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 18)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely)
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:

As to communion I would rather be in communion with a church that is in error supporting a government issue than with a church actually practiing and teaching error. Afterall at the end of the day this is about life eternal.

Does it not occur to you that a church could be in error precisely through supporting a 'government issue (sic)'?

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533

 - Posted      Profile for Pancho   Author's homepage   Email Pancho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Pancho, I'm afraid you're failing to take in the overall context. This is an indictment of illiberal Christianity generally, whether practised by the current crop of Catholic bishops, institutionalised by the Roman Catholic Magisterium, fomented by protestant fundamentalists or by members of the Anglican Communion.

I don't see how that excuses the use of negative stereotypes (with a bit of history in the U.S.) and insulting language, or grouping us with radical extremists, or saying outright that we're f*****d. Nor did you distinguish between the faithful and the bishops or the magisterium. You simply wrote RCC, of which I am a part.

If I wrote about Episcopalians that "all of them are completely f******d, mate" would that be excused because It was in context of an indictment of un-traditional Christianity in general?

--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"

Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008  |  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 
Pancho, to clarify even more broadly I am condemning all religious fundamentalisms and political intrusions of religion. I'm rather sympathetic to the restrictions placed on the Church historically in Mexico after each of the two Revolutions. If you don't like it, what can I say. Maybe reading through my postings over the course of the entire thread would give you a better understanding of the context.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248

 - Posted      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
... the basis for the membership figures quoted for (e.g.) the Ugandan or Nigerian Anglican churches has never been made clear. How are the statistics gathered? What measures are used? All this is obscure to me.

Same as any other church. Why doubt them?

You seem to be imagining that Anglicanism in Africa is some sort of smoke-and-mirrors trick perpetrated by a handful of rich American bigots.

But seriously, it isn't. They were there before these Americans turned up and they will still be there after the Americans have gone home again to fund something else.

Not quite that simple, I'm afraid.

One question of the many I have: How are membership rolls purged when a given member transfers to another parish?

Another: Do the figures reflect ASA ("average Sunday attendance"), pledges, or total membership (including inactive members)?

Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Túathalán
Shipmate
# 14148

 - Posted      Profile for Túathalán   Email Túathalán   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Túathalán:
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
GAFCON churches represent abpout 75% of all Anglicans, I cant see how they can form a separate group. I think the TEC will cease to be in the Anglican Communion.

Hmm. If you had a source for your figure of 75%, I'd love to see it...
I would, also. Claims like brightmorningstar's have often been made, but the basis for the membership figures quoted for (e.g.) the Ugandan or Nigerian Anglican churches has never been made clear. How are the statistics gathered? What measures are used? All this is obscure to me.
AFAIK, GAFCON quote the 75% figure because some bishops within various provinces have signed up their entire dioceses when asked by GAFCON to discern how much support they have on the ground. Hence, until I see proper statistical evidence for the claim, I have frankly no time for the claim that 75% of Anglicans support GAFCON.
Posts: 129 | From: Here, where else? | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Firstly to the issue of scripture, I suggest that if we all agreed on the reliability of scripture then the issue of the appointment wouldn’t be occurring in the first place. The problem with Dave Marshall’s view is that the NT writers record the supernatural and miraculous as though it should convince us of the validity of Jesus Christ. I cant see how we can do anything but either accept in faith or reject by human reasoning. The idea that is was the choices and thinking of our ancestors only to my mind completely excludes Christ’s teaching and the revelation of the Holy Spirit of God. To me it seems the Pharisees had done exactly what Dave Marshall is proposing we do, and Jesus referred them back to the word of God, the OT testament scriptures.

Now as to GAFCON, http://www.gafcon.org/news/gafcon_primates_meet_in_london_with_north_american_bishops/
GAFCON claims it, to me it looks about right.
In my experience the whole congregations signed up will be totally and correctly opposed to same sex relationships anyway, its error in their cultures as well as the Christian faith. I suspect the minority non-GAFCON leaders are the ones who cant be sure of representing fully their minority congregations.

Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To me it seems the Pharisees had done exactly what Dave Marshall is proposing we do, and Jesus referred them back to the word of God, the OT testament scriptures.

ISTM that the Pharisees' failing wasn't liberalism.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
to me the pharisees failing was compromising the truth of God's word which I would call liberalism. I note also that Jesus quites the word of God to Satan and intially in response to a twisted question by the serpent Eve refers back to what had actually said, it was only when she reasoned it was there trouble.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  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 Brightmorningstar

GAFCON claims it, to me it looks about right.
In my experience the whole congregations signed up will be totally and correctly opposed to same sex relationships anyway, its error in their cultures as well as the Christian faith. I suspect the minority non-GAFCON leaders are the ones who cant be sure of representing fully their minority congregations.

What an extraordinary claim! I certainly know of members of Gafcon-affiliated churches in this country who do not fully support the anti-gay stance of their minister, and I've no reason to think that it's any different amongst the churches of Africa or Australia or any other part of the Anglican Communion. I rather suspect that, apart from a small "elite" at the top, most congregants in, say, Africa are like most congregants in the UK, that is, that they are largely unaware of the political wranglings involved, and, to the extent that they are aware of them, think them a distasteful distraction from the main task of mission.

--------------------
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
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I know members of non-GAFCON affliated churches who dont support the TEC or the appointment, but with the issue in Uganda it should be obvious the culture overwhelmingly simply doesn't support it. I think its as out of touch with reality to think there is anything but significant minority of support for this appointment in the church. I would also point out that in California, one of the most liberal states the vote among the population as a whole was not for same sex partnerships as marriage.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mission is more to those GAFCON strong places where they lack the material wealth of the west but joyfuly hold on to the spiritual truth
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
Mission is more to those GAFCON strong places where they lack the material wealth of the west but joyfuly hold on to the spiritual truth

I'm not so sure, brightmorningstar. Of those with whom I am personally acquainted, only between a third and a half are joyfulling holding on. Another third seem pretty grumpy and bitter and the remainder is doing their best, but with no noticeable emotion about it. With all the talk of mission (all round, I might add), the focus appears to be on the scrap. Perhaps when that dies down or is somehow resolved, we'll see some mission, but I suspect most energy will go to repair work.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248

 - Posted      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
I would also point out that in California, one of the most liberal states the vote among the population as a whole was not for same sex partnerships as marriage.

That has nothing to do with the issue under discussion.

But then the red herring fallacy is just another one of those things invented by human reason, eh?

Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The overwhelming majority of Christians worldwide are not in favour of this apointment, all I was doing was trying to give some overall appreciation of how much of a majority this is. Lambeth 1.10, which wasnt even GAFCON set the line in the sand for the communion as a whole.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  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 brightmorningstar:
The problem with Dave Marshall’s view is that the NT writers record the supernatural and miraculous as though it should convince us of the validity of Jesus Christ. I cant see how we can do anything but either accept in faith or reject by human reasoning.

That's a rather limited view of our options. It's only from the NT that we know anything about the person of Jesus, and what's included is only the books and letters that later church leaders thought supported the premise that he was God. Just because that's a bizarre claim doesn't mean the story of Jesus has no value, not least because it's the foundation of Christianity.
quote:
The idea that is was the choices and thinking of our ancestors only to my mind completely excludes Christ’s teaching and the revelation of the Holy Spirit of God.
The Holy Spirit is only the name Christians have traditionally given to how they think God is active in the world. If you think it's wrong to appoint an openly gay woman as a bishop, you might say it's not the work of the Holy Spirit; if you think overcoming gender discrimination is a good thing, you might say it was.

'What the Holy Spirit reveals' is only traditional Christian-speak for an opinion about how God works in the world. The reality, if you want to think of God in those terms, is that this kind of choice is delegated to us. It has nothing to do with the real God at all.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  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 brightmorningstar:
I know members of non-GAFCON affliated churches who dont support the TEC or the appointment, but with the issue in Uganda it should be obvious the culture overwhelmingly simply doesn't support it. I think its as out of touch with reality to think there is anything but significant minority of support for this appointment in the church. I would also point out that in California, one of the most liberal states the vote among the population as a whole was not for same sex partnerships as marriage.

I'm not sure that a claim that the surrouding culture is opposed to same-sex reltionships does anything to strenghten your position BMS. There are very good reasons why Christians might be significantly more supportive of full inclusion than their host cultures, for instance, that the whole counsel of scripture is in favour of values such as love, fidelity and committment, not withstanding a few verses of dubious applicability.

Whilst we are talking about mission, one of the reasons most commonly given by agnostics for rejecting Christianity is that the church doesn't walk the walk. We claim to believe in a God of love, but we act as if he is a petty tyrant concerned, above all else, in the bedroom arrangements of bishops.

--------------------
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
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
The overwhelming majority of Christians worldwide are not in favour of this apointment

But not all because they agree with GAFCON! Many, probably including ++Rowan, are against it because of the deleterious effect on the communion as a whole.

I note in passing that those who disapprove of it for this reason probably disapprove of GAFCON as well.

- Chris.

PS: if the level of support for GAFCON is that high, why wasn't it bigger than Lambeth?

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I am condemning all religious fundamentalisms and political intrusions of religion.

It seems to me that "fundamentalism," if it has any meaning at all, has to do with why you hold something to be true (typically, because an authoritative sacred writing or tradition or person asserts it), rather than what someone holds to be true. Thus Catholics could plausibly be accused of being "fundamentalist" on such things as their belief in the Assumption of Mary or the Trinity or the Incarnation (all of which are believed to on the basis of religious authority). But Catholic opposition to homosexual behavior is argued on the basis of natural law, not religious authority. You obviously think those arguments are specious (which you are free to do), but I don't think they can be meaningfully described as "fundamentalist."

Unless, of course, you simply intend "fundamentalist" as an insult to be used on religious people who hold views that you think are evil or stupid. But in that case, for the sake of clarity, you might want to simply call them "religious people who hold views that I think are evil or stupid" rather than "fundamentalists."

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To Dave Marshall,
I fail to see your logic, perhaps it is the way you have worded it. What the NT writers record is what they saw and heard and what they received from Jesus and the promised Holy Spirit. That the subsequent church leaders chose these writings for cannon shows this is what they believed, not that they wanted to show Jesus was God, without the NT writing they would not have had such a motive. The NT writers record that Jesus had claimed and demonstrated He was God.

________________________________________
The Holy Spirit is only the name Christians have traditionally given to how they think God is active in the world.
________________________________________
Again I would not quite agree with that. What Christians call the Holy Spirit, Jesus is recorded as what the world does not know, and its given to those who believe.

Yes indeed the appointment of an openly gay person cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit because Jesus is recorded as saying the Holy Spirit reminds of all He said. John 14. Jesus NT teaching records Him affirming God’s creation purpose for man and woman or celibacy and same sex relations as error. So the appointment is error.

As to the appointment of a woman, I see scriptural support for and against so although I don’t see an issue I would respect a choice either way. .. as long as the woman was called by God as a son of God rather than a humanistic equality issue.

So as to the real God we seem to have two rather different real God’s; mine is based on the nature and character of God according to His Biblical testimony, yours to me seems based on your own reasoning of the Biblical testimony which excludes some of it.

Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
Jesus NT teaching records Him affirming God’s creation purpose for man and woman or celibacy and same sex relations as error.

I don't often ask for proof-texting, but I want to know the chapter and verse where you think Jesus says anything about same sex relations.

--------------------
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
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes I would also say that the disciples were fundamentalist they fundamentally followed Jesus, the Pharisees, whom liberals would usually call fundamentalists were liberal because they compromised the word of God and reasoned what Jesus Christ said.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  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 Brightmorningstar

Yes indeed the appointment of an openly gay person cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit because Jesus is recorded as saying the Holy Spirit reminds of all He said. John 14. Jesus NT teaching records Him affirming God’s creation purpose for man and woman or celibacy and same sex relations as error. So the appointment is error.


Care to cite chapter and verse for that, BMS? I can recall Him speaking against adultery, but he never mentions same-sex relations in my Bible.

ETA x-posted with Organ Builder

[ 18. December 2009, 14:18: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

--------------------
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
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To organ builder,
It is very difficult to respond when I have been told to stick to the thread topic... except that I have already given the texts most Christians will give you, earlier in the thread… and the Biblical testimony is of course from God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Please look back

Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aren't we drifting back into dead horse territory here? There are already several threads over there that go over this. Obviously there are faithful Christians on both sides of this issue.

(And come on, no Christian follows every command in the NT. Many of them are contradictory because they are written to address different contexts.)

--------------------
"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
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To Jolly Jape.
As above I must stick to the topic, and have already given the scriptures. Ask yourself why Jesus does not countenance same sex relations and then you may acknowledge the condenations.

Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks ToujoursDan, I think the apointment is error and not of God, and I think the appointment will be made even though the Communion as a whole has asked not to make such appointments
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Jolly Jape.
As above I must stick to the topic, and have already given the scriptures. Ask yourself why Jesus does not countenance same sex relations and then you may acknowledge the conde[m]nations.

Jesus doesn't countenance a lot of things. He has very little to say about mixed marriages, slavery, nosepicking, jaywalking, indoor plumbing, or colourising old movies. Go on, ask yourself why Jesus does not countenance Manchester United?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To Mousethief,
Sorry but if one tries to justify something by what Jesus didn't mention, when in fact He did, I fail to see that as anything but rank disbelief.

Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As to the election by the majority of leaders, I would point out that the majority of Anglican Communion leaders have pronounced against openly gay apointments and some who have seen the disobedience in this of the TEC leadership have susequently left leaving as it were more chance of the suporters promoting their own.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Where did Jesus mention same-sex relations? I know St Paul does and I know Leviticus does but where does Jesus talk about it?

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am trying to stick to the topic and getting one basless question after another. Sorry but Paul received his revelation and gospel not from men but from the risen Lord. (Galatians 1) So it was revealed to Paul by Jesus christ and the Holy Spirit and Paul has imparted it to us from Jesus Christ. As God's purpose in creating woman was to be unietd with man, same sex relations cant be God's purpose.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This horse looks awfully sickly to me. If you can't find anything Purgatorial to say after a mere 18 repetitive pages, I'll be shooting this nag soon.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Mousethief,
Sorry but if one tries to justify something by what Jesus didn't mention, when in fact He did, I fail to see that as anything but rank disbelief.

You can see it anyway you want, but Christ didn't mention it.

Perhaps you are trying to make an argument that every command and prohibition in the Bible is somehow given to us by Jesus, indirectly through other people and preserved in Scripture (which is a claim some fundamentalists make), but that would make Jesus rather schizophrenic. Even Jesus and Paul aren't always in complete agreement when it comes to the details.

--------------------
"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
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
As to the election by the majority of leaders, I would point out that the majority of Anglican Communion leaders have pronounced against openly gay apointments and some who have seen the disobedience in this of the TEC leadership have susequently left leaving as it were more chance of the suporters promoting their own.

This is actually false. A group of Anglican provinces have officially expressed disagreement with the election of gay/lesbian bishops, but most have been silent. Many have sent representatives to the consecrations of TEC bishops since the election of VGR and all kinds of contacts remain in place. TEC clergy serve in foreign churches and vice verse. Academics from TEC seminaries serve in other provinces and other provinces send their trainees to TEC seminaries and parishes for training.

I would expect there will be some more distance between the TEC and Anglican Church of Canada and some (but not all) African Provinces and the Southern Cone. And there is certainly a difference of opinion between the TEC and Canterbury. But the idea that the TEC is going to be isolated is wishful thinking for some.

--------------------
"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
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 brightmorningstar:
Yes I would also say that the disciples were fundamentalist they fundamentally followed Jesus, the Pharisees, whom liberals would usually call fundamentalists were liberal because they compromised the word of God and reasoned what Jesus Christ said.

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

To help you out, here's what dictionary.com has as the first definition:

quote:
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
As shown throughout the Gospel, Jesus presented a progression from Old Covenant to New Covenant. Dictionary.com also informs me that the definition of reform is:

quote:
to form again.
If that don't describe Jesus' entire message of salvation of the world, then let me off the boat right here. I'd rather worship trees and rocks and be a pagan.

[ 18. December 2009, 15:24: 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
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
Firstly to the issue of scripture, I suggest that if we all agreed on the reliability of scripture then the issue of the appointment wouldn’t be occurring in the first place.

There are types of reliability and many genres in scripture, as well as various groups being spoken to at various times. For instance, do you claim that Genesis 1-2 are reliable geological and biological history? Some do, of course. If you are among them, then let's get that declaration out on the table here and now, so that the rest of the ship knows what mentality we are addressing.

As to the present issue, I invite you to join the thread in Dead Horses "Lesbians and the Bible", which investigates the substance of that relationship.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  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 brightmorningstar:
I fail to see your logic, perhaps it is the way you have worded it.

Or perhaps it's the way you're reading it. You seem to be assuming that if you claim something is scriptural, it must be correct. I'm suggesting the Bible is only one source of information and cannot reasonably be taken as unbiased evidence for anything. What the NT records is the writers' interpretation of what they remembered or were told.
quote:
So as to the real God we seem to have two rather different real God’s; mine is based on the nature and character of God according to His Biblical testimony, yours to me seems based on your own reasoning of the Biblical testimony which excludes some of it.
Well, no. There's only one God as generally understood through history. The difference is you're working with a lot of assumptions, most of which I've found are either plain false or have no reasonable justification. Unless you're willing to question some of those assumptions, we'll continue to talk past each other.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To TouhoursDan,
You can see it anyway you want, but Christ didn't mention it.
I can see His NT teaching not only excludes it but condemns it as shown, all you are doing is showing me you don’t believe what they Bible says, which anyone can pick up and see what I am saying.

Perhaps you are trying to make an argument that every command and prohibition in the Bible is somehow given to us by Jesus, indirectly through other people and preserved in Scripture (which is a claim some fundamentalists make), but that would make Jesus rather schizophrenic. Even Jesus and Paul aren't always in complete agreement when it comes to the details.
What you say makes no sense, Jesus didn’t write any of the books of the Bible so I fail to see how anything in the NT was not given indirectly through other people, this was my whole point, Jesus and Paul is no different from Jesus and Matthew, Jesus and Mark, Jesus and Luke, Jesus and John, Jesus and Peter, Jesus and James, or Jesus and the writer of Hebrews.

Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  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 
... or Jesus and crackers

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

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
As to the election by the majority of leaders, I would point out that the majority of Anglican Communion leaders have pronounced against openly gay apointments and some who have seen the disobedience in this of the TEC leadership have susequently left leaving as it were more chance of the suporters promoting their own.

This is actually false. A group of Anglican provinces have officially expressed disagreement with the election of gay/lesbian bishops, but most have been silent. Many have sent representatives to the consecrations of TEC bishops since the election of VGR and all kinds of contacts remain in place. TEC clergy serve in foreign churches and vice verse. Academics from TEC seminaries serve in other provinces and other provinces send their trainees to TEC seminaries and parishes for training.
And even if it were true -- since when does having a majority determine what's right? The majority of Christian leaders countenanced slavery for centuries.

If the consecration of Mary Glasspool means the Episcopal Church has to go her own way for decades while others refuse to treat gay people as full members of the body of Christ in the name of holding the rest of the communion together, then so be it. Sooner or later the rest of you will catch on and catch up.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To Dave Marshall,
quote:
Or perhaps it's the way you're reading it. You seem to be assuming that if you claim something is scriptural, it must be correct.
Yes if all scripture is inspired by God then how would you know it wasn’t? You seem to be claiming if something is scriptural it isnt correct.
The Bible says anything else is no gospel at all. I go with the Bible rather than your view.

quote:
What the NT records is the writers' interpretation of what they remembered or were told.
Not according to the NT writers and I go with them rather than your view.

quote:
Well, no. There's only one God as generally understood through history.
There is only one true God according to the God whose testimony is the Bible which is why I am referring to what the Bible says and why I am questioning and rejecting what you are saying.

quote:
The difference is you're working with a lot of assumptions, most of which I've found are either plain false or have no reasonable justification.
If you cant trust what the Bible says then it is you who is working with assumptions.

quote:
Unless you're willing to question some of those assumptions, we'll continue to talk past each other.
I am prepared to sdoicsus

Sadly you haven’t specifically addressed what I wrote and cited, you have merely given your own opinion which I reject as disbelief.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To Alogon,
You need to address what I wrote rather than what you assumed I wrote. The texts in question from Genesis are what Jesus says as have you not read? He affirms that in the beginning God made them male and female, it was for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife as one flesh. If you don’t trust what Jesus said?
Biologically of course that is evident and just shows the dysfunction of same sex sexual relations, so one doesn’t even have to trust God on that, its obvious reality.
Which just shows the level of dysfunction, denial and disbelief involved in the church on this issue.

quote:
As to the present issue, I invite you to join the thread in Dead Horses "Lesbians and the Bible", which investigates the substance of that relationship.
Why are you inviting me alone? Surely you want the Biblical truth posted here?
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ummmm... He is inviting you alone because the rest of us have been over discussing this for a while.

--------------------
"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
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To RuthW,
quote:
If the consecration of Mary Glasspool means the Episcopal Church has to go her own way for decades while others refuse to treat gay people as full members of the body of Christ in the name of holding the rest of the communion together, then so be it. Sooner or later the rest of you will catch on and catch up.
But they don’t refuse to treat anyone with same sex attraction different. They do not reject homosexuals, they reject the promotion of same sex relations.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Genesis is quite right. God made me male and female.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To TouhoursDan,
You can see it anyway you want, but Christ didn't mention it.
I can see His NT teaching not only excludes it but condemns it as shown, all you are doing is showing me you don’t believe what they Bible says, which anyone can pick up and see what I am saying.

Perhaps you are trying to make an argument that every command and prohibition in the Bible is somehow given to us by Jesus, indirectly through other people and preserved in Scripture (which is a claim some fundamentalists make), but that would make Jesus rather schizophrenic. Even Jesus and Paul aren't always in complete agreement when it comes to the details.
What you say makes no sense, Jesus didn’t write any of the books of the Bible so I fail to see how anything in the NT was not given indirectly through other people, this was my whole point, Jesus and Paul is no different from Jesus and Matthew, Jesus and Mark, Jesus and Luke, Jesus and John, Jesus and Peter, Jesus and James, or Jesus and the writer of Hebrews.

Please learn how to format your responses to separate your response from the question.

quote:

What you say makes no sense, Jesus didn’t write any of the books of the Bible so I fail to see how anything in the NT was not given indirectly through other people, this was my whole point, Jesus and Paul is no different from Jesus and Matthew, Jesus and Mark, Jesus and Luke, Jesus and John, Jesus and Peter, Jesus and James, or Jesus and the writer of Hebrews.

.

Ummm. I know Jesus didn't write any books.

But the books of the NT are different. The Gospels vary from each other in many ways - who their intended audience was, description of Christ's events, how Christ's sayings are recorded and interpreted. One could argue that even their Christology is different. That's why the Church chose 4 Gospels instead of one. The differences between the NT books are even greater. There are recorded arguments between Peter and Paul that were probably never resolved.

[ 18. December 2009, 16:31: 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
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:

quote:
As to the present issue, I invite you to join the thread in Dead Horses "Lesbians and the Bible", which investigates the substance of that relationship.
Why are you inviting me alone? Surely you want the Biblical truth posted here?
I think he's inviting you there because everybody else on this thread knows the rules of the Ship. Since you are new, and apparently not particularly inclined to read the guidelines for the various boards, I reprint the guidelines from the Dead Horse board here:
quote:

This board [Dead Horses] is dedicated to those topics that recur with tedious regularity on nearly every multi-denominational religious debate forum on the internet. Specifically: biblical inerrancy, homosexuality, the role of women, evolution, abortion, closed communion and bitching about church music. If you want to talk about any aspect of those subjects, post your thread here.

If you recognize the content of a post you wish to make in any of those descriptions, TAKE IT TO THE DEAD HORSE BOARD.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To RuthW,
quote:
If the consecration of Mary Glasspool means the Episcopal Church has to go her own way for decades while others refuse to treat gay people as full members of the body of Christ in the name of holding the rest of the communion together, then so be it. Sooner or later the rest of you will catch on and catch up.
But they don’t refuse to treat anyone with same sex attraction different. They do not reject homosexuals, they reject the promotion of same sex relations.
You DO have your head in the sand.

--------------------
"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
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354

 - Posted      Profile for brightmorningstar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To ToujoursDan,
Ah ok I see. Is there anything to discuss, what evidence has been presented from scripture countenancing same sex sin? All I have seen is rank denial and no suppporting evidence.

I have given my view, all authority in heaven and on earth is given to Jesus so disciples are to go and make disciples teaching to obey all Jesus taught as in Matthew 28 and that is what the NT writers did.

My view is this appointment is serious core error and is part of a counterfit christianity that supports sexual sin, pluralism and idolotry.
Now if you disagree support your view rather than merely attack mine.

Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME - SEE DEAD HORSES.

Good grief.

--------------------
"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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  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