homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely) (Page 12)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  17  18  19 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely)
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No doubt I am blinded by my own apostasy or something, but it seems to me that the tangent discussion between Numpty and tclune makes ToujoursDan's point rather concretely.

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Precisely, Tom.

We have the 20-20 hindsight of being on the winning side of the slavery issue, so it's almost impossible to imagine that christians could ever have viewed the matter differently, yet they assuredly did, and the venom which people like Wilberforce endured at their hands was not unlike that experienced by the so-called revisionists today.

By the way, to Grammatica and others, it is not true to say that British evos are monolithic in their condemnation of TEC. For what it's worth, in my part of the world, of the seven local evangelical churches of which I have personal knowledge, one is vehemently anti-gay, one moderately so, two have no stated position, and the three others (my own included) are affirming of committed gay relationships, and consider gay bishops to be a non-issue. On the issue of women priests, all save the two firstmentioned churches are very much in favour of women priests (and, indeed, women bishops) and my church has women in positions of ordained leadership, whilst another has a female vicar as incumbent. Now this may be a peculiarity of my particular arbour of God's Vineyard, but ken comes from a different corner of the UK, and I suspect he would recognise this sort of pattern of diversity.

All these churches would accept the standard CofE affirmation, as quoted by Numpty, that the scriptures are the ultimate guide to conduct, thoug, of course, they (and I) would dispute his interpretation of what those scriptures actually say.

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Also, it's not a matter of the monolithic Anglican Communion versus the bad Episcopal Church, no matter how much so-called conservatives try to paint it.

It's certainly not hard to find Anglican laity and clergy in Scotland, Ireland, the rest of the UK, South Africa, Canada, Australia (even in Sydney), New Zealand, Brazil, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Central America and elsewhere who very much do not want to see the TEC "kicked out" of the Anglican Communion. They either view the election of honest gay candidates to the episcopate as a positive development or think the presence of the TEC is far too valuable to end because of this development.

If one day TEC finds itself out of the AC, it's hard to believe that the relationship between TEC and these other national churches would change much. TEC will still send money to overseas churches and dioceses that need it, and bishops, priests and academics will still be recognized as valid by these other national churches and partnerships and exchanges will continue to go on as they always have been. While I certainly don't want to see the TEC leave the AC, I don't see much changing "on the ground".

[ 11. December 2009, 19:01: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Thank gawd the Anglican tradition has never said anything about the authority of reason or tradition. That might make establishing a denominational confession difficult.

Zach

Well, Richard Hooker (who is part of the Anglican tradition) had something to say about Scripture, Right Reason, and Tradition. But what he actually wrote and what people often refer to mistakenly as the "three-legged stool" are not the same thing.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jolly Jape wrote
quote:
We have the 20-20 hindsight of being on the winning side of the slavery issue, so it's almost impossible to imagine that christians could ever have viewed the matter differently, yet they assuredly did, and the venom which people like Wilberforce endured at their hands was not unlike that experienced by the so-called revisionists today.
True. But it's also worth pointing out that Wilberforce was very evangelical, and very socially conservative. And that he owed a lot of encouragement and support to his friend, William Pitt (the younger), a tory who detested party labelling and would sometimes refer to himself as an independent whig. It may also be worth pointing out that Wilberforce sought and received cross-party support.

I'm only making this intrusion for the benefit of pointing out extreme futility of using culture-wars definitions of Conservative and Liberal as a way of viewing matters outside the proper purview of these ideas. Perhaps one might also suggest that living in a state of permanent antagonism is also a good way of securing the prolongation of injustice.

Sorry - carry on...

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
If one day TEC finds itself out of the AC, it's hard to believe that the relationship between TEC and these other national churches would change much. TEC will still send money to overseas churches and dioceses that need it, and bishops, priests and academics will still be recognized as valid by these other national churches and partnerships and exchanges will continue to go on as they always have been. While I certainly don't want to see the TEC leave the AC, I don't see much changing "on the ground".
It is also very possible that TEC won't be kicked out at all. I can see TEC being invited to Lambeth just like usual, 2% of our bishops being gay nonwithstanding, and GAFCON and gang threatening to leave forever, but never actually having the guts to do it.

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem there, Zach, is that if the covenant process goes through, then it won't be a question of chucking out but rather of opting in.

If it doesn't though, you may be right.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect that this is correct and that +Glasspool (pending) will end up sitting in the naughty corner with +Robinson but otherwise it will be business as usual.

Back in 2003 it was woe unto Illium and the Yanks getting cast into outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, but what actually happened in 2008? The Yanks turned up at Lambeth and the Poor Man's Dietrich Bonhoeffer bottled it at the eleventh hour.

Incidentally, some of the credit for this desirable state of affairs (quite a lot actually) ought to go to the heir of St. Augustine. Perhaps he hasn't got it in for you after all?

[x posted with Honest Ron]

[ 11. December 2009, 19:59: Message edited by: Gildas ]

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Since this thread seems to be as much about Uganda as it is about Los Angeles, I thought the following recent news bit might be of interest: Uganda to Drop Death Penalty, Life Imprisonment for Gay.

I realize that this is not decriminalization, but it does seem somewhat less draconian.

What interests me is that the article says that this change was made "to attract the support of religious leaders who are opposed to these penalties." It would be interesting to know who these religious leaders are.

Apparently your lot
have got in on the act. Which would be consistent with the Catholic Church's stated position in the Catechism and make sense given that the population of Uganda divvies up something like 36% Anglican 42% Catholic 12% Muslim.

The same source quotes Uncle Ricky as suggesting the Anglican Archbishop is not a fan of the legislation. This is a somewhat belated development but obviously very welcome. More joy in a sinner that repenteth and all that.

It looks to me like behind the scenes arm twisting is paying off. Croesus of this parish, in Dead Horses, is somewhat sceptical and I wouldn't want to state categorically that he is wrong. None of this is grounds for complacency, of course, but it all looks a bit better than it did twenty four hours ago.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This (link) has now appeared on the Ugandan presidential media centre site. It's worth pondering in the context of the issues mentioned earlier. I'll leave off commenting myself.

(I wasn't aware of the other thread Gildas, thanks for the heads up).

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
If one day TEC finds itself out of the AC, it's hard to believe that the relationship between TEC and these other national churches would change much. TEC will still send money to overseas churches and dioceses that need it, and bishops, priests and academics will still be recognized as valid by these other national churches and partnerships and exchanges will continue to go on as they always have been. While I certainly don't want to see the TEC leave the AC, I don't see much changing "on the ground".
It is also very possible that TEC won't be kicked out at all. I can see TEC being invited to Lambeth just like usual, 2% of our bishops being gay nonwithstanding, and GAFCON and gang threatening to leave forever, but never actually having the guts to do it.

Zach

GAFCON and Co aren't threatening to leave. They're threatening to stay.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed they are most welcome to, Numpty. They simply have to sit down at the table with Anglicans they disagree with.

Word is, they don't like that.

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
You want proof that no one's listening to each other? Let's take a look-see back on this thread and see exactly how well our brethren and sistren are listening to each other, irregardless of alphabet soup status. I see a lot of hollerin', but not a lot of considerin'.

The best example, Numpty's response below.

Actually I think this thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

You are quite right that no one is really listening to each other. Nevertheless it is a thread which consists of both sides of the debate are (sort of) engaging. You might be right that Numpty is not listening but he could equally respond by saying that it is possible to listen and still to completely disagree with what is being said.

This is like marriage counselling when one partner holds the cushion and the other is not allowed to have their say until they have fairly repeated back what their partner is saying - i.e. that they have really listened. This is a good exercise but it assumes that both parties do want to work at the relationship. If one side grabs the cushion and refuses to let go, ever, then there is no point. I suspect that there is nothing the conservatives could possibly do to demonstrate they are listening apart from to concede some ground. 'Listening' is a smoke screen. It has become a bargaining chip.

Hence the article from Lambeth about 'listening' is well intentioned but practically impossible to demonstrate (to anyone's satisfaction). OTOH it is not exactly hard to tell whether TEC has ordained an openly gay bishop.

Now, once more, this may well reflect badly on Lambeth but it is how it is. I cannot see how appealing to Lambeth helps anyone expect the conservatives.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
helps anyone expect the conservatives.

[Hot and Hormonal] Damn ... except obviously. [Disappointed]

No one expects the conservative inquisition ... er, well, they do actually. [Razz]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Big Wally
Apprentice
# 15341

 - Posted      Profile for Big Wally   Email Big Wally   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This might be the last nail in the coffin of my parish. Four families have made it clear that as a result of this election they will no longer attend an Episcopal church. They had been waiting to see if TEC would honor the agreement to 'restraint' until the rest of the communion made a decision.

Unfortunately, ours is not a large parish and we had already lost a significant number of people since Bishop Gene was elected. We were barely treading water with the folks we had left. I doubt we survive this and I understand there is another parish in our area that is experiencing the same fallout.

Sad

--------------------
wally from visalia

Posts: 1 | From: visalia | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
...It is also very possible that TEC won't be kicked out at all. I can see TEC being invited to Lambeth just like usual, 2% of our bishops being gay nonwithstanding, and GAFCON and gang threatening to leave forever, but never actually having the guts to do it.

Zach

I think, as usual, Honest Ron B is on the money with this one.

It's not about 'guts' or 'morality' (of any sort) on the side of either GAFCON or ECUSA.

It's about religio-politics, or the politics of religion. Particularly the art of political brinkmanship.

Politics has always been part of Anglicanism (remember the Elizabethan Religious Settlement; the causes of the English Civil War et sim).

As Anglicanism is a worldwide Communion with no political nor religious head the real situation reads like: 'Nothing (effectively) can be done'.

I suspect things to continue along much as they are now.

The mutual demonization and de facto split between GAFCON and ECUSA is the nightmare the Communion lives.

I suspect other provinces (including my own) will wish to continue to have some sort of relationship with ECUSA.

Familial relationships are never icky pooey 'wonderful'. Adult siblings grow apart and have their own families and lives.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267

 - Posted      Profile for Spiffy   Author's homepage   Email Spiffy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Big Wally:
This might be the last nail in the coffin of my parish. Four families have made it clear that as a result of this election they will no longer attend an Episcopal church. They had been waiting to see if TEC would honor the agreement to 'restraint' until the rest of the communion made a decision.

Unfortunately, ours is not a large parish and we had already lost a significant number of people since Bishop Gene was elected. We were barely treading water with the folks we had left. I doubt we survive this and I understand there is another parish in our area that is experiencing the same fallout.

Sad

What's your parish doing to attract new people?

--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account

Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Big Wally:
This might be the last nail in the coffin of my parish. Four families have made it clear that as a result of this election they will no longer attend an Episcopal church. They had been waiting to see if TEC would honor the agreement to 'restraint' until the rest of the communion made a decision.

Unfortunately, ours is not a large parish and we had already lost a significant number of people since Bishop Gene was elected. We were barely treading water with the folks we had left. I doubt we survive this and I understand there is another parish in our area that is experiencing the same fallout.

Sad

What makes your part of California so hypersensitively conservative? I've never quite understood that dynamic. There seems to be a particular cultural split within CA. Maybe you or Spiffy or Ruth can 'splain it to me.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I see nothing there about it being anglicans ultimate authority... or am I missing something?

The 'We' at the start of the sentence is a clue. I take it to mean "We Anglicans". The sentence then goes on to say that "We (Anglicans) view the Old and New Testaments ' as...
  • containing all things necessary for salvation' and
  • as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
Does that cause you a problem?

No. The "we" stands for "we members of the CHurch of England." The CofE website -- the CofE General Synod -- the Parliament of the UK all may claim to speak for the CofE. None of them, at all, in any way, speak for "Anglicans".
Some anglicans, perhaps, but not for us all.

(And that is a statement that leaves undiscussed how and to what degree some, any or all anglicans view the Old and New Testaments.)

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267

 - Posted      Profile for Spiffy   Author's homepage   Email Spiffy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
What makes your part of California so hypersensitively conservative? I've never quite understood that dynamic. There seems to be a particular cultural split within CA. Maybe you or Spiffy or Ruth can 'splain it to me.

Is Visalia south of Fresno? 'Cause everything down there's just pretty much messed up. I understand people who live from Fresno on up to the Oregon Border, but south of Fresno? No idea.

(Although it probably stems from the fact that it is prime farm country, and farmers tend to be traditionally conservative. I should know, I drove a pickup truck to high school with a gun rack in back. But my family sent the previous generation kids to San Francisco and Berkeley for college, which makes us a little different than others. This is why I somehow manage to be fiscally and socially conservative and a member of the Green Party.)

[ 12. December 2009, 02:55: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account

Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pell, if you really are the moderate you claim to be, then take a moment to think about what both sides really want. You seem to believe there can be a place for both conservatives and liberals in the Anglican communion. The conservatives do not believe this. The liberals do.

Instead of sitting in the middle and thinking you're so fantastic for being above it all, think about who would be at your side if you ever dissent from the new Anglican Pope's One True Doctrine.

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Pell, if you really are the moderate you claim to be, then take a moment to think about what both sides really want. You seem to believe there can be a place for both conservatives and liberals in the Anglican communion. The conservatives do not believe this. The liberals do.

Instead of sitting in the middle and thinking you're so fantastic for being above it all, think about who would be at your side if you ever dissent from the new Anglican Pope's One True Doctrine.

Zach

I fear, Zach, you are stronger at polemics rather than reading my posts.

I really 'claim' nothing.

Not sure whether Rowan Williams has set himself
as 'the New Anglican Pope'. He appears to have been handed a futile task to complete and his performance has been criticized by both parties.

Reading - and attempting to fathom and reply to - your posts makes me sad rather than 'feeling fantastic' about whatever constipated stance you seem to assume I'm taking.

Raging against the cruel world seems to be a popular position these days. If it's always someone else's fault than one never has to take responsibilty for anything.

++ Peter Akkinola - in a really scary interview courtesy of the BBC via our ABC's 'Compass' program seemed to be in a state of permanent, hyperactive rage. He blamed whites - the likes of Tom Wright who spoke very moderately against ++ A's extreme position - for being racist against him and his fellow Africans.

There seems to be a fair bit of what Jung called Shadow Projection going on.

By the way, I've always felt I'm on my own here and speak for myself. I have no 'friends' with me on this one.


[Cool]

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502

 - Posted      Profile for Prester John   Email Prester John   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
What makes your part of California so hypersensitively conservative? I've never quite understood that dynamic. There seems to be a particular cultural split within CA. Maybe you or Spiffy or Ruth can 'splain it to me.

My guess would be it is the by-product of the migrants from Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I fear, Zach, you are stronger at polemics rather than reading my posts. I really 'claim' nothing.
If you are claiming nothing, then there can't really be anything to read in your posts, can there?

I wasn't saying Williams was the Anglican Pope or ever trying to be. I was commenting on how the conservatives are trying to make the Anglican Communion into a confession based on a strict set of doctrines. I had thought that the Anglicans had rejected such things along with the Pope.

Speaking only on what you have said, in your perch in the middle, banishing both the ECUSA and GAFCON to the wings as extremists sure seems to imply that what each side expects in all this is equally unfair or preposterous. Once again, that is simply not the case.

Zach

[ 12. December 2009, 03:53: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Zach, I believe that the problem is that we are each looking from opposite ends of the same telescope, thereby totally obscuring the other person's view of anything.

I find this hilarious and analagous to the whole sad situation.

The whole thing is beyond me. [Help]

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, I think I have a good idea of what you are arguing now. I just think your stance isn't nearly as nuanced and fair minded as you think.

I hope you will forgive me for daring to have an opinion while you do nothing but look helplessly at the sitation and declare how tragic it is.

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Big Wally,

Is it not the case that the actions of your former Bishop have caused problems for your parish? Once the assets of the diocese are returned to Episcopalians, the process of rebuilding should at least have some material support, and I think that there are people who will come home for a variety of reasons.

Greta

Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

This from Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (via pm):
quote:
You are out of your fucking mind, you pathetic little creep.
[Razz]
Host Hat On

Call me Numpty

Don't quote from PM's on the open boards unless by mutual agreement with other Shipmates involved. If you have a concern with a PM from any Shipmate, you can refer the exchanges to a Host. If you do not wish to receive further PMs from any Shipmate who sends you a PM, you can add them to your ignore list (look at the options).

A reminder for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras and all other Shipmates

PMs do not give any of us the absolute right to say what we want to say. Although they allow scope for more personal exchanges, they are also covered by the 10Cs. Therefore any Shipmate is free to refer exchanges believed to be out of order to H & A, by PM, for a ruling. Any ruling will be based on both content and context, rather than any particular quotation.


Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off


--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Numpty:
quote:
It's not about wilful ignorance or blind prejudice or hate fueled witch-hunts. It's about accepting scripture as the 'ultimate standard of faith', rather than being swayed by the feelings and experiences of some terribly nice, but disobedient, people.
Numpty, what do you do with the fact that there are some of us who sincerely believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality? (There's rather a long thread in Dead Horses that should provide evidence of this.) I accept Scripture as the "ultimate standard", but read it in a different way to you. Where do we go from here?

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If one day TEC finds itself out of the AC, it's hard to believe that the relationship between TEC and these other national churches would change much. TEC will still send money to overseas churches and dioceses that need it, and bishops, priests and academics will still be recognized as valid by these other national churches and partnerships and exchanges will continue to go on as they always have been.

I'm just pondering why it all comes down to money - and why that is so important to TEC's relationship to the Anglican Communion? Always the giver, never the receiver. CoE has historically bankrolled the Communion as much if not more than TEC but doesn't have this strong money/funding perception of itself. It strikes me that this aspect of the relationship, TEC as perpetual dispenser of largesse, might also be part of the problem.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If one day TEC finds itself out of the AC, it's hard to believe that the relationship between TEC and these other national churches would change much. TEC will still send money to overseas churches and dioceses that need it, and bishops, priests and academics will still be recognized as valid by these other national churches and partnerships and exchanges will continue to go on as they always have been.

I'm just pondering why it all comes down to money - and why that is so important to TEC's relationship to the Anglican Communion? Always the giver, never the receiver. CoE has historically bankrolled the Communion as much if not more than TEC but doesn't have this strong money/funding perception of itself. It strikes me that this aspect of the relationship, TEC as perpetual dispenser of largesse, might also be part of the problem.
Spawn, what evidence do you have that tgis is "all about money". One passing reference to the TEC's record of funding overseas mission, from someone who, IIRC, is not a member of TEC, hardly qualifies as substantive proof of your assertion.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Numpty:
quote:
It's not about wilful ignorance or blind prejudice or hate fueled witch-hunts. It's about accepting scripture as the 'ultimate standard of faith', rather than being swayed by the feelings and experiences of some terribly nice, but disobedient, people.
Numpty, what do you do with the fact that there are some of us who sincerely believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality? (There's rather a long thread in Dead Horses that should provide evidence of this.) I accept Scripture as the "ultimate standard", but read it in a different way to you. Where do we go from here?
I would have to consider very carefully the scriptural evidence that was presented. If I concluded that the evidence was faulty and theologically sub-standard I would the reject your interpretation as false.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I see nothing there about it being anglicans ultimate authority... or am I missing something?

The 'We' at the start of the sentence is a clue. I take it to mean "We Anglicans". The sentence then goes on to say that "We (Anglicans) view the Old and New Testaments ' as...
  • containing all things necessary for salvation' and
  • as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
Does that cause you a problem?

No. The "we" stands for "we members of the CHurch of England." The CofE website -- the CofE General Synod -- the Parliament of the UK all may claim to speak for the CofE. None of them, at all, in any way, speak for "Anglicans".
Some anglicans, perhaps, but not for us all.

(And that is a statement that leaves undiscussed how and to what degree some, any or all anglicans view the Old and New Testaments.)

The Webpage is about what it means to be Anglican, not Church of England. I can understand why you may wish to wriggle out of this particular definition of Anglicanism, but you should explain precisely why you dislike the definition, not attempt to avoid it on the basis that it doesn't apply to you.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Indeed they are most welcome to, Numpty. They simply have to sit down at the table with Anglicans they disagree with.

Word is, they don't like that.

Zach

There comes a time when the Apostolic principle found in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 trumps 'listening'. If Scripture is the ultimate standard of faith for Anglicans (which it is), then there comes a time when obedience to apostolic instruction trumps Lambeth.
quote:
But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you. 1 Cor.11-13

It's somewhat difficult to sit at a table with a person - or even an entire church - who fulfils these criteria.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Standing peering into a horse's grave here.
quote:
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral
You have missed the point of the whole dispute: the majority of TEC (and I"d like to bet, the C of E too) denies that to be involved in a loving and stable same-sex relationship is to be 'sexually immoral'. You are at liberty to dispute that, but it's no good quoting such statements as if they proved your case. They don't.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
seasick

...over the edge
# 48

 - Posted      Profile for seasick   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does the same standard apply to provinces of the Anglican Communion who consecrate openly greedy bishops?

--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley

Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
It's somewhat difficult to sit at a table with a person - or even an entire church - who fulfils these criteria.
Too bad, Numpty. This is our Communion too, and we aren't going anywhere.

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Zach82 writes:
quote:
I wasn't saying Williams was the Anglican Pope or ever trying to be. I was commenting on how the conservatives are trying to make the Anglican Communion into a confession based on a strict set of doctrines. I had thought that the Anglicans had rejected such things along with the Pope.

I don't think that Anglicans had ever rejected that approach as such. To begin with, we did not have a corpus of Reformers' authoritative writings such as provided by Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, which provided a comprehensive basis for a confessional approach (which provides for a form of unity which does not require organizational coherence, so one can have several Lutheran churches on the same turf, all with varying degrees of communion).

There were attempts to set Anglicans on a more coherent path, such as the first Lambeth Conference which was trying to address the Colenso situation, but it proved impossible to devise something which worked for both state churches (CoE and parts of the Caribbean) and non-state churches (Canada, South Africa & the US). The growing diversity of liturgical practice made it impossible to rule generally on what was really important at the time, viz., vestments and ritual.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that doctrinal coherence was never the real point of Anglicanism to begin with, but that in recent years, developing divergences began to test those hitherto-vague limits. It might be that, if we had possessed doctrinal strictness, either much of this would not have arisen, or the splits would have happened much earlier on.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not suggesting that it 'proves' anything with regard to sexuality, but I am saying that the decision not to sit a table with people whom - on the basis of scripture - I consider to be sexually immoral can be a principled decision based upon a scriptural injunction. My refusal to 'sit' can be a principled attempt at obedience.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This might provide an interesting contrast of emphasis to the statement from the CoE website. Of course, I don't think that either is meant to be a definitive, scholarly exposition of what constitutes Anglicanism.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm not suggesting that it 'proves' anything with regard to sexuality, but I am saying that the decision not to sit a table with people whom - on the basis of scripture - I consider to be sexually immoral can be a principled decision based upon a scriptural injunction. My refusal to 'sit' can be a principled attempt at obedience.

quote:
Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:

And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.

And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.

And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.

And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

Zach

[ 12. December 2009, 15:30: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's funny (not ha-ha funny) to see the differing emphasis that each part of the communion puts on a definition of what is anglicanism and what their church represents. The part to which I belong would describe itself as 'Catholic, but reformed' and tends to avoid the use of the word 'Protestant' which is rather prominent on that page. I guess it might be in part a reaction to Presbyterianism.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm not suggesting that it 'proves' anything with regard to sexuality, but I am saying that the decision not to sit a table with people whom - on the basis of scripture - I consider to be sexually immoral can be a principled decision based upon a scriptural injunction. My refusal to 'sit' can be a principled attempt at obedience.

The problem with this approach, Numpty, is that Paul also gives us very stern warnings about refusing to recognise the body of Christ in Communion. This, to me, at least, suggests that the Lord would have us be very generous and gracious with, rather than suspicious of, our brothers and sisters. That is certainly part of Anglican tradition, whether you approve of it or not, and is well supported from scripture. When I have to give an account before the Lord of how I had treated my brethren, I would rather hear Him criticise me for thinking the best of others, than to hear Him criticise me for thinking the worst.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you, Jolly, for expressing my own views better than my petard ever could.

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Zach82 writes:
quote:
I wasn't saying Williams was the Anglican Pope or ever trying to be. I was commenting on how the conservatives are trying to make the Anglican Communion into a confession based on a strict set of doctrines. I had thought that the Anglicans had rejected such things along with the Pope.

I don't think that Anglicans had ever rejected that approach as such. To begin with, we did not have a corpus of Reformers' authoritative writings such as provided by Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, which provided a comprehensive basis for a confessional approach (which provides for a form of unity which does not require organizational coherence, so one can have several Lutheran churches on the same turf, all with varying degrees of communion).

There were attempts to set Anglicans on a more coherent path, such as the first Lambeth Conference which was trying to address the Colenso situation, but it proved impossible to devise something which worked for both state churches (CoE and parts of the Caribbean) and non-state churches (Canada, South Africa & the US). The growing diversity of liturgical practice made it impossible to rule generally on what was really important at the time, viz., vestments and ritual.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that doctrinal coherence was never the real point of Anglicanism to begin with, but that in recent years, developing divergences began to test those hitherto-vague limits. It might be that, if we had possessed doctrinal strictness, either much of this would not have arisen, or the splits would have happened much earlier on.

Anglicans have never had a single ultimate authority to test doctrine. The Roman Catholics have the Magisterum, while various Protestant sects turn to the writings of their respective founders. This doesn't necessarily mean it is a matter of "John Calvin says it, that ends it." Rather, in the example of the Presbyterian Church, Calvin's major themes are a guiding post to look at doctrine.

Our theological giants, Thomas Cranmer and Richard Hooker and others, while thoroughly learned and influential, cannot be called the founders of the Anglican Church in a way that Lutherans look to Luther or Presbyterians look to Calvin. Cranmer's name is rarely if ever mentioned in our religious disputes.

Conservatives object to our doctrinal "looseness", because they think that if given the chance, the Anglican Church would feel free to dump major doctrines and simply preach that Jesus was a fun-loving guy who died about 2000 years ago. One could say that some conservatives are insecure about doctrinal flexibility. If they allow homosexuality, the next thing would be the Virgin Birth, then after that the Trinity, and then after that the Resurrection. Some fear, (though I don't share that fear) a theological domino effect.

So when conservatives hear about liberals talking about interfaith dialogue and apologizing to other religions for missionary activity in the past, they interpret that as a subtle denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the world. When conservatives hear liberals talking about inclusivity in relations to homosexuals, they interpret that as a rejection of Christian moral teaching on sexuality.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If the AC had made half as much fuss over issues like social justice, unfair imprisonment, the mutilation of women, and the use of children in war - all of which exist on the doorsteps of some of the bishops most violently opposed to TEC - we'd have had something a great deal closer to the Kingdom of God on Earth than we have now.

In my about 35-year experience of beibng in the CofE we've talked about, and taken action on, those sorts of issues farm far more than bothering about sexual morality. I almost only hear about the churches supposed hangups about sex from the secular media, and online in discussions like this one. Its genuinely years since I last heard anyone say anything about sexual morality in a sermon in our church and the only mentions of homosexuality that I remember have been generally supportive of the Inclusive Church position - one of our clergy is involved with that organisation.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
We have the 20-20 hindsight of being on the winning side of the slavery issue,

British evangelicals, who are for some reason being attacked on this thread, were on the right side of the issue the whole time. The anti-slavery campaign was the evangelicals defining political issue in the late 18th and early 19th century, its what made them a coherent and visible group above and beyond denominational affiliation. And it carried on from there into action on missionary work and development work and anti-racism at home.

Its in our organisational genes. In Britain just about the only political issue that Christians disagree with non-Christians on is that we tend to be more positive about immigration and more anti-racist.

NB that inlcudes anti-abortion and pro-live activism, which is much less prominent in British politics than in American and which tends to be thought of as a Catholic thing rather than an Evangelical thing. It would be an exagerration to say that for British evangelicals anti-racism takes the same sort of place as anti-abortion does for American evangelicals, because to be honest we tend not to make a fuss about anything political much. But it would only be an exagerration, not a lie.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The part to which I belong would describe itself as 'Catholic, but reformed' and tends to avoid the use of the word 'Protestant'...

Protestant means the same thing as Reformed Catholic. You guys may have hangups with the sound of the word for some reason but I think most Anglicans don't.

In England our rather unpleasantly Erastian established church is by definition Protestant because constitutionally you have to be Protestant to be king. So if the CofE was redefined as not Protestant the Queen would have to either abdicate or become entirely Presbyterian - as she already is when in Scotland. (another reason why the established church can't be nasty to Presbyterians - our supposed governor is one)

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
British evangelicals, who are for some reason being attacked on this thread...
I can't imagine why, myself. Unless some "for us or against us" logic has gotten out of the coop.

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

Protestant means the same thing as Reformed Catholic. You guys may have hangups with the sound of the word for some reason but I think most Anglicans don't.

eh... it was only an observation.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427

 - Posted      Profile for Clavus   Email Clavus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
...if the CofE was redefined as not Protestant...
Redefined by who? The Church of England does not define itself as Protestant. 'The Protestant Reformed Religion established by law' is Parliament's phrase, not the Church's.
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Leadership isn't really about popularity, it's about doing the right thing. The right thing, in this instance, is whatever it takes to block the proposed legislation in Uganda.

I really am not suggesting Rowan Williams set out to make himself popular. Leadership may well be about doing the right thing, but I'd take that to mean right for the body of which you are a leader. While blocking objectionable legislation anywhere in the world would seem to be a good thing, the value in attempting to influence a particular legislative process in which you have no direct say would seem less than clear cut. If it's a binary choice with making clear where your own Church stands, I'm not at all sure why it should have priority.

For the Archbishop of Canterbury to give the impression that the Church of England has nothing to say about the proposed Ugandan law, but is ready to instantly condemn the US Church for positive non-discrimination, is a serious failure of leadership. It only makes sense from a narrow dogmatically-orthodox catholic position; as posters across the theological spectrum have been noting on this thread, that is not where most Church of England people are.

That Rowan Williams does not court popularity is one of his many strengths. Whatever the complexities and hard choices that come with his position, I don't see they excuse putting up the shutters and retreating into closed political corridors in the hope of wielding a little personal influence.

Very ironically, perhaps what is needed is an Archbishop who is willing to articulate and reflect the actual beliefs of his Church, what I understand to be an authentically papal function. In general that would mean reflecting diversity in theology and, if not respect, at least tolerance for significant difference. But on issues like death sentences for sexual activity, I would have thought a clear pronouncement that accomodated the sensitivities of ongoing diplomacy was relatively straightforward.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  17  18  19 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools