where the victim is ethnic. So much for equality before the law!
* The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created a number of new racially and religiously aggravated offences
* The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced tougher sentences for offences motivated by hatred of the victim’s sexual orientation (this must now be taken into account by the sentencing court as an aggravating factor, in addition to race or religious hate motivation).
quote:I'm not sure that this 'Satan' is actually so powerful that, if he/she existed he/she would be able to defeat the purposes of God, but I must say your idea of the totality of Satan's potential is that he/she persuades men to put their willies in places other than vaginas then his/her creativity-in-subversiveness is fairly limited.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Zappa - you may be right. In 200 years' time, female clergymen and anal sex amongst men may be accepted by the shell of the organisation called the CofE today. The triumph of Satan would then be total. Actually the Bible contains many examples of the backsliding of ancient Israel -- it is no surprise that we are following this trajectory too.
quote:Google that phrase, and guess what you find?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
There have been a number of killings of British people by ethnic minorities where the police refused to accept that racial hatred was a factor despite evidence to the contrary.
quote:You're backsliding? Oh deary deary me. Where's the courage of your convictions, man.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Marvin: whether slavery is restored or not is a worldly matter, but Jesus said his kingdom was no part of this world. It has been suggested that slavery is only suitable for an agricultural economy and so would not work in the modern world.
quote:There's at least one "Early Church Father" who also disagreed with Paul - St Peter, first Pope and first among the 12 disciples. I think I'm in good company.
Actually, Marvin you indicated in your post that you don't believe in the Bible, which contains Paul's "deeply flawed" writings. Why believe Jesus is the SoG, but oppose the writings of his 1st century followers who the church has always believed were inspired by God. You are contradicting the view of every single Early Church Father than the 19 centuries of the church.
quote:Jesus consorted with centurions but did not say that that meant he approved of military conquest of other people's countries. Jesus never suggested that ethnic minorities are "more equal" than the host nations - the race relations industry today is engaged in promoting this notion. Neither did he say that minorities should not integrate. Neither did he comment on whether one should let foreigners arrive in such numbers that they squash out the country's culture. I would suggest if the country were Christian, He would not approve of allowing the country to slide into heresy and blasphemy via Islamism.
Unfortunately even the most conservative of the gospel writers has to embrace the fact that Jesus had a nasty habit of crossing racial divides, and therefore radically subverting the bitterly divisive ideologies of his day. Jesus irritatingly tended towards a preferential option for the outsider, equating pretty much with what you (in somewhat laden terminology) label as the error of 'multiculturalists'. If 'multiculturalists' are those who believe that socio-economic, educational, and medical opportunities should not be based on ethnicity, then I fear, whether or not they care a fig about Jesus, they nevertheless could if they chose cite some of his attitudes as a precedent. It's a nuisance, but never mind.
quote:Hmmmm. Parable of the Good Samaritan???
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Jesus never suggested that ethnic minorities are "more equal" than the host nations
quote:First Pope? It's unlikely that the guy ever went to Rome!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There's at least one "Early Church Father" who also disagreed with Paul - St Peter, first Pope and first among the 12 disciples. I think I'm in good company.
quote:Er, the last time I looked there were more white people in Britain, hence when people are killed they are more likely to be white, whatever the colour or race of the killer.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
You are wrong on hate crimes. A white man who kills a black (very rare in the UK) is punished with a far longer sentence than the much more frequent killing of a white man by a negro.
quote:Did you notice the initial complaint in this thread? That we (the Ship) have been running a project highlighting some of those parts of our holy books that we find uncomfortable and would much prefer if they weren't there (or, phrased slightly differently). That can hardly be termed "turning a blind eye" to some of the institutional darkness of church history (and, contemporary practice in far too many cases).
Originally posted by §Andrew:
So many people whining about Anglican2009, while turning a blind eye to the evidence he gives that the Christian Church has been a very dark institution, and that this darkness comes from its holy books.
quote:Have you ever heard of a straw man? Well, if not you sure know how to post a straw man argument.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Look, it's the multiculturalists who believe the blacks and Pakistanis are "more equal" than us.
quote:A2, you are not telling the truth.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Ken, you are misinformed. Where a crime is judged to have been motivated by "hate", the courts now have the power to hand down tougher sentences. Read the discussion at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/oct/31/ukcrime.gayrights. There have been a number of killings of British people by ethnic minorities where the police refused to accept that racial hatred was a factor despite evidence to the contrary. It seems these "tougher sentences" apply only to protect minorities. The Home Office mentions the legislation at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/, where it says:
quote:.
* The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created a number of new racially and religiously aggravated offences
* The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced tougher sentences for offences motivated by hatred of the victim’s sexual orientation (this must now be taken into account by the sentencing court as an aggravating factor, in addition to race or religious hate motivation).
quote:I suppose we ought to all go back to Africa and hang out in the Afar region of Ethiopia. Personally, I'd sooner be dead in a ditch.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Genetically, I 'come from' over half a dozen places; what am I supposed to do in Anglifuckwit's dystopia? Slice myself into pieces and post the bits to the various points of origin?
quote:And what evidence do you have, beyond your sick fantasy, that if a black man killed a white man in what was deemed a racially motivated crime, he would be punished any less severely than if the roles were reversed?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Ken I know you just don't know the law. That's not necessarily your fault. The minimum prison sentence for murder is usually 12 years, but this increases to 16 years in the case of racially aggravated murder. Maybe you just missed the various Criminal Justice Acts passed under Labour. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/2018431.stm. These laws have been in place for a number of years in the UK - I quoted the exact Act of Parliament in a previous post. Obama is now bringing in equivalent legislation in the US. You are way behind the times.
quote:A9 strikes me as the sort of person who wants to introduce the death penalty for black people.
Originally posted by Figbash:
And what evidence do you have, beyond your sick fantasy, that if a black man killed a white man in what was deemed a racially motivated crime, he would be punished any less severely than if the roles were reversed?
quote:Same inflexible fundamentalisim, just dressed up in a shiny new atheist outfit.
Originally posted by FCB:
What I am trying to figure out is why I found Andrew's posts tiresome both before and after he completely changed his beliefs. Given the 180 turn, one would think there would be some improvement.
quote:I'd like to see the OPer sent to the Danakil Depression...
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:I suppose we ought to all go back to Africa and hang out in the Afar region of Ethiopia. Personally, I'd sooner be dead in a ditch.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Genetically, I 'come from' over half a dozen places; what am I supposed to do in Anglifuckwit's dystopia? Slice myself into pieces and post the bits to the various points of origin?
quote:That's because he's inept at coding. All you have to do is remove the last bit of punctuation (usually a full stop) from the link.
Originally posted by BillyPilgrim:
Anglican 2009, none of the links you provide actually lead anywhere. A bit like your arguments.
quote:Obviously there is a huge quantity of material in this report, far more than I care to read, but I can't see anything which would suggest that there is anything backing up Angie09's ludicrous and deluded claims. I expect the next claim will be that these government stats are all invented and that Nick Griffin has a better understanding of the real situation.
Table 6.5 shows national level data on sentencing in the Crown Court by main offence group. The main offence group attracting the highest number of custodial sentences was violence against the person. A higher proportion of those in the Black (56%) and ‘Other’ (53%) groups received custody for this offence compared with the Asian (50%) and White (49%) groups.
, perhaps we need a name change amnesty to reflect this. The following suggestions may (not) be taken up:quote:Anglican2009, darling, you do realise that 'race' doesn't just apply to those brown people you don't like very much, don't you? There can be racially aggravated crime against a pinky-white person like (I assume) yourself too.
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:And what evidence do you have, beyond your sick fantasy, that if a black man killed a white man in what was deemed a racially motivated crime, he would be punished any less severely than if the roles were reversed?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Ken I know you just don't know the law. That's not necessarily your fault. The minimum prison sentence for murder is usually 12 years, but this increases to 16 years in the case of racially aggravated murder. Maybe you just missed the various Criminal Justice Acts passed under Labour. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/2018431.stm. These laws have been in place for a number of years in the UK - I quoted the exact Act of Parliament in a previous post. Obama is now bringing in equivalent legislation in the US. You are way behind the times.
quote:All of this from a white British male would be funny if it weren't so deluded and tragic. Your Imperialist country has throughout history engaged in numerous military conquests of other people's countries, set yourselves up as "more equal" in those places, patently refused to integrate and squashed countless cultures. The incessant mewling of the angry white male is growing tiresome. Luckily, with your numbers and influence in decline it will become but a whisper in the winds of change.
Jesus consorted with centurions but did not say that that meant he approved of military conquest of other people's countries. Jesus never suggested that ethnic minorities are "more equal" than the host nations - the race relations industry today is engaged in promoting this notion. Neither did he say that minorities should not integrate. Neither did he comment on whether one should let foreigners arrive in such numbers that they squash out the country's culture. I would suggest if the country were Christian, He would not approve of allowing the country to slide into heresy and blasphemy via Islamism.
quote:You know nothing of the kind. The mandatory prison sentence for murder in England is life. I disapprove of that myself, but unfortunately it is the law. I don't know who you are trying to fool with your nonsense but it won't work here.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Ken I know you just don't know the law. That's not necessarily your fault. The minimum prison sentence for murder is usually 12 years
quote:Thank God?
Originally posted by Wiff Waff:
Dear me, I'm a gay Quaker [ex-Anglican] with an Asian boyfriend and we're both, erm, left of centre in our politics - I'm worried that Angela2009 won't like me.
Help, what should I do?
quote:Come by for a cocktail?
Originally posted by Wiff Waff:
Help, what should I do?
I'm also a refugee from Anglicanism and yer true type Catholic. So that's a double whammy.quote:This is very tedious. Life doesn't mean life. A life sentence is issued for murder, manslaughter etc, and then a "minimum tariff" imposed. The minimum tariff is 12 years for most murders, rising to 16 for "racially aggravated" and there are a range of other tariffs too. Yes, I would prefer the death penalty for murder, and then there would be no dispute at all.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:You know nothing of the kind. The mandatory prison sentence for murder in England is life. I disapprove of that myself, but unfortunately it is the law. I don't know who you are trying to fool with your nonsense but it won't work here.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Ken I know you just don't know the law. That's not necessarily your fault. The minimum prison sentence for murder is usually 12 years
quote:This is exactly my point. The police generally refuse to accept there was a racial aspect to a killing of a white by a black - claiming that it was just ordinary crime and not racially motivated. There have been many cases where the police simply refused to class it as a racially aggravated crime. So if you can get the multiculturalist traitors in the court system to accept that a killing was racist, then, yes, you are right, even the killers of white people will get a longer sentence. But the problem is that our rulers try to bury black racism under the carpet and refuse to acknowledge the racial aspect in murder of white people. That's why some people are MORE EQUAL than others.
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
A motivation of racial hatred will result in a higher tariff (minimum time spent locked up before release) as it is an aggravating feature. This is the same regardless of the colour of the murderer and victim
quote:No it's the opposite of your point. You were claiming that the law was inherently biased, and I asked you for evidence to support that claim (which I note you have not given).
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
quote:This is exactly my point.
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
A motivation of racial hatred will result in a higher tariff (minimum time spent locked up before release) as it is an aggravating feature. This is the same regardless of the colour of the murderer and victim
quote:Evidence?
The police generally refuse to accept there was a racial aspect to a killing of a white by a black - claiming that it was just ordinary crime and not racially motivated.
quote:
There have been many cases where the police simply refused to class it as a racially aggravated crime.
quote:Oh, so now you admit that the law is unbiased then. Shame you weren't a bit more up-front about it.
So if you can get the multiculturalist traitors in the court system to accept that a killing was racist, then, yes, you are right, even the killers of white people will get a longer sentence.
quote:Evidence?
But the problem is that our rulers try to bury black racism under the carpet and refuse to acknowledge the racial aspect in murder of white people.
quote:Bollocks. Prove your assertions. You can't, can you?
That's why some people are MORE EQUAL than others.
quote:I've got stuff in my garden pond that is "more equal" than A2009 in any number of ways. Put it this way: there is one A2009. There is (last time I looked) one toad in my pond. That toad has it over A2009 in any number of ways.
Originally posted by Spike:
You keep on with this phrase "More Equal". Can you explain what this means? Either someone or something is equal or not. You cannot have more or less equal, it simply doesn't exist. Were you missing the day they did maths at your school?
quote:Could you please explain how you derive that position from the teaching of Jesus as given in the New Testament?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Yes, I would prefer the death penalty for murder, and then there would be no dispute at all.
quote:And this proves what exactly? Not that black people are getting away with killing whites as these are the ones who get caught and punished. Not that blacks are treated more leniently by the system. Not anything that you are saying in fact.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
For the record, the PDFs on race and the justice system someone just linked to showed 74 killings of whites by blacks over a 2 year period, and 22 blacks killed by whites. In other words, of the 1m black population, 1 in every 13,500 killed a white person in the period. Of the 50m white population, 1 in every 2.27m killed a black person in the period. Black people are killing white people at 168 TIMES the opposite rate. And yes, I did have to check those figures. They are so extreme they shocked even me!
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:No it's the opposite of your point. You were claiming that the law was inherently biased, and I asked you for evidence to support that claim (which I note you have not given).
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
quote:This is exactly my point.
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
A motivation of racial hatred will result in a higher tariff (minimum time spent locked up before release) as it is an aggravating feature. This is the same regardless of the colour of the murderer and victim
quote:I assumed this was an Animal Farm reference ("all animals are equal but some are more equal than others") but on second thoughts I'm not sure I should credit Anglican2009 with that sort of reading ability.
Originally posted by Spike:
You keep on with this phrase "More Equal". Can you explain what this means? Either someone or something is equal or not. You cannot have more or less equal, it simply doesn't exist. Were you missing the day they did maths at your school?
quote:Not even one any more. The A2009 is now part of the A262 just outside Ashford in Kent.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Put it this way: there is one A2009.
quote:Ah, but he's talking 'race traitors' which combined with his twisted white supremacist theology aligns him with loonies that are so far right they are forced to go live in compounds in Idaho.
All this talk of traitors sounds remarkably like American right-wing loonies...
quote:That's where I was coming from too
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
[QUOTE]I assumed this was an Animal Farm reference ("all animals are equal but some are more equal than others") but on second thoughts I'm not sure I should credit Anglican2009 with that sort of reading ability.
quote:I'd love to think you googled this, but I suspect not. It's more likely that you've memorised the last 30 years of AA roadmaps as a party trick.
Originally posted by ken:
The A2009 is now part of the A262 just outside Ashford in Kent.
The B2009, on the other hand, is the road from Thong to Meopham. Seriously.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:What makes you think Angela1558 has any relatives, or anyone who cares about him at all?
Originally posted by pjkirk:
This thread is good. I'm just waiting for one of Anglishit's relatives (if he has any that haven't disowned him) to let us know he worked himself into such a tizzy that his head exploded.
quote:Not altogether true. Peter, aided and later superceded by James, almost certainly crushed Paul out of Antioch, and Galatians, the Corinthian correspondence, Romans and Philippians (in chronological order) suggest they and arguably others then set about silencing his mission elsewhere. "Matthew", whoever the author of the canonically first gospel was and the author of James (almost certainly not James), pick up the cudgels and does his best to wipe Paul of the face of the earth. Paul was probably dead by then anyway. Fortunately for the hellenists, (but devastatingly for the Jews) the first Jewish War led to such reprisals against Christian Jews and normative Jews alike that both were decimated, and the hellenistic seeds sown by Paul and others grew unchecked by Roman authorities - until about 105 a.d. ... by then the hellenistic cat was well and truly out of the bag, and the result is, I think, rather good. The cost though to the losing combatants was horrific.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Oh, and Peter lost the game to Paul. If his views had prevailed, then the history of Christianity would be rather different.
quote:But does he have the courage of his convictions? Is he prepared to put his principles into practice and act like a good slave should? Is he bollocks. He’s completely ignored every command I’ve given him. As soon as I enslave him, he starts acting like a bloody abolitionist. I’m beginning to suspect (heaven forbid!) that he doesn’t actually believe any of the shit which he is spouting. Who would have thought it?
cross the line into worldly politics, and are no longer Christians in good standing.
quote:Well I’m not going to sell you. I couldn’t, in all conscience. It would be like selling a car with bald tyres and no brakes. Even if I warned the purchaser, I’d feel shitty doing it. So if this is going to work, if you are going to use your humble Christian obedience as a good witness to win my salvation, you’d better smarten your ideas up sharpish, and start doing what I tell you.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
I personally would purchase a slave if one were available for sale.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Ye gods! I bet the Romans* never had such problems. Anglican2009 has done a magnificent job of proving to his own satisfaction** that it is wrong and unChristian to seek to abolish slavery, even that those who do so
quote:But does he have the courage of his convictions? Is he prepared to put his principles into practice and act like a good slave should? Is he bollocks. He’s completely ignored every command I’ve given him. As soon as I enslave him, he starts acting like a bloody abolitionist. I’m beginning to suspect (heaven forbid!) that he doesn’t actually believe any of the shit which he is spouting. Who would have thought it?
cross the line into worldly politics, and are no longer Christians in good standing.
Look, slave – cut out the backchat. It makes you look insolent and makes me embarrassed to have enthralled you.
(*Empire, not Church)
(**although not anyone else’s)
quote:Well I’m not going to sell you. I couldn’t, in all conscience. It would be like selling a car with bald tyres and no brakes. Even if I warned the purchaser, I’d feel shitty doing it. So if this is going to work, if you are going to use your humble Christian obedience as a good witness to win my salvation, you’d better smarten your ideas up sharpish, and start doing what I tell you.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
I personally would purchase a slave if one were available for sale.
Now say that you’re sorry and then shut up.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It's been a laugh, though. I'll go back to Kerygmania...
quote:I'm not an atheist. But don't let what I say stop you. If you were to actually engage with what I'm saying, then things might get uncomfortable for you. Do carry on.
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Same inflexible fundamentalisim, just dressed up in a shiny new atheist outfit.
quote:So, not altogether true, but true nevertheless because, well, no Christian follows the Law nowadays...
Originally posted by Zappa:
Not altogether true.
quote:some do
So, not altogether true, but true nevertheless because, well, no Christian follows the Law nowadays...
quote:... that's called communication, and in the time of the authorship of the documents they were matters often of life and death. By and large the subjective elements of that process of communication are inescapable.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
It's hard though to try and reconstruct historical truth, when all the new testament documents try to obfuscate truth in favor of each author's agenda and propaganda
quote:I very much look forward to my first post as Infinite_Marxist.
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Given that we are all Atheist Socialists or Marxist Atheists on here, and hadn’t realised
- Marxin the Marxist Marxthief
- Atheiab chastmarxist
- Marx Black Sioni Socialist
- Marxseger kenmarx
Allmarxist the Goth
quote:Can I please use this as my sig? It's the absolute best fruitcake myopia I've come across in years.
Originally Posted by Anglican2009
In 200 years' time, female clergymen and anal sex amongst men may be accepted by the shell of the organisation called the CofE today. The triumph of Satan would then be total.
quote:Better to twinkle in the darkness than curse the troll.
Originally posted by Zappa:
Sir Wiff, or is it Waff?, I believe it is a grotesqueness and a sin and may even make the Baby Jesus cry to have been thinking of Angela whilst twinkling in the darkness.
quote:"Must"? "Must"? That's a very strong word to use to describe an interpretation of a verse that's so far off the wall that even the most looniest of loonies would have difficulty even contemplating that as a valid interpretation. Afterall, the author of Timothy could have chosen a number of other words to describe people who take the property of others ... "thief" would be the obvious one!
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
1Tim1 refers to "menstealers". This must mean people who steal other men's slaves
quote:Even if the totally idiot interpretation you presented could be justified, the extension doesn't necessarily follow. Any more than you can say that if someone nicks your car they're obviously in opposition to the system of private ownership or campaigning for better public transport.
and by extension those who oppose slavery as a system.
quote:Why "must" that be the interpretation?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
1Tim1 refers to "menstealers". This must mean people who steal other men's slaves, and by extension those who oppose slavery as a system.
quote:Don't be silly - why would you think Angie would listen to a modern translation, (or the original text - 'cos it's in forin' and so obviously it's inferior)? Didn't you know that anything other than the garbled KJV is a work of satan?
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Intriguingly modern versions have "slave traders" (NIV) or "enslavers" there. I think it probably refers to piratical practice of kidnapping people and selling them as slaves.
quote:Well...no. This MUST not be anything of the sort. How do you make the link between "menstealers" and opposing slavery? Wouldn't that mean that "menstealers" would be freeing the slaves rather than kidnapping them to be sold as slaves to another person? Because that doesn't make sense if they opposed the very institution they endeavour to make a quick profit from.
1Tim1 refers to "menstealers". This must mean people who steal other men's slaves, and by extension those who oppose slavery as a system. As the 10 commandments say: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.
quote:(Thanks Moo)
'slave traders', 'enslavers', 'menstealers', and 'kidnappers'.
quote:Absolutely! Everybody knows that the KJV is the bible that Jesus used.
Originally posted by Hawk:
Didn't you know that anything other than the garbled KJV is a work of satan?
quote:That line does remind me very much of the posting style of someone who is already on board...
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Infinite Monkey you may use my deep thoughts in your signature.
quote:Wrong, heathen! The KJV fell out of Jesus' pocket as He ascended. He'd very helpfully written out His words in red, too.
Originally posted by davelarge:
quote:Absolutely! Everybody knows that the KJV is the bible that Jesus used.
Originally posted by Hawk:
Didn't you know that anything other than the garbled KJV is a work of satan?
quote:As Saint Adrian of Plass so truthfully put it:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:Wrong, heathen! The KJV fell out of Jesus' pocket as He ascended. He'd very helpfully written out His words in red, too.
Originally posted by davelarge:
quote:Absolutely! Everybody knows that the KJV is the bible that Jesus used.
Originally posted by Hawk:
Didn't you know that anything other than the garbled KJV is a work of satan?
quote:
KJV: form in which the Bible was originally written in seventeenth century English. Later translated into Hebrew and Greek for some obscure reason, and then translated back again into those ridiculous modern English versions.
quote:Well you obviously don't.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
You are people who have no strong doctrinal beliefs - certainly not in anything written in the Bible - but you simply believe in "being nice people"...
quote:Who? Where? How many people do you know who fit that description? And how did they show their satisfaction?
I have proved my point to the satisfaction of people of good faith.
quote:And that's yer actual French!
I may log on de temps en temps...
quote:Maybe I meant dessicated? However, I take your point
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Zappa
Do you mean decimated or the other way around (decimated means one in ten killed, I often wrongly use it to mean only a remnant remain i.e. about a tenth)?
Jengie
quote:Squiggle, I wouldn't engage with you if you were the last man on earth and presented me with the Hope Diamond on a ring. You're not my type. I might be able to forgive my partner for being male, but I will never, no never, marry someone who claims they can read my mind and tell how firm my beliefs are.
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:I'm not an atheist. But don't let what I say stop you. If you were to actually engage with what I'm saying, then things might get uncomfortable for you. Do carry on.
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Same inflexible fundamentalisim, just dressed up in a shiny new atheist outfit.
quote:Can I make a basic point? Jesus was not an Englishman. He may have spoken in foreign, but our own church has spoken to we Anglo Saxons in our own Nordic tongue and the KJV is the greatest gift the CofE has made to the English nation.
Originally posted by davelarge:
quote:Absolutely! Everybody knows that the KJV is the bible that Jesus used.
Originally posted by Hawk:
Didn't you know that anything other than the garbled KJV is a work of satan?
quote:There's something quite odd about the grammar and punctuation of this sentence.
He may have spoken in foreign, but our own church has spoken to we Anglo Saxons in our own Nordic tongue and the KJV is the greatest gift the CofE has made to the English nation.
quote:Because for hundreds of years the Christian religion has been teaching falsehoods that did damage to the people upon which they were imposed?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
The message is simple - the Christian religion should teach today the same things that were taught hundreds of years ago in this country. Why should things be updated?
quote:The very first BCP was published in 1549, after a fairly major bit of theological revision called the Reformation.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
what difference should there be between the teaching of Ecclesia Anglicana in AD 1009 and today? None at all, I should hope.
Please study the catechism of the BCP prayerfully and everything will become clear.
quote:It's that Nordic tongue of his, makes things terribly confusing...
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
quote:There's something quite odd about the grammar and punctuation of this sentence.
He may have spoken in foreign, but our own church has spoken to we Anglo Saxons in our own Nordic tongue and the KJV is the greatest gift the CofE has made to the English nation.
quote:Damn. I thought I had gotten most of the-devil-is-behind-everyone-who-disagrees-with-me types out of the Anglican communion.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Some of you, at the urging of the Devil, have mocked me for being Anglican1009
quote:I fear it is not altogether spoken in a language understanded of the people.
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
quote:There's something quite odd about the grammar and punctuation of this sentence.
He may have spoken in foreign, but our own church has spoken to we Anglo Saxons in our own Nordic tongue and the KJV is the greatest gift the CofE has made to the English nation.
quote:Nordic tongue? If you're reading a Scandinavian translation that might be the problem. Hint: Find a Bible written in English - you might find it helps your comprehension.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Our own church has spoken to we Anglo Saxons in our own Nordic tongue and the KJV is the greatest gift the CofE has made to the English nation.
quote:I've had a look but I can't find anything there about enslaving people or persecuting Muslims. I've probably just missed it - perhaps it's only in the Nordic version. Could you help and point it out for me please?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Please study the catechism of the BCP prayerfully and everything will become clear.
quote:Hang on. It's been a while since I did linguistics, but isn't Anglo-Saxon a Germanic language, and not Nordic?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Can I make a basic point? Jesus was not an Englishman. He may have spoken in foreign, but our own church has spoken to we Anglo Saxons in our own Nordic tongue and the KJV is the greatest gift the CofE has made to the English nation.
quote:Anglican2009, I hate you. You made me go and look things up and I dropped one of my dictionaries on my foot.
Originally posted by rosamundi:
Hang on. It's been a while since I did linguistics, but isn't Anglo-Saxon a Germanic language, and not Nordic?
quote:To quote the Lone Ranger's sidekick, Tonto, "Whaddya mean 'we', white boy?"
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
He may have spoken in foreign, but our own church has spoken to we Anglo Saxons in our own Nordic tongue
quote:Sorry, Hawk, but there's a presupposition there ...
Originally posted by Hawk:
Hint: Find a Bible written in English - you might find it helps your comprehension.
quote:may have? I didn't realize there was any doubt about that.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Can I make a basic point? Jesus was not an Englishman. He may have spoken in foreign,...
quote:Anglo Saxon is a West Germanic language. The Nordic languages are North Germanic.
... but our own church has spoken to we Anglo Saxons in our own Nordic tongue and the KJV is the greatest gift the CofE has made to the English nation.
quote:You've been looking for the wrong thing. Who said we have to enslave people and persecute people? All I said is that the Bible urges Christians to accept social inequality and show Christian love to mollify any unequal arrangements. The Bible doesn't positively urge maximum inequality. But it does not counsel revolution either. You will always have the poor with you. No, we shouldn't persecute Muslims. But you are leaping directly from my support for a new immigration policy, preventing Muslims from immigrating to Britain, to claims that this amounts to persecution. We must keep our own culture, and that includes keeping England Christian, and specifically Anglican, and this is not persecution at all.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:I've had a look but I can't find anything there about enslaving people or persecuting Muslims. I've probably just missed it - perhaps it's only in the Nordic version. Could you help and point it out for me please?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Please study the catechism of the BCP prayerfully and everything will become clear.
quote:
WHAT dost thou chiefly learn by these Commandments?
Answer. I learn two things: my duty towards God, and my duty towards my Neighbour.
Question. What is thy duty towards God?
Answer. My duty towards God, is to believe in him, to fear him, and to love him with all my heart, with all my mind, with all my soul, and with all my strength; to worship him, to give him thanks, to put my whole trust in him, to call upon him, to honour his holy Name and his Word, and to serve him truly all the days of my life.
Question. What is thy duty towards thy Neighbour?
Answer. My duty towards my Neighbour, is to love him as myself, and to do to all men, as I would they should do unto me: To love, honour, and succour my father and mother: To honour and obey the Queen, and all that are put in authority under her: To submit myself to all my governors, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters: To order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters: To hurt no body by word nor deed: To be true and just in all my dealing: To bear no malice nor hatred in my heart: To keep my hands from picking and stealing, and my tongue from evilspeaking, lying, and slandering: To keep my body in temperance, soberness, and chastity: Not to covet nor desire other men's goods; but to learn and labour truly to get mine own living, and to do my duty in that state of life, unto which it shall please God to call me.
quote:And Scottish, if I remember correctly.
Originally posted by lady in red:
On that thing about the King James version being the CofE's greatest gift to English, wasn't it commissioned by King James (obviously)? Who was a teensy weensy little bit catholic, no? (and also a homosexual, which I would have thought wouldn't endear him over much to trollie)
quote:"deed ... dealing", of course, not including social injustices, which are a good and godly thing, and make the baby Jesus dance a tarantella
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
To hurt no body by word nor deed: To be true and just in all my dealing:
quote:Well, Commandment 8 is touchy on the subject of Crusaders, particularly Crusader Trolls. That's why you're banned now.
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
WHAT dost thou chiefly learn by these Commandments?
quote:If Christianity is all about accepting the status quo and endorsing inequality and injustice, why did Jesus get crucified? If Our Lord simply said "Yeah, Rome is ok" why would the Romans execute him?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
quote:You've been looking for the wrong thing. Who said we have to enslave people and persecute people? All I said is that the Bible urges Christians to accept social inequality and show Christian love to mollify any unequal arrangements. The Bible doesn't positively urge maximum inequality. But it does not counsel revolution either. You will always have the poor with you. No, we shouldn't persecute Muslims. But you are leaping directly from my support for a new immigration policy, preventing Muslims from immigrating to Britain, to claims that this amounts to persecution. We must keep our own culture, and that includes keeping England Christian, and specifically Anglican, and this is not persecution at all.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:I've had a look but I can't find anything there about enslaving people or persecuting Muslims. I've probably just missed it - perhaps it's only in the Nordic version. Could you help and point it out for me please?
Originally posted by Anglican2009:
Please study the catechism of the BCP prayerfully and everything will become clear.
God confused the tongues at Babel. Who are you to try to reverse the dispersion of the nations instituted then?
