|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Flipping Synod - especially the Lay People!
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nah, mostly she wanted everyone to stop wittering on about marriage.
Well, with respect, she could have made that a lot clearer.
Her "get back to the point" post immediately followed six posts over more than two hours, none of which was on marriage and all but one of which were on the continuing issue of whether OoW-opponents accept the orders of bishops who ordain women or male priests ordained by them. Which they undeniably do.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Actaully, if you had checked, you'd have seen that my point was to challenge ken and Spike about a specific allegation: that the opponents of women priests generally hold that bishops who had ordained women and priests who had been ordained by such bishops have thereby invalid orders. Which is - provenly - bullshit. All the stuff about unity, and broken relationships I submitted to those who know better than me about it for potential correction.
So I ask again, what are PEVs for?
I don't even claim to know any more, Spike.
Why won't you admit that whatever else they're for they're not there because opponents of OoW reject the orders of every other bishop or priest? If they believed that, how could they accept even their own PEVs, who have been consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nah, mostly she wanted everyone to stop wittering on about marriage.
Well, with respect, she could have made that a lot clearer.
Her "get back to the point" post immediately followed six posts over more than two hours, none of which was on marriage and all but one of which were on the continuing issue of whether OoW-opponents accept the orders of bishops who ordain women or male priests ordained by them. Which they undeniably do.
With respect, go fuck yourself, you freakishly anal-retentive, nit-picking little pansy eater. Do you think I'm sitting here monitoring each post as it's made?
And yes, i'll endeavor to be more clear in the future.
Seriously, dude. Get your head out of your ass. It can't be easy to blink in there.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Huh. This is interesting. Ebbsfleet are a bunch of liars - and I've just had to slap down Thurible in the other thread for being taken in by them.
On the Ebbsfleet website under the heading Resources/Legislation relevant to the See of Ebbsfleet they have what they claim to be the Act of Synod. A simple glance shows that the act starts with the word "Proposed".
The Church of England website has the actual act (which starts with the word "Passed"). Notably the Ebbsfleet version starts with the declarations
quote:
1. There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
the real version starts
quote:
Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Ebbsfleet are outright lying about the Act of Synod that brought them into existance - what they claim to be legislation isn't. This goes some way to explaining the differences in what was supposedly promised that people are claiming.
The question, Justinian, is on what occasions DOES the Act of Synod allow such discrimination. If, as I suspect, they are extremely limited ones, then the summary presented is entirely accurate; having just scanned through the Measure, it seems the only scenario that appears in the measure is the appointment to parishes that oppose the OoW, where opposition is indeed an appropriate step. So, Justinian, you are bitching at gnats, a sign that you really are just trying to stir up trouble. Of course that's the fashionable thing to do - to throw as much bovine faecal material at your opponents in the hope that some of it will stick. But for a Christian to do that? I think a public confession before your next trip to communion is called for.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Thank you, comet. But I was actually trying to be compliant with what I thought you were demanding. It appears I guessed wrongly about that. But, yes, I did think you were monitoring each post - I thought that's what hosts did.
[ 25. November 2012, 08:43: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
Eh. You were right, I was unclear. I tell ya, I try and try to get you all to read my mind, and it goes nowhere. Geez.
We monitor posts as we're available to do so. Which is why they try and get hosts from many timezones. I was just making my first read of the day when I posted, so I had some catching up to do. My post was vaguely aimed at all of page 9, essentially.
[ 25. November 2012, 08:48: Message edited by: comet ]
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Comet, you shame me - your price is above Ruby's. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Thank you.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Who is this Ruby? And when did she become less valuable than comet?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Comet, you shame me - your price is above Ruby's. Thank you.
Pedant alert
Ruby's what?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
actually, I'm not sure what the issue is and how there are grounds for such a strong accusation of "wilful liars" as if they are distorting the Act.
The "proposed" version says "There shall be no discrimination against" whereas the final Act passed says "no person or body shall discriminate against".
How is that such a major distortion as to warrant labelling them wilful liars? It seems more like Justinian has gone a-hunting in the hopes of finding some evidence - but that's all he comes up with? Not convincing.
Also not my fight, so I'd best just keep out of it.
Given that Justinian highlighted a highly relevant section of a sentence, I'm not going to dignify this with any further answer than go and read the highlighted bit of the sentence.
No, wait, I'm going to dignify it with a further answer, because I'm a drafter by profession. And if I wrote something like "subject to" or "except as provided by", it's basically a bloody great big red flag that there's something else that's going to turn an absolute statement into a non-absolute one.
EDIT: Particularly when it's a late change to the text, as demonstrate nicely by the existence of the proposed version. People simply do not go adding in things like "Unless this Act or the Measure says otherwise" for no reason whatsoever. They do it because they're contemplating that the general statement that follows is going to be overridden by other parts of the text.
I do like how your quote from the first version starts with a capital letter - the start of the sentence - and the quote from the passed version starts with a lower case letter - not the start of the sentence. Now I'm wondering, did you somehow just manage to not see the first part of the sentence, or did you somehow hope that I hadn't?
[ 25. November 2012, 10:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Um, subject to the Measure and the Act - which in fact provides for a form of positive discrimination in favour to those opposed: that's what those bits of legislation do. They don't provide for legal discrimination against the opponents but rather on behalf of the opponents.
I learnt here on these boards that the time-limit placed on bishops was about allowing them to make dioceses "no go" areas - but only by those then in post - subsequent bishops couldn't do that. I got that just by skimming the posts here. But that information seems to have been ignored.
This is like Biblical proof-texting innit. People trying to read back what the text meant without seeing how those who wrote it actually implemented it. As I recall they implemented it quite the way Thurible has argued, by appointing Hope to York, Chartres to London and so on.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Comet, you shame me - your price is above Ruby's. Thank you.
Pedant alert
Ruby's what?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Just a wee proverbial joke, Boogie.
[ 25. November 2012, 13:23: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.
Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?
It was using this argument that the Church in Wales stopped having its equivalent of a flying bishop, after the last one retired. A few anti-women clergy challenged their bishops at various synods but didn't get very far, simply because all the bishops are male, and take responsibility for the pastoral care of all the priests in their care, whether they want it or not. For a few in our diocese, it meant going to a chrism mass at their own cathedral for the first time in 20 years.
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
It's a fantasy exercise I know, but I can't help wondering what the result on this matter would have been in the UK Roman Catholic Church, if it had the same decision-making structure as the Church of England in place ... Any thoughts??
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Let's not have any thoughts on that. Ok? Start your own fucking thread.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
AIUI, there isn't a decision-making structure in the RC church anything like the Anglicans have. You do as you're told, don't you?
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Let's not have any thoughts on that. Ok? Start your own fucking thread.
Pretty much. Also please see above.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
This is like Biblical proof-texting innit. People trying to read back what the text meant without seeing how those who wrote it actually implemented it.
No, it isn't anything like Biblical proof-texting, because the Bible isn't written anything like the same way that laws are written. Again, I should know, I write the damn things.
Laws, that is, not Bibles.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why won't you admit that whatever else they're for they're not there because opponents of OoW reject the orders of every other bishop or priest? If they believed that, how could they accept even their own PEVs, who have been consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Because he's never consecrated any female bishops?
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I know it's a forlorn hope because there's so much of it here already and you're having a fun debate to which Spike is responding but, all of you, note that this is a Hell thread on the "Flippin' Synod" and the debate about the ordination of women is one of our favourite Dead Horses, so play that game there, pretty please.
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Sioni, please indulge just this one response, and I promise to take the rest elsewhwere. quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why won't you admit that whatever else they're for they're not there because opponents of OoW reject the orders of every other bishop or priest? If they believed that, how could they accept even their own PEVs, who have been consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Because he's never consecrated any female bishops?
Say what? Now I know you're just jerking me around. That's seriously lame, Spike.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
OK Chesterbelloc, accepted. Please, everyone, don't continue the debate here.
Firm Hostly Advisory:
We have discussed this with the Admins and we accept that this thread, in Hell, cannot be restricted purely to matters of the Synod. It can therefore cater for other related aspects such as PEVs, the 1992 motion, OoW and the rights and wrongs of women bishops.
However, please follow these guidelines (closely!):
- Use this thread for Hellish exchanges only.
- Do not use this thread as an alternative to debates elsewhere. Primary debates are to take place in specialised threads in Dead Horses and Purgatory.
- Do not under any circumstances whatsoever place the same material in two places, which causes bifurcation. That really does get my goat, and you don't want my goat gotten.
Message ends.
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Thanks, Sioni - message received and understood.
Spike, we can continue this little discussion elsewhere if you like. Or not, just as you please.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think that to the general public, it is as if this has suddenly become a documentary.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think that to the general public, it is as if this has suddenly become a documentary.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) So true!
--------------------
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
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
If six people had voted yes then it would have gone through. SIX PEOPLE! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
I don't think it is even that - three people who voted 'no' voting 'yes' would have changed it. So now we are stuck with years more wrangling.
And in the synod debate many, many people rising to speak said that they were FOR having women bishops ordained, but that they did not like the code of practice amendment, and because of that they would vote NO!
I cringed every time that I heard one of those types rise to speak in the hours of live stream I listened to. When one rose to object on that amendment point they always began by saying how much they supported women bishops and then ended with that negative reasoning. I could tell how they would finish from the way that they approached the issues.
Next time there should be no code of practice. It should be women bishops for the Church of England, and if you don't like that go join some other church where you will feel at home. So much for the famed English sense of fair play. The notion of generous fair play was completely lost on those negative, suspicious people. Bending over backwards to accommodate them will not satisfy them.
Grrr!
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
I cringed every time that I heard one of those types rise to speak in the hours of live stream I listened to. When one rose to object on that amendment point they always began by saying how much they supported women bishops and then ended with that negative reasoning. I could tell how they would finish from the way that they approached the issues.
This smacks of 'having their cake and eating it'. They want to be seen as forward looking and 'for' women - but actually would prefer the status quo.
Seems to be all about image for these folk.
Interesting that their voting has been published so that we all can see exactly who they are. I wonder how they have been received since?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
I cringed every time that I heard one of those types rise to speak in the hours of live stream I listened to. When one rose to object on that amendment point they always began by saying how much they supported women bishops and then ended with that negative reasoning. I could tell how they would finish from the way that they approached the issues.
This smacks of 'having their cake and eating it'. They want to be seen as forward looking and 'for' women - but actually would prefer the status quo.
Seems to be all about image for these folk.
Interesting that their voting has been published so that we all can see exactly who they are. I wonder how they have been received since?
I'm afraid my thought was "I'm not a racist but .....".
But then I've got a bad, cynical streak about me. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
So much for the famed English sense of fair play. The notion of generous fair play was completely lost on those negative, suspicious people. Bending over backwards to accommodate them will not satisfy them.
Grrr!
Yeah, some people are just dirt and don't deserve to be treated with the same standard of fairness and tolerance as others - it's just wasted on them. That vicar from the Mitchell & Webb clip would know how to treat that kind of scum.
quote:
Interesting that their voting has been published so that we all can see exactly who they are. I wonder how they have been received since?
Why don't you, Mr. Rob and all the other villagers pop round to their place one evening - better take some blazing torches to light the way - and show them just what kind of reception they deserve?
[ 27. November 2012, 08:28: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The General Synod votes for Chelmsford, from that link shows the House of Clergy carried, two clergy voted against, one is a leading light of Reform, the other is another leading evangelical. Compare that to the vote in Chelmsford Diocese in June 2011 (Word doc) - 44 for, 11 against, 5 abstentions.
At General Synod for the House of Laity members, four of the seven voted against. The Chelmsford Diocesan Synod vote in June 2011, 44 for, 16 against, 1 abstention. The ones I recognise are from Confessing Anglican churches. Which confirms my comments that evangelical influence was more important, certainly in Chelmsford.
(Confessing Anglican is GAFCON)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Next time there should be no code of practice. It should be women bishops for the Church of England, and if you don't like that go join some other church where you will feel at home. So much for the famed English sense of fair play. The notion of generous fair play was completely lost on those negative, suspicious people. Bending over backwards to accommodate them will not satisfy them.
Grrr!
Ah the voice of the fundamentalist is heard in the land. IF we are serious about church membership as being more than just a convenient label, then we have to minimise the exclusion of anyone; the idea that acceptance of women in ministry should be a test for membership of the true Church is totally abhorrent to me - YMMV. And of course given that libruls spend most of their time wanting to ignore the bits of the creed / bible / canon law that they find inconvenient, it really does not behove them to make THIS the one issue on which you've got to shape up or ship up.
OK - so here's a deal: we pass the legislation with no protection for opponents of women bishops - and add a rider - all licensed clerics will affirm privately before their bishop that:
1) They are not in a gay relationship
2) They have not carried out a service that was or could be understood to be a service of blessing for a gay relationship.
3) They will commit to not do either of the above on penalty of criminal proceedings for obtaining income by deception.
All clerics who refuse to make this affirmation will be dismissed forthwith.
How does that strike you? Personally I think it's the minimum the church should require
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Let's not have any thoughts on that. Ok? Start your own fucking thread.
CBA.
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Next time there should be no code of practice. It should be women bishops for the Church of England, and if you don't like that go join some other church where you will feel at home. So much for the famed English sense of fair play. The notion of generous fair play was completely lost on those negative, suspicious people. Bending over backwards to accommodate them will not satisfy them.
Grrr!
Ah the voice of the fundamentalist is heard in the land. IF we are serious about church membership as being more than just a convenient label, then we have to minimise the exclusion of anyone; the idea that acceptance of women in ministry should be a test for membership of the true Church is totally abhorrent to me - YMMV. And of course given that libruls spend most of their time wanting to ignore the bits of the creed / bible / canon law that they find inconvenient, it really does not behove them to make THIS the one issue on which you've got to shape up or ship up.
OK - so here's a deal: we pass the legislation with no protection for opponents of women bishops - and add a rider - all licensed clerics will affirm privately before their bishop that:
1) They are not in a gay relationship
2) They have not carried out a service that was or could be understood to be a service of blessing for a gay relationship.
3) They will commit to not do either of the above on penalty of criminal proceedings for obtaining income by deception.
All clerics who refuse to make this affirmation will be dismissed forthwith.
How does that strike you? Personally I think it's the minimum the church should require
Pot meet kettle. All you're doing in that post is making your hot button issue the acid test of who is a sheep and a goat instead of their's.
When we arrive at the pearly gates, where you stood on gays or women isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to whether or not your name is in the Book of Life. And, the more hot air and bandwidth that is expended on this, the more I begin to wonder how much Jesus actually cares ... If the church spent as much time expounding the Gospel - you know the Jesus loves you and wants to know you stuff - and helping the poor and needy as they do on this shit, we might not be in quite the mess we're in.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Pot meet kettle. All you're doing in that post is making your hot button issue the acid test of who is a sheep and a goat instead of their's.
Indeed - and that at its heart is my point; who are our librul fundamentalists to unchurch the traditionalists on this issue?
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
When we arrive at the pearly gates, where you stood on gays or women isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to whether or not your name is in the Book of Life.
Hmm - that's where it gets icky. On the whole I disagree with that statement. At the moment I'm sticking with the CofE despite its total confusion on the issue, but I've a nasty suspicion the tide is going to get to a point where I can't carry on in the CofE - it would be a betrayal of the those gays down the ages who heard God call them to live celibately, driven from a desire to conform to the world's agenda.
We shouldn't be too surprised at the intensity of the battle over this issue, as a quote sometimes ascribed to Luther puts it:
quote:
“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ.
“Wherever the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point.”
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
There's also another big difference. No-one is asking people who think female bishops are abhorrent to state otherwise. They don't have to have any special meetings with bishops to declare their acceptance.
They can believe what they want and say what they want in private or in public.
But they want to stop the majority of the church, who are perfectly happy to have female bishops, from having them. And then say that they are being forced out if we have them.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Wrong. For the n time, the 'no' vote was about provision.
Had the feckless libs in the House of Clergy voted 'Yes' to the Archbishops' Amendment in 2010, the CofE would have voted 'Yes' on Tuesday.
Thurible
[ 27. November 2012, 11:27: Message edited by: Thurible ]
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'll accept that the problem for some is about provision. But that clearly isn't the sum total of ES's problem(s).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Pot meet kettle. All you're doing in that post is making your hot button issue the acid test of who is a sheep and a goat instead of their's.
Indeed - and that at its heart is my point; who are our librul fundamentalists to unchurch the traditionalists on this issue?
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
When we arrive at the pearly gates, where you stood on gays or women isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to whether or not your name is in the Book of Life.
Hmm - that's where it gets icky. On the whole I disagree with that statement. At the moment I'm sticking with the CofE despite its total confusion on the issue, but I've a nasty suspicion the tide is going to get to a point where I can't carry on in the CofE - it would be a betrayal of the those gays down the ages who heard God call them to live celibately, driven from a desire to conform to the world's agenda.
We shouldn't be too surprised at the intensity of the battle over this issue, as a quote sometimes ascribed to Luther puts it:
quote:
“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ.
“Wherever the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point.”
But who are the traditionalists to attempt to unchurch the librul fundamentalists over issues either? You can't squark about the bad thing that they're doing when you're attempting to do the exactly the same thing.
I obviously missed the Big Bible re-write so salvation stopped being decided on whether you accepted Christ as your Saviour and Lord and got decided on something else entirely. Where on earth does grace fit into this then?
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Tubbs, if you were really saved, really had Saving Faith, then you'd recognise that Teh Gayness is bad and girls have cooties.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Let's not have any thoughts on that. Ok? Start your own fucking thread.
CBA.
From the Urban Dictionary:
quote:
C BA is a severe form of laziness.
Often comparable to a psychological/medical condition. CBA is most common in teenagers around the age of 16-17 years of age.
Person 1: You coming?
Person 2: Nah, I've got a severe case of CBA.
For the edification of non-Brits following along. It also explains Glockenspiel's posting style.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Huh. This is interesting. Ebbsfleet are a bunch of liars - and I've just had to slap down Thurible in the other thread for being taken in by them.
On the Ebbsfleet website under the heading Resources/Legislation relevant to the See of Ebbsfleet they have what they claim to be the Act of Synod. A simple glance shows that the act starts with the word "Proposed".
The Church of England website has the actual act (which starts with the word "Passed"). Notably the Ebbsfleet version starts with the declarations
quote:
1. There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
the real version starts
quote:
Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Ebbsfleet are outright lying about the Act of Synod that brought them into existance - what they claim to be legislation isn't. This goes some way to explaining the differences in what was supposedly promised that people are claiming.
The question, Justinian, is on what occasions DOES the Act of Synod allow such discrimination. If, as I suspect, they are extremely limited ones, then the summary presented is entirely accurate; having just scanned through the Measure, it seems the only scenario that appears in the measure is the appointment to parishes that oppose the OoW, where opposition is indeed an appropriate step. So, Justinian, you are bitching at gnats, a sign that you really are just trying to stir up trouble. Of course that's the fashionable thing to do - to throw as much bovine faecal material at your opponents in the hope that some of it will stick. But for a Christian to do that? I think a public confession before your next trip to communion is called for.
No. The question is, Enders Shadow, why Ebbesfleet has something up on their website that they claim is the legislation under which they are based that isn't. The draft legislation that was put up (and I believe is the basis of the claim that "there will be no discrimination" - one of the so-called promises that mysteriously never actually say what was claimed) was written in 1992. The webpage itself was put up between 2000 (when the site was registered by Andrew Burnham) and 2003.
A cursory scan shows that the so-called Act of Synod on the Ebbesfleet website is not the real one. You only need to read the first line to see that it is something proposed rather than something passed. But it is a piece of writing that gives the sexist lobby a nice pull-quote that I have seen used in several places. We have a false doccument passed off as the real one in a way that is just about plausibly deniable. Means, motive, and opportunity.
Now let's look at the contortions needed for an innocent explanation. There are two basic paths.
1: The wrong electronic document. This on the face of it sounds superficially plausible. Except that that draft was written in 1993. The Ebbesfleet Website was put up at the earliest in 2000 (whois lookup). So the wrong version of the Act of Synod would have had to be passed from computer to computer for more than ten years, crossing the Windows 95 barrier, and was then put up almost unchecked when it was an important document and even scanning the first line shows it to be wrong.
2: Typed up from a draft paper. With no one along the way stopping to think that it said "Proposed" or that there should be a copy of the actual act around.
I'm not sure which of these options for putting up an almost ten year old draft that wasn't accepted as the real thing is less plausible.
And Enders' Shadow, you are the poster boy on these boards for throwing vile shit around at people and hoping some of it sticks. Has your record on this made you think that everything said by everyone is shit - does living in your sty just make everything taste like shit? Either way your accusing others of throwing shit when there is a distinct legal difference is nothing other than blatant projection.
As for Triple Tiara's customary incisiveness and thoughtfulness by not actually clicking the right link and then blaming it on the fact that on DH I quoted and linked both the Act and the Measure and he could only be bothered to read the part that explicitly said it was the measure rather than following the link saying where you could read the actual act. You are an incompetent twit Triple Tiara. Grown ups are arguing about facts here - why don't you go and play in your sandpit?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Tubbs agonised:
quote:
Where on earth does grace fit into this then?
Before meals. And sometimes, after.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
When we arrive at the pearly gates, where you stood on gays or women isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to whether or not your name is in the Book of Life.
Hmm - that's where it gets icky. On the whole I disagree with that statement. At the moment I'm sticking with the CofE despite its total confusion on the issue, but I've a nasty suspicion the tide is going to get to a point where I can't carry on in the CofE - it would be a betrayal of the those gays down the ages who heard God call them to live celibately, driven from a desire to conform to the world's agenda.
If you think the issue of gays and women is more important than the poor and needy (as Tubbs pointed out - which you ignored ) then I hope you leave the church sooner rather than later.
So you can leave us libruls to get on with the real gospel.
But that's probably too biblical a stance for you.
[ 27. November 2012, 11:58: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
And there's St Peter at the pearly gates ticking the boxes on his clipboard form.
"Took care of me when I was sick?.... tick. Fed me when I was hungry?... tick. Visited me in prison?... tick. All good so far for what we originally envisaged as the process.
But actually we added an extra question or two in the few hundred years that followed. No unconfessed mortal sin?... tick. Oh yes, and this one came in in the last 100 years: Confessed Christ as personal lord and saviour?... tick. Got both of those, well done, that doesn't often happen.
Very good, in you... ah sorry, missed one last one.
Kept the gays out?.... Oh dear. Can't really honestly tick that one can we? Awfully sorry..."
[ 27. November 2012, 12:17: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tubbs, if you were really saved, really had Saving Faith, then you'd recognise that Teh Gayness is bad and girls have cooties.
It's a marvellous, self supporting, circular argument isn't it?!
I don't have to listen to anyone who disagrees with me because, if they were truely saved, they'd realise that I was right ... ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tubbs, if you were really saved, really had Saving Faith, then you'd recognise that Teh Gayness is bad and girls have cooties.
It's a marvellous, self supporting, circular argument isn't it?!
I don't have to listen to anyone who disagrees with me because, if they were truely saved, they'd realise that I was right ...
Tubbs
No idea if that's ES' position, but I've had it thrust at me with regard to hyper-Calvinism.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
At the moment I'm sticking with the CofE despite its total confusion on the issue, but I've a nasty suspicion the tide is going to get to a point where I can't carry on in the CofE - it would be a betrayal of the those gays down the ages who heard God call them to live celibately, driven from a desire to conform to the world's agenda.
They were misled, and it is/was very sad for them. But to continue to mislead them is plain cruel.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
My Exclusive Brethren in-laws take this one stage further: "if you had 'the light', you wouldn't even have to ask the question"!
(There's so much in that statement that smacks of neo-gnosticism that I don't even know where to start!)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
At the moment I'm sticking with the CofE despite its total confusion on the issue, but I've a nasty suspicion the tide is going to get to a point where I can't carry on in the CofE - it would be a betrayal of the those gays down the ages who heard God call them to live celibately, driven from a desire to conform to the world's agenda.
Wait, what? "We have been torturing people for centuries. To not torture any more people would be to betray those we have already tortured?"
Is that seriously your argument?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Wrong. For the n time, the 'no' vote was about provision.
Had the feckless libs in the House of Clergy voted 'Yes' to the Archbishops' Amendment in 2010, the CofE would have voted 'Yes' on Tuesday.
Thurible
So
you say. But I don't believe you. It was a vote against women in priest's orders as well as women in the episcopacy, under the guise of a vote about provision.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
