Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
And by the way, nice rant, Linzc.

---

*Bows in a pleased but humble way...*

---

Yeah it was lovely, very polite aswell though this is Hell so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You know when you swear so much in a post it kind of reduces the impact of your argument Lincz? You also quoted from various of my posts and put it all together so that kind of misleads as to my general argument, but anyway, I haven't got time to reply properly now but I will do later, I'm sure you're looking forward to it. God bless you brother, it really isn't my intention to offend anyone, I was just tired at all this smug ranting about Sydney, especially when it then became a field day about Oak Hill.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Sola scriptura, on the other hand, is a fantasy with no scriptural backing whatsoever.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
And incidentally, back in the mid 90s when I used to do lengthy online debates with atheist friends, we used to have a rule that the first person to swear or make a personal insult lost the argument.
...
And from my perspective as an observer (atm), that gives what they are saying a lot of weight.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
...(with the possible exception of a certain FF)...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

quote:

---

Sola scriptura, on the other hand, is a fantasy with no scriptural backing whatsoever.

---

I seem to remember that one of the normal passages is 2 Ti 3:16-17...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
You know when you swear so much in a post it kind of reduces the impact of your argument Lincz?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
And incidentally, back in the mid 90s when I used to do lengthy online debates with atheist friends, we used to have a rule that the first person to swear or make a personal insult lost the argument.

Even though I am biased on this one, I can't help noticing that it is hardly ever the evangelicals who do this on the Ship (with the possible exception of a certain FF).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

quote:

---

Sola scriptura, on the other hand, is a fantasy with no scriptural backing whatsoever.

---

I seem to remember that one of the normal passages is 2 Ti 3:16-17...

---

Prooftexting to support sola scriptura!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

quote:

---

Sola scriptura, on the other hand, is a fantasy with no scriptural backing whatsoever.

---

I seem to remember that one of the normal passages is 2 Ti 3:16-17...

---

Prooftexting to support sola scriptura!

---

With a passage that doesn't support sola scripture.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

Even though I am biased on this one

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

from my perspective as an observer (atm), that gives what they are saying a lot of weight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

If it were the other way round, I might have to reconsider my position on a lot of issues....

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty Clock:
You know, when I first started posting on the interweb, way back in the 1890s, people who could not be consistent even within their posts were drummed out of their club.

---

I hope I was careful not to say I was an impartial observer.

And I know that my mere "observer" status ended the time I pressed the "add reply" button. Kind of odd that at the time of writing it was true, but at the time that anyone else read it, it was false if still taken as being in the present tense rather than a reporting of what had been said in the past.


Evidently I'm in waffling mode, so I'll attempt to transfer it to the kitchen and shut up.

Custard

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
Apologies to FF for any offence caused. I did say "possible", as I hadn't seen you in action for a while and couldn't be bothered looking up your recent altercations. My mistake.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
the (more conservative) evangelicals on the ship showing respect to other people.

---

Tell me another one!

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:

My point was not to criticise you, but to agree with your point about the (more conservative) evangelicals on the ship showing respect to other people.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
Yeah it was lovely, very polite aswell though this is Hell so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You know when you swear so much in a post it kind of reduces the impact of your argument Lincz? You also quoted from various of my posts and put it all together so that kind of misleads as to my general argument, but anyway, I haven't got time to reply properly now but I will do later, I'm sure you're looking forward to it. God bless you brother, it really isn't my intention to offend anyone, I was just tired at all this smug ranting about Sydney, especially when it then became a field day about Oak Hill.

---

quote:

---

Pustard123 said:
And incidentally, back in the mid 90s when I used to do lengthy online debates with atheist friends, we used to have a rule that the first person to swear or make a personal insult lost the argument.

Even though I am biased on this one, I can't help noticing that it is hardly ever the evangelicals who do this on the Ship

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
And as to prooftexting for sola scriptura - I was simply showing that it wasn't something with "no scriptural backing whatsoever".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:
Au contraire many of the most deeply insulting things said on the Ship come from evangelicals. They are usually along the lines of doubting the faith of others; implying that others don't read, understand or value the Bible; wondering in amazement how more liberal people can possibly believe xxxx.

Indeed if you look carefully at the exchange between Philo and myself you will find that I made a polite and indeed positively purgatorial post entirely about my own experience; to which Philo's respectful reply was "Bollocks!" and to cast doubt upon the truth of my own description of my own experience.

---

Dang linzc, that was pretty much word for word exactly what I was thinking in the bath last night after reading this thread, but you got there first which makes me sound like all I can manage is "What he said". I really do have original thoughts sometimes you know

Philo, I've also been on the receiving end (not on this site I hasten to add) of someone questioning my experience of salvation. The person who did so was sincere, obviously concerned that God be glorified and protected from this awful woman who dared to suggest that a sola scriptura interpretation wasn't the only way to look at scripture. I was brought up in the "as soon as you start name-calling you've lost the argument" camp, but really, really, the guy was a total knob. More than that though, being on the receiving end of that from someone who had never met me was not only offensive and deeply hurtful, it was also mystifying. What do you think that questioning the validity of linzc's experiences in such offensive terms is going to achieve? It's no different to the OP, which seems to expect that our instant response will be to repent of our ways and agree with the OPer.

There are a number of posters on the ship, of many different persuasions, including evangelical, whose thoughtful posts often challenge me to take my eyes off myself and point me towards God. For me, linzc is very near the top of the list. The posts of yours I've read though, Philo, with their slavish adherence to the letter rather than the spirit of the law, do not have that effect. They just make me very very sad

--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
We've got two different issues as to what "showing respect" means.

The liberals think it means reading carefully the posts of the other side, doing their level best to understand the other side and then tearing them to shreds, sometimes with less than temperate language.

The conservatives think it means being polite and paying no attention to what the other side is saying at all.

(Yes, I accept I'm caricaturing slightly)

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
MT, try swapping your sinful rancour for righteous anger

---

I can do that? Cool! Do you have to, like, go to some particular shop or something? or the bank? or that place at the airport where they sell you foreign money?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
So, how can we "conservatives" be better listeners and pay attention to what you are saying?

Custard

---

That question is a good start.

1. Us evo's don't have to win all the time. In fact noone has to win.
2. Avoid the high horse. It doesn't balance well on the ship.
3. Everyone on the ship is wrong about something. (Except Fr Gregory, whom I suspect is a sockpuppet for God)
4. Accept diversity. The biggest problem I have with the situation in the OP is that if Sydney Anglicans are being evangelicals, then who's being the Anglicans in Sydney? If they are rejecting or neglecting a big part of their tradition and heritage then the wider church in Sydney has lost something.

Hey, I posted in hell without a single swear word. Fuck I'm good!

--------------------
.

Posted                       

quote:

---

So, how can we "conservatives" be better listeners and pay attention to what you are saying? [/QB]

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
the conservative minority ask interested questions then listen to and consider the answers from other opinions (e.g. Lep's thread on cathedrals, l&d's thread on orthodoxy) than the other way round.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
Pete is right - we need a decent vicar factory in London.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty Clock:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
the conservative minority ask interested questions then listen to and consider the answers from other opinions (e.g. Lep's thread on cathedrals, l&d's thread on orthodoxy) than the other way round.

---

Far as I remember, Leprechaun's original position was that Cathedrals are a waste of space and he would be happy to see them all shut down and run as museums. I didn't see that as an 'interested question' personally, more of a demonstration of the attitude that if I personally don't have any use for something it should not exist.

Hmmm - has anyone actually seenLeprechaun and Jensen together?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I've been involved in some argy bargy about this on a couple of threads now. To me cathedrals are merely very expensive, pretty, but cumbersome buildings, which are more useful for historical value than evangelistic outreach. If I was Rowan Williams I'd sign them over to the National Trust with the proviso that Christians could keep meeting there if they want.

Others evidently disagree. Tell me why? Convince me! What are they for? Why should the church pump millions of quid into them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I recant. (I feel like Cranmer.)

If I were Rowan Williams I would not hand them over to the National Trust. Not immediately anyway.

Thanks especially Anselmina and ACOL-ite for explaining so much to me. I still have my reservations, but I understand much more. If a cathedral near you burns down soon, it won't have been me.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
There are a number of posters on the ship, of many different persuasions, including evangelical, whose thoughtful posts often challenge me to take my eyes off myself and point me towards God. For me, linzc is very near the top of the list.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seán D:
All you need to do is become a Sydney Anglican. Everyone knows their anger is righteous because they follow sound doctrine, just like Jesus did.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Dyfrig says;

Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's really, really great,
so long as you hate Evensong,
so long as you love hate.

...He speaks of male headship
and isn't keen on queers;

..the power and the Word.
His trinity is Father,
Bible, OHP;
his version of the Articles
makes Newman look PC.

By Lurker Mclurker..

Oh, and because persecution is the mark of the True Christian™, those who attack the Diocese of Sydney are actually doing the Lord's work. You are helping people like Johann realise they are in the right. So keep on attacking, it is the loving, Christian thing to do.

ATTACK SYDNEY FOR JESUS!

---

quote:

---

By Amphibalus ...The saying of the Daily Office (Morning and Evening Prayer) is a duty laid on every ordained minister except under extreme circumstances. It is that day-in-day-out recitation of scripture and prayer which forms the church - its life and its growth. If no-one says the Office with the minister, then she or he still says it on behalf of those who are not there. You can have as many other styles and types of service as you like, but abolishing the Office is like trying to stay alive with no blood in your veins.

---

quote:

---

By Amphibalus..Scripture is not tradition, but is understood with the help of reason and tradition. Scripture is, and always will be, the default position with regard to theology and doctrine, but I, for one, recognise and rejoice in the intelligence of those wiser, holier, and more spiritually aware than myself, whose guidance is neglected at the risk of peril to the whole Christian venture.

Can we settle once and for all that no-one is trying to 'reduce' scripture - all that is being said is that the bible should be read with a mind open to the on-going prompting and guidance of God, not as a legalistic obsession with ink and paper - that was what Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees for.

---

quote:

---

By Lincz...

You stupid prick, Johann. If you want people to lay off Sydney Anglicans, then take your flaming arrogance and shove it where the sun don't shine!

I'm all for 'live and let live' as a general principle but it is the kind of "we're right and all the world is wrong" that you evince in your post that gives my beloved faith a bad name.

So just crawl back into your hole in the ground and suck your thumb for a bit mate, 'cause its the adults playing around here and you're not wanted.

---

LinCz apparently you're quite upset by me saying that it's 'bollocks' that the Bible informed your Liberal convictions, and that I felt instead it's the other way round. Given that you so freely swear at people for their opinions, I'm surpised that you're so sensitive over what I said, I apologise for it nonetheless. I think I was trying to be a 'tough newbie' Hell poster and indeed I was perhaps perversely excited ( ) at the prospect of using the bollocks word several times in that post regarding your point about the Bible and others points, but in my defence I would argue, as you have so ably demonstrated, that Hell is not exactly a profanity-free zone

quote:

---

by Lincz..
Point to even one post where I have denied that we're asked to repent and change our ways. Go on, fuckwit - where is it?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps this is too subtle for your lobotomised pea-brain, but I happen to believe that the reason God asks us to repent and change our ways is because he really loves us and wants the best for us - exactly the same reason I don't buy the idea of the cosmic bully, choosing to eternally torture those who have already failed in this life to gain the abundance he offers.

---

I agree that God asks us to repent and change our ways becuase he loves us and wants the best for us, where did I suggest otherwise? However, I also believe in a God of Justice. I beleive that he is a God of Justice precisely because he does love us. Therefore if I've understood the second part of your above quote correctly, then can I summise that you don't beleive in Hell? You see, that's what I mean when I complain about 'Liberals' (I don't know if you would classify yourself as one, apologies if not). IMO, it's pretty difficult to read the Bible and not understand from it that people who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will go to Hell, (or that prior to Jesus's coming to Earth, those who rejected God's word and did not trust that their messiah would come) Otherwise I feel it would make a nonsense of Jesus himself comissioning his apostles to spread the gospel to all the nations. Why would this be necessary if everyone is saved in any case? Now if people who accept Jesus sin, then of course they are still saved, I'm not suggesting otherwise. Otherwise I'd we'd all be for the Hot place!

quote:

---

I don't have to ask for the Holy Spirit when I read scripture dickhead, because I already have the Spirit - something which is promised to me by the self-same scriptures you claim to follow. Perhaps you missed that one?

---

quote:

---

Actually lame-brain I suspect that I take a lot more of the OT seriously than you do. Because if you're locked into some feeble attempt to apply the Bible literally as an instruction manual then you either end up a Messianic Jew or you find some bogus reason to throw out half the OT. "Oh, Jesus' death supercedes all the sacrificial law and the civil law only applies to national Israel..." Oh yeah? Then why the fuck did God bother giving us all that crap, or to put it another way, why did the early christians bother keeping all that crap in the Christian canon.

Whereas I, with my 'interpretation' can look squarely at all the Bible and ask intelligent questions of it, like "How did this text function for the people of that day?" "What principles are behind this law?" "How might we apply those principles today?" And in doing that I can actually gain something out of mixed cottons as well as commands against 'homosexuality'*. But I'm not tied to the archaic worldview that spawned both these injunctions.

So I'll continue taking the whole Bible seriously and you carry on cherry-picking the bits that fit your stifled little world with its narrow horizons and everlasting damnation for the majority of God's children. Just don't bother me with your pathetic mewlings.

*I use the word for brevity although clearly the verses referred to by conservatives in this debate are not addressing the modern phenomena of homosexuality.

---

Hm, see this is where I feel that you do show us that you allow your reasoning to change somewhat what the Bible is telling us. With regards to OT law, another of thinsg we are told is not to eat pork since it's 'unclean'. And yet Jesus tells us that nothing that we eat or enters us makes us unclean, but that it is our thought, speech and action (what comes out of us) that makes us unclean. Paul says that the Law was there to show us what sin actually was. I believe eating pork was symbolic, just as the Tabernacle is considered by some to be symbolic of the Trinity etc. I and many Christains, perhaps you yourself too, believe that much of the OT is symbolic of Jesus and his coming, the Passover etc, but true events also.

But, on the issue of homosexuality you mentioned, neither Jesus nor Paul claim that OT directives against same-sex sex was merely symbolic or can be done away with. Therefore I stll consider that to be outside of God's plans for us. I don't think Christians who sleep with the same sex will go to Hell since they are saved, but at the same time I don't think it, nor any sex before/outside marriage, should be given an equal status with heterosexual married-sex either, by blessing gay marriages etc.

I'm sorry but you mention that you will ask intelligent questions of the Bible and how things relate to what time period etc, that's again what I mean by 'Liberals' changing the majority-accepted interpretation of the Bible. I feel we should only change our opinion of things if scripture itself tells us to. So that's why I beleive that whereas according to scripture we no longer have to be physically circumcised or eat pork, we do have to keep our sex within marriage. Therefore, I feel that it is Liberals who are cherry picking from the Bible, and not con-evo's.

Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

Hugs to all brothers and siters in Christ, yes even the swearing non-con-evo's philo

[Keep your filthy hands off me, you UBB-abusing bastard.]

[ 08. June 2004, 18:20: Message edited by: RooK ]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
Yadda-yadda-yadda

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:

My point was not to criticise you, but to agree with your point about the (more conservative) evangelicals on the ship showing respect to other people.

---

You ARE kidding?

Some of the most deeply offensive things posted on the Ship have been said by conservative evangelicals!

---

I was trying my best yesterday but no-one bit on any of my deeply offensive posts. No-one was very offended when I called YECcies liars. No-one noticed the one that made a (genuine, valid, trinitarian) theological point about Jesus's nocturnal emissions.

The ship is just too tolerant of foul-mouthed evangelicals like me

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
There were Puritans who left the CofE. There were some Puritans who did not leave the CofE, but put up with it, grumbling, hoping to reform it further from within. But history and other church circumstances (like that little episode with Cromwell) eventually meant they died out.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty Clock:
Far as I remember, Leprechaun's original position was that Cathedrals are a waste of space and he would be happy to see them all shut down and run as museums. I didn't see that as an 'interested question' personally, more of a demonstration of the attitude that if I personally don't have any use for something it should not exist.

Hmmm - has anyone actually seenLeprechaun and Jensen together?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
i. Don't assume that your views are typical of all evangelicals and recognise that - at least in the UK - you are a minority.

ii. Note carefully that many of the criticisms of Sydney/Reform are from evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Black Labrador:

iii. Stop denouncing evangelicals as liberals simply because they are charismatics/support the ordination of women.

---

Where have I ever, ever done this?

I am pro-ordination of women, and think that evangelical churches have nowhere near enough female workers for their theological position. Of course, there's more to it than that though...

Charismaticism is a totally different issue, though suffice to say I know, love and respect quite a few evangelical charismatics. There are, of course, also liberal charismatics of several different types.

Philo. I agree.

Custard

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
But, overall, I feel that it is the Liberals in the Anglican Communion (I don't mean non-con-evo's who also disagree with the Liberal position) who are rolling back centuries of accepted positions on scripture regarding sex before marriage, same sex marriage, etc. Now Jensen is perhaps not reacting to this in the most sensitive way, but at least someone is trying to uphold not just the con-evo but I believe the majority of opinion in the Anglican Communion regarding these 'moral' issues.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

---

Not following what that has to do with sola scriptura (sp?)...

So I don't follow human tradition, but follow the church's tradition, I don't follow the "elemental spirits of the universe", but I follow Christ in his gift of the Holy Spirit to help me make decisions. I can't see where scripture fits into this at all.

Sorry, won't buy it.

--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I don't want to get into this "evangelicals are nicer than everyone else" argument

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But every time I have been told I offended someone I have apologised, and I have done my best to listen to what they have to say. I'm not saying that Christians should never swear or express rancour, but a bit of forgiveness where there has already been an apology wouldn't go amiss. Even if this is Hell.

---

quote:

---

What Leprechaun actually wanted to say:

I Thought This Was a Christian Website

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
And incidentally, back in the mid 90s when I used to do lengthy online debates with atheist friends, we used to have a rule that the first person to swear or make a personal insult lost the argument.

Even though I am biased on this one, I can't help noticing that it is hardly ever the evangelicals who do this on the Ship (with the possible exception of a certain FF). And from my perspective as an observer (atm), that gives what they are saying a lot of weight. If it were the other way round, I might have to reconsider my position on a lot of issues...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

---

Not following what that has to do with sola scriptura (sp?)...

So I don't follow human tradition, but follow the church's tradition, I don't follow the "elemental spirits of the universe", but I follow Christ in his gift of the Holy Spirit to help me make decisions. I can't see where scripture fits into this at all.

Sorry, won't buy it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
What I guess I was saying is that the use of ad hominem attacks, etc. does not make for a good argument and in fact suggests there are no better arguments at the poster's disposal and that the poster is more concerned about their appearance than the truth.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
LinCz apparently you're quite upset by me saying that it's 'bollocks' that the Bible informed your Liberal convictions, and that I felt instead it's the other way round. Given that you so freely swear at people for their opinions, I'm surpised that you're so sensitive over what I said, I apologise for it nonetheless. I think I was trying to be a 'tough newbie' Hell poster and indeed I was perhaps perversely excited ( ) at the prospect of using the bollocks word several times in that post regarding your point about the Bible and others points, but in my defence I would argue, as you have so ably demonstrated, that Hell is not exactly a profanity-free zone

---

quote:

---

Philo said:

quote:

---

by Lincz..
Point to even one post where I have denied that we're asked to repent and change our ways. Go on, fuckwit - where is it?

---

I'd got the general impression from your posts that you are of that disposition but since you deny that, then I apologise for misunderstanding your position, and I'll try and read more carefully next time you post.

---

quote:

---

Philo said:
Therefore if I've understood the second part of your above quote correctly, then can I summise that you don't beleive in Hell? You see, that's what I mean when I complain about 'Liberals' (I don't know if you would classify yourself as one, apologies if not). IMO, it's pretty difficult to read the Bible and not understand from it that people who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will go to Hell

---

quote:

---

[Lots snipped...]

I'm sorry but you mention that you will ask intelligent questions of the Bible and how things relate to what time period etc, that's again what I mean by 'Liberals' changing the majority-accepted interpretation of the Bible. I feel we should only change our opinion of things if scripture itself tells us to.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
IMO, it's pretty difficult to read the Bible and not understand from it that people who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will go to Hell, (or that prior to Jesus's coming to Earth, those who rejected God's word and did not trust that their messiah would come)

---