Originally posted by Sarkycow:
MT, try swapping your sinful rancour for righteous anger
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:OK, we'll all leave you alone now, if not follow your model. You've won us over.
Originally posted by Johann:
I wish people would back off the Anglican diocese of Sydney, just because we follow sound biblical doctrine and not the world!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:As I said, I am new to Australia and know very little; are you saying that all of US are wrong?
pick on the anglican diocese of Sydney all you want, we know WE are right!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Christ has returned??
Originally posted by Johann:
danke shun, it gets my goat that they attack us(other oz dioceses) about we thinking that the son is inferiour to the father WHICH we dont and they think that Christ didnt return as flesh
quote:How terribly interesting.
Originally posted by Johann:
we follow sound biblical doctrine and not the world!
.
quote:Don't you get it?
Originally posted by Johann:
I wish people would back off the Anglican diocese of Sydney, just because we follow sound biblical doctrine and not the world!
quote:You stupid prick, Johann. If you want people to lay off Sydney Anglicans, then take your flaming arrogance and shove it where the sun don't shine!
Originally posted by Johann:
I wish people would back off the Anglican diocese of Sydney, just because we follow sound biblical doctrine and not the world!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Here Here
Originally posted by Pyx_e.:
Stands back and admires Dyfrig's brain fart.
Wow dude.
It is v funny.
P
quote:Fair idea Norman. Makes me wonder if this one isn't a scriptwriter too. After all, he did arrive at about the time the Tiger left.
Originally posted by Norman the Organ:
Troll? Sockpuppet? No way is this one serious.
quote:Um, do you mean "hear, hear"? As in "listen to this, I agree"?
Originally posted by Brains:
Here Here
quote:He posted on one of the late lamented ThomasDF's threads. He also uses some very odd spellings ( including incorrect spelling of German ), and has a profile that looks decidedly dodgy. Not one of his recent posts could be described as anything other than strange. I'm not saying it's Thomas, but I do think this person is less than serious.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Fair idea Norman. Makes me wonder if this one isn't a scriptwriter too. After all, he did arrive at about the time the Tiger left.
Originally posted by Norman the Organ:
Troll? Sockpuppet? No way is this one serious.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Yeah... and ThomasDF posted something twenty minutes after that. He must have been created before ThomasDF left us. Hmmm...
Originally posted by Norman the Organ:
He posted on one of the late lamented ThomasDF's threads.
quote:I think someone is just showing off about how many links to not-so-easy-to-link-to bits of the ship he can do in one short post. Norman, I thought better of you
Originally posted by Norman the Organ:
quote:He posted on one of the late lamented ThomasDF's threads. He also uses some very odd spellings ( including incorrect spelling of German ), and has a profile that looks decidedly dodgy. Not one of his recent posts could be described as anything other than strange. I'm not saying it's Thomas, but I do think this person is less than serious.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Fair idea Norman. Makes me wonder if this one isn't a scriptwriter too. After all, he did arrive at about the time the Tiger left.
Originally posted by Norman the Organ:
Troll? Sockpuppet? No way is this one serious.
quote:or courage
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
What a first post. It takes balls* to do that.
*or ignorance
quote:See, the courage bit is kinda covered by the 'balls', as it were
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:or courage
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
What a first post. It takes balls* to do that.
*or ignorance
quote:I thought playing the organ was your part-time work. It's not like you pick the hymns or anything like that.
Originally posted by Norman the Organ:
How about I keep playing the organ and work as a detective part-time?
quote:That's what "balls" means you fucktard.
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:or courage
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
What a first post. It takes balls* to do that.
*or ignorance
quote:Now now, MT. Don't forget your pills. See how Sarky achived the same thing above without falling prey to sinful rancour?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:That's what "balls" means you fucktard.
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:or courage
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
What a first post. It takes balls* to do that.
*or ignorance
quote:
Don't you get it?
You are being attacked because you follow sound biblical doctrine and not the world! It's persecution. Those who refuse to follow the world will be persecuted. It's in the Bible!
If people were backing off, it would show you weren't really following Jesus. You should be grateful for any attacks.
You should thank anyone who criticises Sydney, because their posts show that you are uncompromising True Christians™
Why not start a thread in All Saints thanking those that attack you? You'll be heaping burning coals on their head or something.
And every time you see a post criticising the Diocese of Sydney, you should REJOICE!
LurkerMcLurker!quote:MT, try swapping your sinful rancour for righteous anger
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Rancour is sinful? Shit. This wrecks everything.
quote:I can do that? Cool! Do you have to, like, go to some particular shop or something? or the bank? or that place at the airport where they sell you foreign money?
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
MT, try swapping your sinful rancour for righteous anger
quote:Tee hee! Armed in the Full Armour of God, Johann tip toes into Hell to do battle with the jaded hordes of cynics.
Originally posted by Johann:
I wish people would back off the Anglican diocese of Sydney, just because we follow sound biblical doctrine and not the world!
quote:That sounds too much like hard work, Lurker.
Originally posted by Lurker McLurker:
Swapping your sinful rancour for righteous anger is easy to do. All that is required is to not swear, and use biblical-sounding language. With quotes from Scripture a bonus. If you had said abomination instead of fucktard people would be bowing down. You could also make a reference to spitting him out of your mouth but, this being Hell, someone would make a snide comment about oral sex.
Some of the early Church Fathers excelled at insulting people while appearing Holy. St. John Chrysostom was a master at this, though St. Paul got an emasculation reference into the Bible, which is clever work.
quote:yeah - makes one feel almost foolish, don't it? I mean c'mon, ostensibly from Sydney Diocese, can't spell or compose a decent sentence.....has to be a troll!
Somebody wake the OP'r up...posted once, left.
quote:How many half decent vicars have you ordained, then?
Originally posted by pete173:
OK - here's the deal. We in the UK will lay off Sydney if you'll take back Oak Hill and all its works and give us back what used to be a half decent vicar factory.
quote:I'll swap you Sydney for the Willesden Episcopal Area any day of the week.
Originally posted by pete173:
OK - here's the deal. We in the UK will lay off Sydney if you'll take back Oak Hill and all its works and give us back what used to be a half decent vicar factory.
quote:Well, it is in the Edmonton Area.
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Black clergy round the back
quote:Psycho-path.
Originally posted by RooK:
Is to "path someone on the head" at all similar to braining them with with a pick-axe?
quote:Path part'em depression...wait, no,
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Psycho-path.
Originally posted by RooK:
Is to "path someone on the head" at all similar to braining them with with a pick-axe?
quote:Well no, actually. I could see how you would make that mistake. Put down the pick-axe and be a good wookie.
Originally posted by RooK:
Is to "path someone on the head" at all similar to braining them with with a pick-axe?
quote:Is there a Mrs Johann we could ask?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Or are you into 5 second passions?
quote:Oh silly me, I've been following the world all these years. I see the error of my ways.
Originally posted by Johann:
I wish people would back off the Anglican diocese of Sydney, just because we follow sound biblical doctrine and not the world!
quote:If things were sound in the Angican Diocese of Sydney, they would be following sound Scripture, Tradition, and reason--and not the world. I think I see what the problem is in the Antipodes.
Originally posted by Johann:
I wish people would back off the Anglican diocese of Sydney, just because we follow sound biblical doctrine and not the world!
quote:And about bloody time too.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
quote:Oh silly me, I've been following the world all these years. I see the error of my ways.
Originally posted by Johann:
I wish people would back off the Anglican diocese of Sydney, just because we follow sound biblical doctrine and not the world!
quote:Yes! So I'm not the only one who feels the need to garott (sp?) anyone who ever asks me that fatal question - 'is it sound teaching'?
Originally posted by linzc:
You have to admit 'sound' is one of those words. The minute I hear someone talking about doctrine being 'sound' I start to itch violently.
quote:Since not calling Asians "Wogs" is Politically Correct, can we assume that you think that it is Politically Sound to do so?
Originally bullshitted by Zwingli*:
Of course "politically sound" is the opposite of "politically correct" so "sound doctrine" is the opposite of... ?
quote:Basically, "sound" just sounds unsound.
Originally posted by mr_ricarno:
quote:Yes! So I'm not the only one who feels the need to garott (sp?) anyone who ever asks me that fatal question - 'is it sound teaching'?
Originally posted by linzc:
You have to admit 'sound' is one of those words. The minute I hear someone talking about doctrine being 'sound' I start to itch violently.
Something about it, there's something about it...
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:Well, it is in the Edmonton Area.
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Black clergy round the back
quote:OK I feel someone needs to defend poor Johann!
Originally posted by pete173:
OK - here's the deal. We in the UK will lay off Sydney if you'll take back Oak Hill and all its works and give us back what used to be a half decent vicar factory.
), that 'sound' doctrine refers to doctrine that is based on biblical teaching. Now obviously alot of non-Evangelicals get upset about this since they find much biblical teaching rather problematic since it goes against their own liberal convictions and outlook on the world. So why not ignore certain passages that have been accepted for millenia? Great idea lets modernise! Oh no but damn, there's some bloody Evangelical Christian thickos that actually believe in this stuff, bollocks! And some of them not only believe in the nice bits like 'God is love', but also some scary things like Hell and Marriage!! How we pity those poor fools, do they not realise the cultural context bla bla bla.. By the way I love you all in Jesus, kiss kiss ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:That's right, philo25. We're just making it up as we go along. I wonder why we just don't quit the church altogether and leave you to it. Must be because it's gotten so dang hard to get brunch reservations on Sunday mornings, so we may as well go to church.
Originally posted by philo25:
The fact is, and (since this is Hell I might aswell anger some of you
quote:If you don't like tradition, then you should quit the Anglican Communion, and if you don't like reason, you should ... Well, you obviously wouldn't know reason if it rose up and smote you between the eyes, would you?
And I'm tired of hearing all this 'tradition' and 'reason' bollocks from non-Evangelicals..find me the scripture in the Bible to support this please? 'Tradition' and 'Reason' are blatant excuses that non-Evangelicals have come up with to legitimise all the paraphanelia and sometimes unbiblical stuff they or society comes up with.
quote:It was a joke you idiot, obviously I don't think that PC and PS are literal, exact opposites, or that any statement must fit into one or the other, in a "statement x is PC iff it is not PS." I was alluding to how some people use the terms. Had you had the slightest of clues you would have realised that I was inferring, as a joke, doctrinal incorrectness (or error) on the part of the Sydney diocese.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Since not calling Asians "Wogs" is Politically Correct, can we assume that you think that it is Politically Sound to do so?
Originally bullshitted by Zwingli*:
Of course "politically sound" is the opposite of "politically correct" so "sound doctrine" is the opposite of... ?
Or is this this other version of PC, which means "any daft statement that I can't be argued to actually argue against so I will flippantly refer to as "politically correct" in order to avoid any real thought process being necessary"?
quote:All I was saying is that non-Evangelicals are happy to laugh/sneer at Evangelicals and suggest that a college like Oak Hill nowadays produces substandard vicars, but are outraged if they're accused of not sticking to the Bible. Double-standards if you ask me
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]That's right, philo25. We're just making it up as we go along. I wonder why we just don't quit the church altogether and leave you to it. Must be because it's gotten so dang hard to get brunch reservations on Sunday mornings, so we may as well go to church.
..If you don't like tradition, then you should quit the Anglican Communion, and if you don't like reason, you should ... Well, you obviously wouldn't know reason if it rose up and smote you between the eyes, would you?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Like I said, tradition is fine, but lets remember what the real point of Church is eh? I was responding to a post that argued that Tradition and Reason were equal in authority to the Bible, but I feel the Bible encapsulates all the traditon and reason that we need as a Church. I was just getting tired of this non-Evangelical concensus regarding Evangelicals that I come across so often on these threads, I felt it neded a little combating with some stereotypes of my own to illustrate the point I am sorry about all the ructions in Sydney and I think things could have been handled better, but this anti-Jensen tirade was getting a little carried away with itself I thought, into a general anti-Evangelical rant. Jensen and his people may be a little rude and undiplomatic but that doesn't mean Evangelical Christianity is therefore laughable etc. I mean in New Westminster dicoese in Canada churches that don't agree with same sex blessings are being kicked out by the Bishop there, does that mean non-Evangelical Christianity in general is oppresive and stupid etc etc? I just felt the thread required a little more balance regarding these issues (Blimey I much preferered writing my last post since I used words like bollocks in it
quote:[delurks]
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Stand up, stand up for Jensen
ye soldiers of the south;
an instrument of torture -
I wish he'd shut his mouth.
He speaks of male headship
and isn't keen on queers;
he doesn't like the Carthlicks,
and won't respect his peers.
Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's really, really great,
so long as you hate Evensong,
so long as you love hate.
His brother runs St Andrews,
his nephew runs the schools,
his wife's in charge of women.
He must think we're all fools.
Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's got us by the balls -
he knows he's got the money,
the power and the Word.
His trinity is Father,
Bible, OHP;
his version of the Articles
makes Newman look PC.
quote:Oh dear Try you're so easily pleased
Originally posted by Try:
quote:[delurks]
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Stand up, stand up for Jensen
ye soldiers of the south;
an instrument of torture -
I wish he'd shut his mouth.
He speaks of male headship
and isn't keen on queers;
he doesn't like the Carthlicks,
and won't respect his peers.
Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's really, really great,
so long as you hate Evensong,
so long as you love hate.
His brother runs St Andrews,
his nephew runs the schools,
his wife's in charge of women.
He must think we're all fools.
Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's got us by the balls -
he knows he's got the money,
the power and the Word.
His trinity is Father,
Bible, OHP;
his version of the Articles
makes Newman look PC.
I really, really love this. It's very funny- and biting as well- reminds me of Erasmus.
, but the Trinity bit?! And the 'so long as you love hate' bit - slightly OTT for my tastes. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:Yes, it's nasty- that's part of its appeal!
Originally posted by philo25:
quote:Oh dear Try you're so easily pleased
Originally posted by Try:
quote:[delurks]
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Stand up, stand up for Jensen
ye soldiers of the south;
an instrument of torture -
I wish he'd shut his mouth.
He speaks of male headship
and isn't keen on queers;
he doesn't like the Carthlicks,
and won't respect his peers.
Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's really, really great,
so long as you hate Evensong,
so long as you love hate.
His brother runs St Andrews,
his nephew runs the schools,
his wife's in charge of women.
He must think we're all fools.
Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's got us by the balls -
he knows he's got the money,
the power and the Word.
His trinity is Father,
Bible, OHP;
his version of the Articles
makes Newman look PC.
I really, really love this. It's very funny- and biting as well- reminds me of Erasmus.
OK some if it's funny
quote:I think this is a strawman-ish fundamental misunderstanding of what liberalism is about... they do not find biblical teaching problematic, rather, the terms of reference in which they see the bible are not the terms of reference of people who take 'a plain reading of scripture'. It's not a case of: it 'goes against their ... liberal convictions and outlook on the world', so they ignore it. Their liberal convictions and outlook on the world come from the doctrine and spirit of Christianity and the bible informs that but is not a rulebook.
philo:
Now obviously alot of non-Evangelicals get upset about this since they find much biblical teaching rather problematic since it goes against their own liberal convictions and outlook on the world.
quote:Thing is, Philo25, it's not quite that simple. This isn't a simple liberal/evangelical war, as I've tried to say on other threads about Sydney Anglicanism. Much of the concern being expressed about the Jensenist approach is not from liberals, but from other Anglican Evangelicals. Pete173 is an evangelical, as am I, and a number of others who've commented on these issues.
Originally posted by philo25:
quote:<snip> Liberal (TM - ha ha ha NOT) Christians are upset about being considered 'sub-christians' as someone put it, and yet apparently are quite happy to sneer at Evangelical Christians by making assertions like pete173's.
Originally posted by pete173:
OK - here's the deal. We in the UK will lay off Sydney if you'll take back Oak Hill and all its works and give us back what used to be a half decent vicar factory.
<big snip to remove more bleating>
quote:Love of power?
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
The use of Scripture as a blunt instrument with which to beat the people of God into submission was shown to be a bankrupt approach in the 17th Century. Why does a subset of Evangelical Anglicanism wish to reinstitute the practice now?
quote:although strangely, from his posts you'd never be able to tell.
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Pete173 is an evangelical
quote:The thing is CB, I think you have a point. It is beyond me why anyone with convictions such as my own would want to stay in the C of E. However, if you genuinely do want to be a broad church, then you too have to appreciate the broadness, insteasd of just telling others to. You even need to appreciate the broadness that includes those who don't appreciate it themsleves. I think, as far as I can tell, that is what the C of E is all about.
The Sydney approach represents one of several strands of evangelicalism in the Anglican tradition - notably, Puritanism. It resonates well with those outside the Anglican tradition who align themselves with the broader Calvinist/Reformed tradition. For other evangelicals, who trace their heritage to the Wesleyan holiness movement, or to the English 16th Century reformers (e.g. Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley), it doesn't sit nearly as well.
quote:Quite right Coot. Speaking for myself, my journey to liberalism came about as I tried to understand what I read in the Bible and to make sense of it as a whole. In doing so, it affected the view I took of particular scriptures, which again affected the whole structure - in short a hermeneutical spiral between my philosophical/theological framework and the individual parts of scripture. My liberal outlook on the world has been shaped entirely by my study of the Biblical revelation, and for the most part that study has been in conservative institutions.
Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
quote:I think this is a strawman-ish fundamental misunderstanding of what liberalism is about...
philo:
Now obviously alot of non-Evangelicals get upset about this since they find much biblical teaching rather problematic since it goes against their own liberal convictions and outlook on the world.
quote:Yeah - I'm an evangelical - and I'm completely brassed off with the way that label has been usurped by the Sydney ultraconservatives. The evangelical mainstream in the CofE gets tarred with the same brush as these people. It would be OK if they could see that they are just one strand - as you say, the Puritan strand - in evangelicalism. But they will keep insisting that they are the only pure ones. And that lacks just a little sense of history. In the CofE, the Puritans lost. Those of us who stand in the tradition of Cranmer, Hooker and Jewell can point you to the reasons why we believe in an Anglicanism that is founded on sola scriptura, but is also sacramental, believes the presbyteral ministry of women to be scriptural, and is not obsessed with propositionalism as the hermeneutical key to scripture.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:although strangely, from his posts you'd never be able to tell.
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Pete173 is an evangelical
quote:The thing is CB, I think you have a point. It is beyond me why anyone with convictions such as my own would want to stay in the C of E. However, if you genuinely do want to be a broad church, then you too have to appreciate the broadness, insteasd of just telling others to. You even need to appreciate the broadness that includes those who don't appreciate it themsleves. I think, as far as I can tell, that is what the C of E is all about.
The Sydney approach represents one of several strands of evangelicalism in the Anglican tradition - notably, Puritanism. It resonates well with those outside the Anglican tradition who align themselves with the broader Calvinist/Reformed tradition. For other evangelicals, who trace their heritage to the Wesleyan holiness movement, or to the English 16th Century reformers (e.g. Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley), it doesn't sit nearly as well.
I was a little bit confused by what you said though. I have heard several Oak Hill types (which, AFAICS is quite a different kettle of fish from the whole Sydney "experiment", so I thought Pete was being a bit unfair) say their heritage is Cranmer, Latimer etc - sticking up for a conservative view of the Scriptures, and of God in the established church, wheareas my position as a "dissenter" is much more like that of the Puritans. Who I mostly think are quite great, and much misrepresented so I don't mind.
Anyway, is that view wrong?
quote:Sorry, I really am ignorant of Anglican church history here. It was my understanding that the Puritans left the C of E, which was their big disagreement with Cranmer et al, who stayed to reform it from within. Which is what I have heard conservative evangelicals say they are wanting to do.
Originally posted by pete173:
Those of us who stand in the tradition of Cranmer, Hooker and Jewell can point you to the reasons why we believe in an Anglicanism that is founded on sola scriptura, but is also sacramental, believes the presbyteral ministry of women to be scriptural, and is not obsessed with propositionalism as the hermeneutical key to scripture.
quote:
It's now the preserve of anticharismatics (try being a charismatic there; it's murder)
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Oh dear, poor ickle charismatics. Pity there's no charismatic training colleges in the C of E for them to go to. quote:Gosh, what an excellent appreciation of broadness you have. One reformed college in the C of E in the whole country, and a rather small one at that, and your knickers are all in a twist? That doesn't really seem very appreciative of diversity to me.
We need a good college in London to which we can send our ordinands. Oak Hill ain't it.
quote:There were Puritans who left the CofE. There were some Puritans who did not leave the CofE, but put up with it, grumbling, hoping to reform it further from within. But history and other church circumstances (like that little episode with Cromwell) eventually meant they died out. These Puritans saw their mission as continuing the process of Reform; Cranmer and co hadn't gone far enough, and in their eyes compromised terribly on doctrinal issues.
Sorry, I really am ignorant of Anglican church history here. It was my understanding that the Puritans left the C of E, which was their big disagreement with Cranmer et al, who stayed to reform it from within. Which is what I have heard conservative evangelicals say they are wanting to do.
quote:Ex-Anglican. I was brought up free church, (brethren!) and then went to Anglican churches for 7 years after I left home. I even worked for one for a while. Then I got fed up and left. Which to be fair, is probably better for the C of E and for me.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Leprechaun, are you an Anglican?
quote:Now, children, do we know what a circular argument is?
Originally posted by philo25:
And I'm tired of hearing all this 'tradition' and 'reason' bollocks from non-Evangelicals..find me the scripture in the Bible to support this please?
quote:OK - we're in Hell, but I'll try to be forebearing with you.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Sorry, I really am ignorant of Anglican church history here. It was my understanding that the Puritans left the C of E, which was their big disagreement with Cranmer et al, who stayed to reform it from within. Which is what I have heard conservative evangelicals say they are wanting to do.
Originally posted by pete173:
Those of us who stand in the tradition of Cranmer, Hooker and Jewell can point you to the reasons why we believe in an Anglicanism that is founded on sola scriptura, but is also sacramental, believes the presbyteral ministry of women to be scriptural, and is not obsessed with propositionalism as the hermeneutical key to scripture.
And what I meant by my backahnded comment, Pete, is that its pretty hard to say you stand in Cranmer's shoes, when I've heard you wax lyrical over high church worship on these boards, as it was objection to this that got Cranmer burnt at the stake, was it not? I'm also astounded to find out that Cranmer and Hooker were pro the ordination of women.
quote:
It's now the preserve of anticharismatics (try being a charismatic there; it's murder)
quote:Gosh, what an excellent appreciation of broadness you have. One reformed college in the C of E in the whole country, and a rather small one at that, and your knickers are all in a twist? That doesn't really seem very appreciative of diversity to me.
We need a good college in London to which we can send our ordinands. Oak Hill ain't it.
I don't know about now, but I have known several women who have trained there for ministry in the C of E. Not church leadership, but then, I'm sure we'd all agree that there is far more to ministry than that.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The foibles of the Mystery Worship Board are peripheral to the central faith of the CofE.
And I was getting to like you, Father. quote:To be honest, if what you have said is correct, that would seem rather a lost cause, from my point of view.
Originally posted by pete173:
1. Yes, you are ignorant of Anglican history. Read some Hooker and then come back.
quote:Really, so Cranmer was martyred to maintain high church practice in the church of England? That's certainly an interpretation I haven't heard before.
2. Catholic Anglicans (some of whom of course are in league with the ultraevangelical Luddites to oppose the presbyteral ministry of women, so clearly some of your bedfellows are happy to be associated with them, at least in theory) are part of a Reformed Catholic Church of England. That's what Cranmer was martyred for. The foibles of the Mystery Worship Board are peripheral to the central faith of the CofE.
quote:I am really not so sure who you think the "Jensenites" are and how you have developed this persecution complex about them. I'd have thought, being a bishop and all that, you'd have more than enough clout to do what you like about such people without publicly slating them to all and sundry. And I certainly don't think you could call the range of styles even within the conservative evangleical churches I have belonged to or worked for monochrome. I don't get, to be honest, why an evangelical such as yourself, would have such a chip on your shoulder about this small, relatively uninfluential group in your church, about whom you agree with 90% of theology. It all seems like rather an over-reaction.
3. I'll work with anyone who is credally orthodox, whether they be catholic, evangelical, charismatic, or ultraconservative. That's why I'm in the CofE and you're not. But the Jensenites want only one monochrome version of Anglicanism, which isn't particularly Anglican. And it isn't actually true to its Puritan antecedents either.
quote:Well exactly. So perhaps your view of yourself as the gallant warrior standing firm in Cranmer's shoes against the encroaching tide of anti-Anglicanism is rather more spurious than you suggest.
4. Read my post again. I didn't say that the Reformers were pro the ordination of women. In Hell, you can insult me as much as you like, but don't misrepresent me.
quote:
5. If you knew anything at all about evangelical Anglican history, you'd know that Oak Hill was founded as a mainstream evangelical college, to educate those without a first degree. It always was in the same tradition as the other colleges until recently.
quote:
6. It matters that Oak Hill is a no-go area for charismatics and women because the CofE is regionalising its training, and we in London have to work with it. It's our local college.
quote:I am male. However, I'm not ordained. In any denomination. And what this says to me is that you don't think any ministry I can do is valuable or worth training me for because I'm not ordained. Which is the most obtuse clericalism, and fails to appreciate any diversity in the body at all. If that is your view of ministry, its no wonder you are devoting yourself to climbing the greasy Church of England pole.
8. And don't give me all that rubbish about women training in a vicar factory for non-ordained ministry. There are no woman training for Anglican ordained ministry at Oak Hill - and like it or not, that's no preparation for the CofE at large.
quote:Ok, to clarify....
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
How you managed to read all that into Pete173s eighth point is beyond me Leprechaun. As I understand it his point was, whether or not one agrees with the ordination of women, a male candidate will find himself working alongside ordained women once he is ordained, and training which does not prepare candidates for this reality is not living in the Real World. How you derived clericalism from that I don't know. Sounds like good old fashioned common sense to me.
quote:No see you guys interpret everything Evangelicals or 'ultra-evangelicals' do in the worst possible light, and then get upset when the favour is returned on you. Pete173 slags of Oak Hill and Leprechaun and Sydney, and if anyone has the temerity to challenge that it means they need a reading comprehension course? The fact that Lep and others can see through pete173's old chestnut arguments means that he clearly is not in need of any course. Licz mentioned earlier how the Bible had informed his Liberal convictions. Bollocks! If everlasting love and forgiveness from the Father is an exclusively Liberal concept then that's news to me. Liberals tend to forget that we're asked to repent and change our ways aswell though. Doh! Doesn't that sound nasty? Lets forget that bit and concentrate on the love part, ahh that's better
Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
Lep, you're a boring little fuckwit determined to see pete173's position in the worst possible light. Take a reading comprehension course. See if you can fit it in when you come up for air during a Jensenite rimming session.
As someone rightly pointed out earlier, before liberal-evanglicals or anyone else claims they are the inheritors of Cranmer, ask yourselves whether he would agree with the direction the CofE and Anglican Communion is taking these days. I think the reason why Jensen may be so forthright and unbending is simply as a reaction (perhaps overeaction) to the increasingly liberal pervasiveness of the Anglican Church in the West. Pete173 appears concerned at the inflexibility of Oak Hill and 'ultra-eveangelicals', and yet how flexible is the Liberal wing of the church, who these days go out of their way to liberalise the Church and ignore interpretations of scripture regarding many issues that have been accepted for millenia?
quote:Some of us do stll have our faith though Royal Peculiar and that's why we're passionate about these things. For people with faith, God is the most important thing in our lives (or ought to be in my case) and the implications of what he's done for us are massive. So I guess we're all out of gratitude trying to help his Church the best way we can. Even Liberals are I think, in their own misguided way
Originally posted by Royal Peculiar:
I don't really have a dog in this fight either as I've all but lost my faith altogether, but I do have a residual affection for the C of E. However I do wonder whether anyone can claim to stand in the shoes of Cramner in any meaningful sense. Which shoes? The sandals he wore as a Roman Catholic monk? The ones he wore when he was implementing Henry VIII's non -papal Roman Catholicism ( in which case he'd be very at home on the MW board telling us what we could and couldn't do and threatening us with the stake if we disagreed)? 1549? 1552? Recanting? Recanting his recanting?
I prefer to give Elizabeth I the credit for founding the C of E ( after Mary ahd abolished it) and not wishing to make windows into mens' souls. Protecting the great Catholic composer from Puritan carping and thereby helping to enrich the repertoire of church music immesuarably.
quote:Yeah but it was pete173 who started having a go at Oak Hill and thereby broadened the scope of the post from having a go at Jensen to having a go at all 'ultra-evangelicals' or whatever he calls us. Yes the labelling gets confusing and sorry if I got mixed up there, but I just felt there was no need to have a go at Oak Hill, especially since Pete173 and alot of other 'non-ultra-evengelicals' appear happy to slag off the 'ultra-evangelicalism' and yet get upset if their Christian background (whatever it is) is attacked.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
And, likewise, Philo, you demonstrate the trend amongst some conservative evangelicals to polarise the Church into 'conservative evangelicals' and 'liberals'. Pete173 is not a liberal. Nor am I. Nor, I think, is Coot. Nor are many of the people who have disagreed with the Jensen/ Leprechaun orthodoxy on this thread. We just disagree with you. There is a difference.
quote:Sir, I think you need to immerse yourself in something other the Evangelical Christianity for awhile. For example, the Eastern Orthodox believe that everything is Tradition. (Note use of the capital "T" versus lower-case "t.") That is, even the canon of Scripture is defined by Tradition. The Orthodox churches make a good case for that.
Originally posted by philo25:
And I'm tired of hearing all this 'tradition' and 'reason' bollocks from non-Evangelicals..find me the scripture in the Bible to support this please? 'Tradition' and 'Reason' are blatant excuses that non-Evangelicals have come up with to legitimise all the paraphanelia and sometimes unbiblical stuff they or society comes up with. Doesn't Paul warn us about the philosophies of this world? The reason and tradition and philosphoies of this world are attacking the Church and non-Christians alike as never before. Now of course that isn't to say non-Evangelicals aren't Christians, but I would say many non-Evangelcals are allowing themselves to be misguided by modern societies attitudes to life, a well-meaning attempt to appeal to non-Christians. But how far should this go, where does it stop? It's a slippery slope my friends....
quote:The problem is not, ISTM, that Leprechaun and others can see through pete173's arguments, but that they, quite wilfully, refuse to see them at all.
Originally posted by philo25:
The fact that Lep and others can see through pete173's old chestnut arguments means that he clearly is not in need of any course.
quote:The fact that Linzc has carefully, thoughtfully and prayerfully engaged with the Bible is dismissed without a moment's hesitation simply because he has come up with The Wrong Answer™. The same applies to all thinking Christians of all thoughtful persuasions. Would someone please remember that scripture, reason and tradition have alway been the three legs upon which the Anglican communion has understood its theology and, God willing, always will be - scripture read with the wisdom which God gave us and in company with the whole church past and present.
Licz mentioned earlier how the Bible had informed his Liberal convictions.
quote:pete173 may also be concerned at eg the inflexibility of the ordinand I once had a breakfast conversation with at a conference who expressed the opinion that he was only going through the motions at college to get hold of the bit of paper which would allow him to work in an Anglican parish because he knew he had already been chosen and commissioned by God and no bishop or any other church person was going to tell him otherwise. I'll admit I've come across some liberal pillocks in my time - but nothing quite as mind-blowingly arrogant as that.
Pete173 appears concerned at the inflexibility of Oak Hill and 'ultra-eveangelicals', and yet how flexible is the Liberal wing of the church, who these days go out of their way to liberalise the Church and ignore interpretations of scripture regarding many issues that have been accepted for millenia?
quote:I thought that the difference between the US and Australia is that the US got the Puritans and Australia got the Prisoners. And, Australians were happy for that.
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
The Sydney approach represents one of several strands of evangelicalism in the Anglican tradition - notably, Puritanism.
quote:
Puritanism: "the haunting fear that somebody, somewhere, may be happy." H. L. Mencken
quote:I have been debating, in my first post I was merely responding in kind to the kind of smug consensus opinions you guys were all expressing regarding Sydney and then all 'ultra-evangelicals'.
Originally posted by Amphibalus:
The fact that Linzc has carefully, thoughtfully and prayerfully engaged with the Bible is dismissed without a moment's hesitation simply because he has come up with The Wrong Answer™. The same applies to all thinking Christians of all thoughtful persuasions. Would someone please remember that scripture, reason and tradition have alway been the three legs upon which the Anglican communion has understood its theology and, God willing, always will be - scripture read with the wisdom which God gave us and in company with the whole church past and present.
...pete173 may also be concerned at eg the inflexibility of the ordinand I once had a breakfast conversation with at a conference who expressed the opinion that he was only going through the motions at college to get hold of the bit of paper which would allow him to work in an Anglican parish because he knew he had already been chosen and commissioned by God and no bishop or any other church person was going to tell him otherwise. I'll admit I've come across some liberal pillocks in my time - but nothing quite as mind-blowingly arrogant as that.
Oh, BTW, I'm pleased to see that you have actually used the words 'interpretation' and 'scripture' in close conjunction, and in the same sentence. It's a start, I suppose.
So how much longer do we have to put up with this ignorant 'I'm-not-listening-to-you-because-you're-not-saying-the-right-thing' twattery? If you want to debate, then debate - that's what God gave you a brain for (I assume) - but please try to listen to the other half of the debate, and make some attempt to understand it.
Incidentally, I picked Abp Jensen's book of the shelf in my local SPCK the other day, and noted that, according to the index, he dealt with the matter of the Holy Spirit in the course of a 17 page section of the book. In the course of those 17 pages he mentioned the word Spirit 8 times. I wonder why such people are so terrified and dismissive of the third person of the Holy Trinity. Are they actually afraid that the Spirit might indeed 'lead them into all truth'.
) with any more old chestnuts like 'all evangelicals or ultra-evangelicals are like the chap I met.' TM is becoming a TM in itself. quote:I hasten to say, BTW, that the college was not Oak Hill, but it was the college which my brother attended at the time, and I am prepared to take his word for it that it was not an isolated opinion. But, of course, I am aware that every position has its nutcases, and I have no intention of tarring all (ecclesiological position of choice) because of the actions of a few.
Originally posted by philo25:
Ok lets start with your example of an 'ultra-evangelical' like the ordinand you met.
quote:Sorry, I'll try to be more inventively witty next time.
Btw using the (TM) symbol is also pretty lame, ditch that it's old!
quote:I'd like to stress again that it simply isn't about dismissing or ignoring bits of scripture as and when anyone feels like it. It's about interpretation, interpretation, interpretation. No-one, but no-one, can ever pretend to come to a 'value-free' understanding of the bible. I would have no quarrel with the Jensenists (well, I would in terms of theological debate, but...) if they were content to live and let live within what has, inevitably, to be a broad understanding of Anglican theology. I'm (fairly) happy for their anti-charismatic, barely fringe evangelical version of puritanism to take its place within the Anglican spectrum. What sticks in my craw is that they appear to be condemning to outer darkness the sort of faithful, theologically astute, and Godly people I have been ministering to for the last 30 years.
OK I don't know whether Lincz has asked for the Holy Spirit or not when he reads scripture, and I didn't mean to dismiss him in that way if that's how it came across. But at the same time, I have to say I find it interesting how people can claim that certain things in the Bible are no longer relevant as many Chritians these days are wont.
quote:I sincerely hope that you are not attempting to say that the CofE and Christianity are two separate phenomena!
...(and it's these bits that tend to form the greatest part of the problems between the various wings of the CofE and Christianity)...
quote:Scripture is not tradition, but is understood with the help of reason and tradition. Scripture is, and always will be, the default position with regard to theology and doctrine, but I, for one, recognise and rejoice in the intelligence of those wiser, holier, and more spiritually aware than myself, whose guidance is neglected at the risk of peril to the whole Christian venture.
With regards Tradition, I think I agree with Bede's American Successor, and the scripture itself is Tradition.
quote:Anglican doctrine is enshrined in its liturgy. That liturgy is based on biblical principles, and includes much direct quotation of scripture, but the fact remains, and has so been understood since Cranmer/Hooker etc, that what we are is how we worship. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
And lets stop presuming that everyone knows the Gospel and the Bible like perhaps people did in the past, we're living in a post-Christian society now and perhaps a little less evensong and a little more Gospel preaching wouldn't go amiss to redress that.
quote:Oh, I really hope I do!
Regarding the Holy Spirit you might have a point.
quote:Can we settle once and for all that no-one is trying to 'reduce' scripture - all that is being said is that the bible should be read with a mind open to the on-going prompting and guidance of God, not as a legalistic obsession with ink and paper - that was what Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees for.
I rather think you guys are all 'mystery-traditon-holy spirit' in order to reduce the role scripture better.
quote:'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' (John 16: 13)
The Holy Spirit helps us to understand scripture, he isn't there to help us ignore it or as its replacement.
quote:But he might be telling us something more - not least of which is the whole concept of the Trinity itself. Happy Trinity Sunday.
Further posted by philo25:
...if we claim that the Holy Spirit is telling us that something in scripture is no longer important thhen we might be deluding ourselves.
quote:Can anyone tell me if this is still the case? When I was training, in the mid 80s, I don't recall it ever being mentioned to us. The emphasis was on forming a rule of life appropriate to our situation.
The saying of the Daily Office (Morning and Evening Prayer) is a duty laid on every ordained minister except under extreme circumstances.
And a 45 min drive each way to a potentially decent one is too much. Especially given my low motivation due to being shat off with Christians and the Church in general.quote:If you are going to attribute something to somebody, I suggest you understand what the person actually said. What I said was the following:
Originally posted by philo25:
With regards Tradition, I think I agree with Bede's American Successor, and the scripture itself is Tradition.
quote:Did I say that Scripture is Tradition? No.
Sir, I think you need to immerse yourself in something other the Evangelical Christianity for awhile. For example, the Eastern Orthodox believe that everything is Tradition. (Note use of the capital "T" versus lower-case "t.") That is, even the canon of Scripture is defined by Tradition. The Orthodox churches make a good case for that.
Have you ever asked what is meant when "Tradition" is referenced? It has nothing (directly) to do with how many swings of the thurible you make at the altar during the Sanctus.
) I share the objections to the hijacking of the term 'evangelical' to indicate a particular narrow attitude to the Bible.quote:Now it's funny you should mention that. In January of last year I heard Pater Jensen speaking at St.Helen's Bishopsgate. Six weeks later I had become an atheist .
Originally posted by philo25:
Btw, how did you all but lose your faith? If it's too big a tangent to go into, perhaps you could start a thread about it in purgatory? I'd be interested.
quote:*whines* But Mattins is so tedious and long and boring!! I like Evening Prayer and I *love* Compline, but Mattins, esp when one is not a morning person is a real drag... (Do we HAVE to do Mattins?)
the saying of the Daily Office is required of everyone ordained in the Church of England. It is our duty and our joy...
quote:Gotta love the irony...
People who claim 'sola' scriptura' are also amusingly prone to appeal to 'the early church' to back up their prejudices, Since 'the early church' had no canon to appeal to, such people would seem to place more reliance on tradition than the rest of us.
quote:Nunc, that's why we like our nice shiny(ish) new(ish) APBA - daily offices are short, sharp & helpful. You should try them some time.
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
quote:*whines* But Mattins is so tedious and long and boring!! I like Evening Prayer and I *love* Compline, but Mattins, esp when one is not a morning person is a real drag... (Do we HAVE to do Mattins?)
the saying of the Daily Office is required of everyone ordained in the Church of England. It is our duty and our joy...
quote:If you are simply being sarcastic and flippant, then I think your comment is in very bad taste and well out-of-order. There are people on the Ship and in my own life (my brother) for whom self-harming behaviour and suicidal feelings have been all too real.
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
I wouldn't be surprised, Royal P... Jensenism was so bad for me I almost committed suicide...
quote:Hear, hear! They're great.
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Nunc, that's why we like our nice shiny(ish) new(ish) APBA - daily offices are short, sharp & helpful. You should try them some time.
]quote:Then I can only recommend Nunc to consult a doctor/counsellor/therapist as soon as possible. Regardless of one's opinions on "Jensenism" (and I accept that Nunc's are lower than low), self-harming behaviour and suicidal feeelings are NOT healthy.
Originally posted by Amos:
Faithful Sheepdog--And if Nunc isn't being sarcastic or flippant, what then?
quote:If Nunc sought help three years' ago, then she did wisely. She may yet have a long and difficult road ahead, so I encourage her to keep working with her doctor/counsellor/therapist.
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
And if this occurred about three years ago, and she did seek help, what then?
quote:Fuck off, dimwit.
Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:
quote:Hear, hear! They're great.
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Nunc, that's why we like our nice shiny(ish) new(ish) APBA - daily offices are short, sharp & helpful. You should try them some time.
[Another real idiot posting here
quote:
Canon A5: Of the doctrine of the Church of England
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
Canon B10: Of Morning and Evening Prayer in Cathedral Churches
In every cathedral church the Common Prayer shall be said or sung, distinctly, reverently, and in an audible voice, every morning and evening...
Canon B11: Of Morning and Evening Prayer in parish churches
1 Morning and Evening Prayer shall be said or sung in every parish church at least on all Sundays and other Principal Feast Days, and also on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday...
2 On all other days the minister of the parish... ...shall make such provision for Morning and Evening Prayer to be said or sung either in the parish church or, after consultation with the parochial church council, elsewhere as may best serve to sustain the corporate spiritual life of the parish... ...Public notice shall be given in the parish, by tolling the bell or other appropriate means...
Canon C26: Of the manner and life of ministers
1 Every bishop, priest, and deacon is under obligation, not being let by sickness or some other urgent cause, to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either privately or openly...
quote:Hear! Hear! from me too. My old Anglican parish had permission to use the evil APBA in Sydney...and it was a delight to say them each day and say them on our retreats.
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Nunc, that's why we like our nice shiny(ish) new(ish) APBA - daily offices are short, sharp & helpful. You should try them some time.
quote:Dude, you're the dimwit - you can't even use Preview Post to check you got your code right, and the post looking how you wanted it, before hitting Add Reply.
Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:
quote:Fuck off, dimwit.
Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:
quote:Hear, hear! They're great.
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Nunc, that's why we like our nice shiny(ish) new(ish) APBA - daily offices are short, sharp & helpful. You should try them some time.
[Another real idiot posting here
quote:Oh dear, my crystal ball's at the fucking repairer's again.
Originally posted by Zwingli*:
quote:It was a joke you idiot, obviously I don't think that PC and PS are literal, exact opposites, or that any statement must fit into one or the other, in a "statement x is PC iff it is not PS." I was alluding to how some people use the terms. Had you had the slightest of clues you would have realised that I was inferring, as a joke, doctrinal incorrectness (or error) on the part of the Sydney diocese.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Since not calling Asians "Wogs" is Politically Correct, can we assume that you think that it is Politically Sound to do so?
Originally bullshitted by Zwingli*:
Of course "politically sound" is the opposite of "politically correct" so "sound doctrine" is the opposite of... ?
Or is this this other version of PC, which means "any daft statement that I can't be argued to actually argue against so I will flippantly refer to as "politically correct" in order to avoid any real thought process being necessary"?
quote:And I thought Magnum PI was flaming him/herself. It was quite surreal for a moment there.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Oooooh, I want to see the fight! Magnum Fuckwit versus Sarkycow! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
quote:You dipshit! What the fuck do you know about how I've come to my present position?! You know absolutely fuck all about me or what I think or why. In fact even if you had known me all my life and had regular updates as to my thinking I doubt that you could unstick your head from your arse for long enough to have the faintest idea what was going on for me - you certainly seem unable to recognise cow turds even when they're dropping out of your mouth! No wonder you quote Homer Simpson - I'd get an x-ray quickly and see if its possible to get that crayon out of your brain before the damage is permanent.
Originally posted by philo25:
Licz mentioned earlier how the Bible had informed his Liberal convictions. Bollocks! If everlasting love and forgiveness from the Father is an exclusively Liberal concept then that's news to me. Liberals tend to forget that we're asked to repent and change our ways aswell though. Doh! Doesn't that sound nasty? Lets forget that bit and concentrate on the love part, ahh that's better
quote:I don't have to ask for the Holy Spirit when I read scripture dickhead, because I already have the Spirit - something which is promised to me by the self-same scriptures you claim to follow. Perhaps you missed that one?
Then the yapping one proclaimed:
OK I don't know whether Lincz has asked for the Holy Spirit or not when he reads scripture, and I didn't mean to dismiss him in that way if that's how it came across.
quote:Actually lame-brain I suspect that I take a lot more of the OT seriously than you do. Because if you're locked into some feeble attempt to apply the Bible literally as an instruction manual then you either end up a Messianic Jew or you find some bogus reason to throw out half the OT. "Oh, Jesus' death supercedes all the sacrificial law and the civil law only applies to national Israel..." Oh yeah? Then why the fuck did God bother giving us all that crap, or to put it another way, why did the early christians bother keeping all that crap in the Christian canon.
Yet more drivel...
But at the same time, I have to say I find it interesting how people can claim that certain things in the Bible are no longer relevant as many Chritians these days are wont. Yep, ok so wearing mixed cottons isn't much of an issue now(!), but issues like marriage, same sex marriage, indeed anything to do with 'morality' are clearly issues that the Bible intended to speak to us about until the New Creation and perhaps beyond. And to my mind I don't feel these bits regarding morality (and it's these bits that tend to form the greatest part of the problems between the various wings of the CofE and Christianity) are open to interpretation.
quote:Actually tradition and reason are in scripture; it's only sola scriptura that isn't.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Double post but I don't care it's Hell.
Philo asked: "And I'm tired of hearing all this 'tradition' and 'reason' bollocks from non-Evangelicals..find me the scripture in the Bible to support this please?"
I'm sure it's probably in the same passage that advocates sola scriptura
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:*Bows in a pleased but humble way...*
Originally posted by Mousethief:
And by the way, nice rant, Linzc.
quote:Yeah it was lovely, very polite aswell
Originally posted by linzc:
quote:*Bows in a pleased but humble way...*
Originally posted by Mousethief:
And by the way, nice rant, Linzc.
though this is Hell so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You know when you swear so much in a post it kind of reduces the impact of your argument Lincz? You also quoted from various of my posts and put it all together so that kind of misleads as to my general argument, but anyway, I haven't got time to reply properly now but I will do later, I'm sure you're looking forward to it. God bless you brother, it really isn't my intention to offend anyone, I was just tired at all this smug ranting about Sydney, especially when it then became a field day about Oak Hill.
quote:I seem to remember that one of the normal passages is 2 Ti 3:16-17...
Sola scriptura, on the other hand, is a fantasy with no scriptural backing whatsoever.
quote:Dear Custard,
Originally posted by Custard123:
And incidentally, back in the mid 90s when I used to do lengthy online debates with atheist friends, we used to have a rule that the first person to swear or make a personal insult lost the argument.
...
And from my perspective as an observer (atm), that gives what they are saying a lot of weight.
quote:Me? I don't think so! I try to take the same aproach as you - debating without descending to insult or swearing. I may have been provocative on the ship, and may have wound people up with what I've said - but I haven't sworn at anyone or insulted people (with the possible exception of saying Jeffrey John is a false teacher - which I'm standing by!)
Originally posted by Custard123:
...(with the possible exception of a certain FF)...
quote:Prooftexting to support sola scriptura!
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:I seem to remember that one of the normal passages is 2 Ti 3:16-17...
Sola scriptura, on the other hand, is a fantasy with no scriptural backing whatsoever.
quote:I beg to differ.
Originally posted by philo25:
You know when you swear so much in a post it kind of reduces the impact of your argument Lincz?
quote:Well I am a fucking evangelical, shithead.
Originally posted by Custard123:
And incidentally, back in the mid 90s when I used to do lengthy online debates with atheist friends, we used to have a rule that the first person to swear or make a personal insult lost the argument.
Even though I am biased on this one, I can't help noticing that it is hardly ever the evangelicals who do this on the Ship (with the possible exception of a certain FF).
quote:With a passage that doesn't support sola scripture.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Prooftexting to support sola scriptura!
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:I seem to remember that one of the normal passages is 2 Ti 3:16-17...
Sola scriptura, on the other hand, is a fantasy with no scriptural backing whatsoever.
quote:Maybe his tradition is that passage does...
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:With a passage that doesn't support sola scripture.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Prooftexting to support sola scriptura!
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:I seem to remember that one of the normal passages is 2 Ti 3:16-17...
Sola scriptura, on the other hand, is a fantasy with no scriptural backing whatsoever.
quote:Right. So you admit you're partial.
Originally posted by Custard123:
Even though I am biased on this one
quote:You know, when I first started posting on the interweb, way back in the 1890s, people who could not be consistent even within their posts were drummed out of their club.
Originally posted by Custard123:
from my perspective as an observer (atm), that gives what they are saying a lot of weight.
quote:Yes, I think that's quite right. After all, you wouldn't get Jesus associating with riff raff who swore.
Originally posted by Custard123:
If it were the other way round, I might have to reconsider my position on a lot of issues....
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty Clock:
You know, when I first started posting on the interweb, way back in the 1890s, people who could not be consistent even within their posts were drummed out of their club.
quote:No worries and no offence caused!
Originally posted by Custard123:
Apologies to FF for any offence caused. I did say "possible", as I hadn't seen you in action for a while and couldn't be bothered looking up your recent altercations. My mistake.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
the (more conservative) evangelicals on the ship showing respect to other people.
quote:You ARE kidding?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
My point was not to criticise you, but to agree with your point about the (more conservative) evangelicals on the ship showing respect to other people.
quote:Ahhh. The I'm better than you but I don't have the time right now to prove it argument. Impressive. I look forward with baited breath (or should I say fear and trembling), to your cogent, witty and of course deeply respectlful reply...
Originally posted by philo25:
Yeah it was lovely, very polite aswell
quote:Au contraire many of the most deeply insulting things said on the Ship come from evangelicals. They are usually along the lines of doubting the faith of others; implying that others don't read, understand or value the Bible; wondering in amazement how more liberal people can possibly believe xxxx.
Pustard123 said:
And incidentally, back in the mid 90s when I used to do lengthy online debates with atheist friends, we used to have a rule that the first person to swear or make a personal insult lost the argument.
Even though I am biased on this one, I can't help noticing that it is hardly ever the evangelicals who do this on the Ship
quote:You'll have to do better than that, since that text says nothing whatever about sola scriptura. Keep looking.
Originally posted by Custard123:
And as to prooftexting for sola scriptura - I was simply showing that it wasn't something with "no scriptural backing whatsoever".
quote:Dang linzc, that was pretty much word for word exactly what I was thinking in the bath last night after reading this thread, but you got there first which makes me sound like all I can manage is "What he said". I really do have original thoughts sometimes you know
Originally posted by linzc:
Au contraire many of the most deeply insulting things said on the Ship come from evangelicals. They are usually along the lines of doubting the faith of others; implying that others don't read, understand or value the Bible; wondering in amazement how more liberal people can possibly believe xxxx.
Indeed if you look carefully at the exchange between Philo and myself you will find that I made a polite and indeed positively purgatorial post entirely about my own experience; to which Philo's respectful reply was "Bollocks!" and to cast doubt upon the truth of my own description of my own experience.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Now I think that this is very interesting, coz that's not what it looks like from my POV.
Originally posted by Justinian:
We've got two different issues as to what "showing respect" means.
The liberals think it means reading carefully the posts of the other side, doing their level best to understand the other side and then tearing them to shreds, sometimes with less than temperate language.
The conservatives think it means being polite and paying no attention to what the other side is saying at all.
(Yes, I accept I'm caricaturing slightly)
quote:All you need to do is become a Sydney Anglican. Everyone knows their anger is righteous because they follow sound doctrine, just like Jesus did.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:I can do that? Cool! Do you have to, like, go to some particular shop or something? or the bank? or that place at the airport where they sell you foreign money?
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
MT, try swapping your sinful rancour for righteous anger
quote:That question is a good start.
Originally posted by Custard123:
So, how can we "conservatives" be better listeners and pay attention to what you are saying?
Custard
quote:A few ideas:
So, how can we "conservatives" be better listeners and pay attention to what you are saying? [/QB]
quote:Far as I remember, Leprechaun's original position was that Cathedrals are a waste of space and he would be happy to see them all shut down and run as museums. I didn't see that as an 'interested question' personally, more of a demonstration of the attitude that if I personally don't have any use for something it should not exist.
Originally posted by Custard123:
the conservative minority ask interested questions then listen to and consider the answers from other opinions (e.g. Lep's thread on cathedrals, l&d's thread on orthodoxy) than the other way round.
quote:And what exactly are the liberals and Anglo-Catholics supposed to do at the moment? They already have to commute or move or go to a college which is completely outside their tradition. This is a standard fact of residential training within the CofE at the moment. I appreciate it will change with the regionalisation of training, but it seems to me only fair that the con evs have a college. I don't agree with them on zillions of issues but if I am to truly be part of a broad church in which liberals, ACs and people like me (raving charismatics) are to be trained within contexts which suit and fit them, I have to accept there will need to be a place where conservatives train too, because however much I disagree with them they are on the whole still Anglican Christians (although I appreciate some of them tread a bloody fine line).
Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
Pete is right - we need a decent vicar factory in London.
quote:Well, here's what Lep actually said...
Originally posted by Arrietty Clock:
quote:Far as I remember, Leprechaun's original position was that Cathedrals are a waste of space and he would be happy to see them all shut down and run as museums. I didn't see that as an 'interested question' personally, more of a demonstration of the attitude that if I personally don't have any use for something it should not exist.
Originally posted by Custard123:
the conservative minority ask interested questions then listen to and consider the answers from other opinions (e.g. Lep's thread on cathedrals, l&d's thread on orthodoxy) than the other way round.
Hmmm - has anyone actually seenLeprechaun and Jensen together?
quote:To me, that seems to be robustly stating his point of view but willing to engage in discussion and wanting to find out more, especially in the light of this...
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I've been involved in some argy bargy about this on a couple of threads now. To me cathedrals are merely very expensive, pretty, but cumbersome buildings, which are more useful for historical value than evangelistic outreach. If I was Rowan Williams I'd sign them over to the National Trust with the proviso that Christians could keep meeting there if they want.
Others evidently disagree. Tell me why? Convince me! What are they for? Why should the church pump millions of quid into them?
quote:And, FWIW, Lep and Jensen are definitely distinct people, though I haven't met either since first posting on SoF.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I recant. (I feel like Cranmer.)
If I were Rowan Williams I would not hand them over to the National Trust. Not immediately anyway.
Thanks especially Anselmina and ACOL-ite for explaining so much to me. I still have my reservations, but I understand much more. If a cathedral near you burns down soon, it won't have been me.
quote:Why thank you JTL. *blushes*
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
There are a number of posters on the ship, of many different persuasions, including evangelical, whose thoughtful posts often challenge me to take my eyes off myself and point me towards God. For me, linzc is very near the top of the list.
quote:Sorry, the price is too high. I'll just wallow in my sinful whateveritwas.
Originally posted by Seán D:
All you need to do is become a Sydney Anglican. Everyone knows their anger is righteous because they follow sound doctrine, just like Jesus did.
quote:My intention was to highlight this kind of sneering at Jensen, and that by Pete173 about Oak Hill. I realise that these posts were half-in-jest, I reckon my post was made in a similar vein though not as witty (doh!) I was playing devil's advocate a little, since I don't agree with everything Jensen's doing, but I do feel he's being overly-demonised. I notice that as soon as I offered an opposing view in a similar vein to Dyfrig's and Pete's, everyone jumps on me for it. Well I'm happy to have livened up the thread a bit but all I'm saying is that I feel non-con-evo's can be just as unaccommodating as con-evo's. Also, from what I know so far I do believe that Jensen has been insensitive to opposing viewpoints in Sydney. But, overall, I feel that it is the Liberals in the Anglican Communion (I don't mean non-con-evo's who also disagree with the Liberal position) who are rolling back centuries of accepted positions on scripture regarding sex before marriage, same sex marriage, etc. Now Jensen is perhaps not reacting to this in the most sensitive way, but at least someone is trying to uphold not just the con-evo but I believe the majority of opinion in the Anglican Communion regarding these 'moral' issues. I do agree though that tackling evensong services on sunday evenings is perhaps not the best way to go about this! Nonetheless just becuase Jensen was rude about it, I don't think that then means we can never change the style or services to fit what local communities want, and that the style or church service may need to change in future to be more in tune with the younger generations tastes. I think in this instance it was wrong given that alternative space was available elsewhere, but if the cathedral had been the only viable venue then I don't see what would have been the problem, seeing that the new service apparently has alot more congregants than the evensong one.
Dyfrig says;
Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's really, really great,
so long as you hate Evensong,
so long as you love hate.
...He speaks of male headship
and isn't keen on queers;
..the power and the Word.
His trinity is Father,
Bible, OHP;
his version of the Articles
makes Newman look PC.
By Lurker Mclurker..
Oh, and because persecution is the mark of the True Christian™, those who attack the Diocese of Sydney are actually doing the Lord's work. You are helping people like Johann realise they are in the right. So keep on attacking, it is the loving, Christian thing to do.
ATTACK SYDNEY FOR JESUS!
quote:Sorry Amphibalus I was unaware that Jensen is trying to abolish the Daily Office. I also agree that Anglican doctrine is important and indeed is possibly the one or one of the few things that holds the disparate CofE together. If Jensen is trying to do away with this then I might become an anti-Jensenist yet!
By Amphibalus ...The saying of the Daily Office (Morning and Evening Prayer) is a duty laid on every ordained minister except under extreme circumstances. It is that day-in-day-out recitation of scripture and prayer which forms the church - its life and its growth. If no-one says the Office with the minister, then she or he still says it on behalf of those who are not there. You can have as many other styles and types of service as you like, but abolishing the Office is like trying to stay alive with no blood in your veins.
quote:Amphibalus I think I agree with you here. I also beleive that Scripture is the default position with regards theology and doctrine. I also recognise and rejoice in wise spiritually aware people like Luther, Justin Martyr etc. I'm sure Jensen isn't against our Christian forebears? I believe however that Luther etc relied on Scripture to inform his reasoning and not vice versa. For example when Luther was reading through Romans and recognised that we are justified by faith, I don't think he came to that through his own reasoning but rather that he recognised what scripture was actually saying to him. I beleive the Holy Spirit helped him, but I believe that the Holy Spirit and indeed Jesus never say things that aren't backed up by scripture, but that they remind us of scripture and direct us to it. So when you say 'we should be directed when reading scripture by the ongoin promtping and guidance of God' I of course agree with you, but with the important proviso that to ensure that that prompting is indeed from God, that it fits with what scripture in its entirety has spoken to us through the ages. For example I understand that the US Episcopal church claims that its blessing of same sex partnerships/marriages are prompted by the Holy Spirit. I would disagree with that conclusion since I believe the consequences of that (imho human) reasoning is that key parts of scripture end up being ignored, and I don't understand why the Holy Spirit would communicate God's wishes via his prophets, Jesus and Paul, only to revoke them centuries later.
By Amphibalus..Scripture is not tradition, but is understood with the help of reason and tradition. Scripture is, and always will be, the default position with regard to theology and doctrine, but I, for one, recognise and rejoice in the intelligence of those wiser, holier, and more spiritually aware than myself, whose guidance is neglected at the risk of peril to the whole Christian venture.
Can we settle once and for all that no-one is trying to 'reduce' scripture - all that is being said is that the bible should be read with a mind open to the on-going prompting and guidance of God, not as a legalistic obsession with ink and paper - that was what Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees for.
quote:LinCz apparently you're quite upset by me saying that it's 'bollocks' that the Bible informed your Liberal convictions, and that I felt instead it's the other way round. Given that you so freely swear at people for their opinions, I'm surpised that you're so sensitive over what I said, I apologise for it nonetheless. I think I was trying to be a 'tough newbie' Hell poster and indeed I was perhaps perversely excited (
By Lincz...
You stupid prick, Johann. If you want people to lay off Sydney Anglicans, then take your flaming arrogance and shove it where the sun don't shine!
I'm all for 'live and let live' as a general principle but it is the kind of "we're right and all the world is wrong" that you evince in your post that gives my beloved faith a bad name.
So just crawl back into your hole in the ground and suck your thumb for a bit mate, 'cause its the adults playing around here and you're not wanted.
) at the prospect of using the bollocks word several times in that post regarding your point about the Bible and others points, but in my defence I would argue, as you have so ably demonstrated, that Hell is not exactly a profanity-free zone quote:I'd got the general impression from your posts that you are of that disposition but since you deny that, then I apologise for misunderstanding your position, and I'll try and read more carefully next time you post.
by Lincz..
Point to even one post where I have denied that we're asked to repent and change our ways. Go on, fuckwit - where is it?
quote:I agree that God asks us to repent and change our ways becuase he loves us and wants the best for us, where did I suggest otherwise? However, I also believe in a God of Justice. I beleive that he is a God of Justice precisely because he does love us. Therefore if I've understood the second part of your above quote correctly, then can I summise that you don't beleive in Hell? You see, that's what I mean when I complain about 'Liberals' (I don't know if you would classify yourself as one, apologies if not). IMO, it's pretty difficult to read the Bible and not understand from it that people who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will go to Hell, (or that prior to Jesus's coming to Earth, those who rejected God's word and did not trust that their messiah would come) Otherwise I feel it would make a nonsense of Jesus himself comissioning his apostles to spread the gospel to all the nations. Why would this be necessary if everyone is saved in any case? Now if people who accept Jesus sin, then of course they are still saved, I'm not suggesting otherwise. Otherwise I'd we'd all be for the Hot place!
Perhaps this is too subtle for your lobotomised pea-brain, but I happen to believe that the reason God asks us to repent and change our ways is because he really loves us and wants the best for us - exactly the same reason I don't buy the idea of the cosmic bully, choosing to eternally torture those who have already failed in this life to gain the abundance he offers.
quote:Sorry I was unclear, I didn't mean asking for the presence of the Holy Spirit himself but asking for his help and guidance, since as you are a Christian he of course is already dwelling within your soul.
I don't have to ask for the Holy Spirit when I read scripture dickhead, because I already have the Spirit - something which is promised to me by the self-same scriptures you claim to follow. Perhaps you missed that one?
quote:Hm, see this is where I feel that you do show us that you allow your reasoning to change somewhat what the Bible is telling us. With regards to OT law, another of thinsg we are told is not to eat pork since it's 'unclean'. And yet Jesus tells us that nothing that we eat or enters us makes us unclean, but that it is our thought, speech and action (what comes out of us) that makes us unclean. Paul says that the Law was there to show us what sin actually was. I believe eating pork was symbolic, just as the Tabernacle is considered by some to be symbolic of the Trinity etc. I and many Christains, perhaps you yourself too, believe that much of the OT is symbolic of Jesus and his coming, the Passover etc, but true events also.
Actually lame-brain I suspect that I take a lot more of the OT seriously than you do. Because if you're locked into some feeble attempt to apply the Bible literally as an instruction manual then you either end up a Messianic Jew or you find some bogus reason to throw out half the OT. "Oh, Jesus' death supercedes all the sacrificial law and the civil law only applies to national Israel..." Oh yeah? Then why the fuck did God bother giving us all that crap, or to put it another way, why did the early christians bother keeping all that crap in the Christian canon.
Whereas I, with my 'interpretation' can look squarely at all the Bible and ask intelligent questions of it, like "How did this text function for the people of that day?" "What principles are behind this law?" "How might we apply those principles today?" And in doing that I can actually gain something out of mixed cottons as well as commands against 'homosexuality'*. But I'm not tied to the archaic worldview that spawned both these injunctions.
So I'll continue taking the whole Bible seriously and you carry on cherry-picking the bits that fit your stifled little world with its narrow horizons and everlasting damnation for the majority of God's children. Just don't bother me with your pathetic mewlings.
*I use the word for brevity although clearly the verses referred to by conservatives in this debate are not addressing the modern phenomena of homosexuality.
philoquote:<sigh>
Originally posted by philo25:
Yadda-yadda-yadda
quote:I was trying my best yesterday but no-one bit on any of my deeply offensive posts. No-one was very offended when I called YECcies liars. No-one noticed the one that made a (genuine, valid, trinitarian) theological point about Jesus's nocturnal emissions.
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
quote:You ARE kidding?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
My point was not to criticise you, but to agree with your point about the (more conservative) evangelicals on the ship showing respect to other people.
Some of the most deeply offensive things posted on the Ship have been said by conservative evangelicals!
quote:Well, most of them were kicked out by Charles II.
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
There were Puritans who left the CofE. There were some Puritans who did not leave the CofE, but put up with it, grumbling, hoping to reform it further from within. But history and other church circumstances (like that little episode with Cromwell) eventually meant they died out.
quote:Well, thanks so much for this in depth discussion of my posting style. On the subject of cathedrals, I admitted on the thread that my OP had been far too confrontational, and, as Custard has already pointed out, I was not only ready to be convinced by the arguments there presented, I actually was in reality convinced.
Originally posted by Arrietty Clock:
Far as I remember, Leprechaun's original position was that Cathedrals are a waste of space and he would be happy to see them all shut down and run as museums. I didn't see that as an 'interested question' personally, more of a demonstration of the attitude that if I personally don't have any use for something it should not exist.
Hmmm - has anyone actually seenLeprechaun and Jensen together?
quote:i - fine
Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
i. Don't assume that your views are typical of all evangelicals and recognise that - at least in the UK - you are a minority.
ii. Note carefully that many of the criticisms of Sydney/Reform are from evangelicals.
quote:Where have I ever, ever done this?
Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
iii. Stop denouncing evangelicals as liberals simply because they are charismatics/support the ordination of women.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Philo. I agree.quote:You have several times used the 'centuries of accepted positions/understandings' type argument to support your arguments regarding how you believe Scripture should be read. You accuse "liberals" of throwing all this out.
Originally posted by philo25:
But, overall, I feel that it is the Liberals in the Anglican Communion (I don't mean non-con-evo's who also disagree with the Liberal position) who are rolling back centuries of accepted positions on scripture regarding sex before marriage, same sex marriage, etc. Now Jensen is perhaps not reacting to this in the most sensitive way, but at least someone is trying to uphold not just the con-evo but I believe the majority of opinion in the Anglican Communion regarding these 'moral' issues.
quote:Not following what that has to do with sola scriptura (sp?)...
Originally posted by philo25:
Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.
quote:The argument at the moment seems to be about something called 'con-evos' being nicer than everyone else. I'm an evangelical and clearly by your own account I'm Not Nice. Ken is an evangelical and he seems positively proud of the fact he's Even Less Nice. A sort of con-evil. Get a grip.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I don't want to get into this "evangelicals are nicer than everyone else" argument
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But every time I have been told I offended someone I have apologised, and I have done my best to listen to what they have to say. I'm not saying that Christians should never swear or express rancour, but a bit of forgiveness where there has already been an apology wouldn't go amiss. Even if this is Hell.
quote:
What Leprechaun actually wanted to say:
I Thought This Was a Christian Website
quote:Just to clarify - I was not saying the conservative evangelicals are nicer than everyone else. For one thing, it isn't true. There are plenty of non con-evos out there who seriously consider their use of language and who aim to be respectful of the other parties in a debate. I wholeheartedly apologise to any such people who misread my post as saying something that I didn't intend it to say.
Originally posted by Custard123:
And incidentally, back in the mid 90s when I used to do lengthy online debates with atheist friends, we used to have a rule that the first person to swear or make a personal insult lost the argument.
Even though I am biased on this one, I can't help noticing that it is hardly ever the evangelicals who do this on the Ship (with the possible exception of a certain FF). And from my perspective as an observer (atm), that gives what they are saying a lot of weight. If it were the other way round, I might have to reconsider my position on a lot of issues...
quote:And whilst we're on the topic, the sola scriptura brigade seem to have missed the basic point that the canon of scripture (aka the Holy Bible) is the product of the reasoned debate and the tradition of the Christian church over more than three centuries.
Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
quote:Not following what that has to do with sola scriptura (sp?)...
Originally posted by philo25:
Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.
So I don't follow human tradition, but follow the church's tradition, I don't follow the "elemental spirits of the universe", but I follow Christ in his gift of the Holy Spirit to help me make decisions. I can't see where scripture fits into this at all.
Sorry, won't buy it.
quote:Hellooooooooooooo-oooooooo-oooooooo! The lights are on, but no-ones home....
Originally posted by Custard123:
What I guess I was saying is that the use of ad hominem attacks, etc. does not make for a good argument and in fact suggests there are no better arguments at the poster's disposal and that the poster is more concerned about their appearance than the truth.
quote:Philo I am not offended by your language (I'm big and tough enough to take the odd bollocksing), but by the content - ie. you gratuitously assuming that you know anything about my thought processes, let alone enough to simply deny my own description of them.
Originally posted by philo25:
LinCz apparently you're quite upset by me saying that it's 'bollocks' that the Bible informed your Liberal convictions, and that I felt instead it's the other way round. Given that you so freely swear at people for their opinions, I'm surpised that you're so sensitive over what I said, I apologise for it nonetheless. I think I was trying to be a 'tough newbie' Hell poster and indeed I was perhaps perversely excited (
quote:Firstly, it's 'linzc'. L. I. N. Z. C. Think 'linz' (short for Lindsay) 'c' (for my surname).
Philo said:
quote:I'd got the general impression from your posts that you are of that disposition but since you deny that, then I apologise for misunderstanding your position, and I'll try and read more carefully next time you post.
by Lincz..
Point to even one post where I have denied that we're asked to repent and change our ways. Go on, fuckwit - where is it?
quote:Well that's where we differ then, isn't it. IMO it's not difficult at all. That has to do with the presuppositions with which we both read scripture. The fact that you can't understand my POV doesn't thereby make it wrong.
Philo said:
Therefore if I've understood the second part of your above quote correctly, then can I summise that you don't beleive in Hell? You see, that's what I mean when I complain about 'Liberals' (I don't know if you would classify yourself as one, apologies if not). IMO, it's pretty difficult to read the Bible and not understand from it that people who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will go to Hell
quote:Again, we differ. Live with it. Argue about it in Purgatory. Write me a letter to discuss it. Just don't assume that I don't read, understand, value and give authority to the Bible because I don't agree with you.
[Lots snipped...]
I'm sorry but you mention that you will ask intelligent questions of the Bible and how things relate to what time period etc, that's again what I mean by 'Liberals' changing the majority-accepted interpretation of the Bible. I feel we should only change our opinion of things if scripture itself tells us to.
quote:And yet very, very many Christians read the bible and don't draw that conclusion. How odd. Maybe it isn't that difficult after all...
Originally posted by philo25:
IMO, it's pretty difficult to read the Bible and not understand from it that people who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will go to Hell, (or that prior to Jesus's coming to Earth, those who rejected God's word and did not trust that their messiah would come)
quote:Believe me Arriety, if anything has become clear to me during my time on the Ship, it is that it is certainly NOT a Christian website.
Originally posted by Arrietty Clock:
What Leprechaun actually wanted to say:
I Thought This Was a Christian Website
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Believe me Arriety, if anything has become clear to me during my time on the Ship, it is that it is certainly NOT a Christian website.
Originally posted by Arrietty Clock:
What Leprechaun actually wanted to say:
I Thought This Was a Christian Website
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I have it on good authority that Simon's horns and almost as big as Erin's teeth.
quote:I'd have thought this was patently obvious.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Believe me Arriety, if anything has become clear to me during my time on the Ship, it is that it is certainly NOT a Christian website.
quote:Yes ST but that's because all of us read the Bible with our own preconceptions and prejudices and therefore we ignore the bits in the Bible which contradict what we think and just quote and believe the bits which fit in with our preconceived beliefs.
Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
And yet very, very many Christians read the bible and don't draw that conclusion.
quote:Genuine question - which bits do Conservative Evangelicals choose to ignore? It seems to me that far from ignoring bits we don't like, we wrestle with the whole text, trying to ignore nothing, and understand it as a whole. We're not the ones who pick the bits we like and ignore that we don't. Unless you have passages in mind?
Originally posted by Seán D:
quote:Yes ST but that's because all of us read the Bible with our own preconceptions and prejudices and therefore we ignore the bits in the Bible which contradict what we think and just quote and believe the bits which fit in with our preconceived beliefs.
Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
And yet very, very many Christians read the bible and don't draw that conclusion.
The only people who are immune from this, of course, are Jensenite evangelicals, because they have no agenda or preconceptions which they are pushing. This is why they are so objective, of course!
quote:I've just got to pick up on this one.
Originally posted by philo25:
I'm sorry but you mention that you will ask intelligent questions of the Bible and how things relate to what time period etc, that's again what I mean by 'Liberals' changing the majority-accepted interpretation of the Bible.
quote:And the Bible therefore is not a Christian book.
Originally posted by Custard123:
Does the website have faith in Jesus (or however else you want to define "Christian")?
No, because it's a website, not a person.
quote:I'm sure we can all sleep peacefully in our beds now that's been sorted.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
it is certainly NOT a Christian website.
quote:*huck*
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Nunc, that's why we like our nice shiny(ish) new(ish) APBA - daily offices are short, sharp & helpful. You should try them some time.
quote:I am completely serious, Neil, as other people will witness.
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:If Nunc sought help three years' ago, then she did wisely. She may yet have a long and difficult road ahead, so I encourage her to keep working with her doctor/counsellor/therapist.
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
And if this occurred about three years ago, and she did seek help, what then?
Peter and Phillip Jensen are no more responsible for Nunc's emotional health than Richard Holloway and John Spong are for mine. As mature adults we are all responsibile for our own emotions.
Neil
quote:How often do you study the genealogies in Chronicles, or the details of the new temple in Ezekiel?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Genuine question - which bits do Conservative Evangelicals choose to ignore? It seems to me that far from ignoring bits we don't like, we wrestle with the whole text, trying to ignore nothing, and understand it as a whole. We're not the ones who pick the bits we like and ignore that we don't. Unless you have passages in mind?
quote:OK I'm starting to change my mind about Jensen, the more I hear about what's going on down there! I guess even within Conservative Evangelicalism there are differences then. I agree Nunc that funerals can be a good time to 'witness' especially given that relatives will be thinking about the afterlife etc. I also thought in an Anglican parish it was the vicars duty to perform such tasks for the entire local community, not just the Anglicans? Or is that the case just in England?
By Nunc Dimittis .. For instance, "ministers" refuse to bury people not connected with their immediate congregation; funeral parlours often have to call around people who are willing to minister to those who are grieving - regardless of religious faith. I would have thought that, far from turning such people away, here is a golden opportunity for Christ to shine through one and "witness" the gospel in a unique way (albeit obliquely).
quote:OK then Georgey, just for you I'll wear my thinking cap
Sir George Grey says...
Dear Philo25,
Please concentrate REALLY hard.
quote:Yep I'm starting to realise that now Sir George as I find out more about Jensen's style from these posts
By Sir George Grey .. It's a pity you weren't round when the last debates on 'Bishop' Spong took place on SoF because he got a pretty rough ride also. However, while he might not believe in God, he does seem to believe in coexistence.
You are arguing against people who I imagine are of entirely the same theological position as yourself.
Nonetheless I still stand by the fact that (imo) 'Liberal' theology is a greater problem for the church than Jensen. I beleive it's Liberal theology that picks and chooses what scripture to accept and then that's how most of the arguments within Anglicanism and the wider Church arise, making the whole Church look quite unholy, and giving the impression we're rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic to many secular observers. quote:By the way apologies for spelling your name wrong Linzc, I type too fast!
By Linzc ...Secondly, there is a rather large difference between believing God is honour bound to roast n' toast the large majority of his children for all eternity, and believing that he's unconcerned with our choices and actions and anything goes. There's a vast range of views in between these two and I'm somewhere there. It's not that difficult to grasp, really.
quote:OK, that's enough coming over all 'purgotorial' now I'll be 'hellish' - You appear to be reading it wrong then Tortoise! Presumably you've read about Hell in the Bible. From your viewpoint, what is it there for? It it simply nothing more than Satan and his evil cohorts of fallen angel's house, No 4 Hell House, Hell Street, Hell?
Originally posted by philo25:
IMO, it's pretty difficult to read the Bible and not understand from it that people who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will go to Hell, (or that prior to Jesus's coming to Earth, those who rejected God's word and did not trust that their messiah would come)
Tostoise's reply..
And yet very, very many Christians read the bible and don't draw that conclusion. How odd. Maybe it isn't that difficult after all...
Or is a place of punishment for unbelievers? quote:How do you know I don't wash my hands Rook?!
By philo25 ..Hugs to all brothers and sisters in Christ, yes even the swearing non-con-evo's
[Keep your filthy hands off me, you UBB-abusing bastard.]
[ 08. June 2004, 18:20: Message edited by: RooK ]
quote:It took me quite a while to get into genealogies. They are a bit of an acquired taste, but there's some good stuff in them....
Originally posted by ken:
How often do you study the genealogies in Chronicles
quote:read several times but not studied yet (done Jeremiah in detail but not Ezekiel). I will however endeavour to do so when I get there.
or the details of the new temple in Ezekiel?
quote:The folks at the Jubilee centre have done some interesting work on this.
And what's your position on lending money at interest? A sin according to the Bible.
quote:Isn't it good that the blood of Jesus does though!
Originally posted by RooK:
Washing won't get the proof-texting metaphysical filth off of you, oh mollusc-brained one.
quote:Show some spine, man! Don't give up now! The whole thing is a canard got up by some mentally unstable gay tat-merchants with minimal if any historic Christian belief in an attempt to sell off the property that rightfully should be used to advance the Gospel in the Diocese to fund Lesbian-friendly Community Centres for their politically-correct middle-class pseudo-intellectual cronies. Resist assimilation!
Originally posted by philo25:
OK I'm starting to change my mind about Jensen, the more I hear about what's going on down there!
quote:Are there? Gosh. I never noticed.
I guess even within Conservative Evangelicalism there are differences then.
quote:If I were christian, would this be less amusingly gory sounding?
Originally posted by Custard123:
Isn't it good that the blood of Jesus does though!
quote:Liberal theology often gives the impression of picking and choosing and there's no question that some liberal theologians do. However 'liberal' theology in itself covers a broad range of flavours and therefore cannot be dismissed so quickly.
Originally posted by philo25:
]OK then Georgey, just for you I'll wear my thinking cap
<snip>
Nonetheless I still stand by the fact that (imo) 'Liberal' theology is a greater problem for the church than Jensen. I believe it's Liberal theology that picks and chooses what scripture to accept and then that's how most of the arguments within Anglicanism and the wider Church arise, making the whole Church look quite unholy, and giving the impression we're rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic to many secular observers.
quote:
Regarding Spong though, I'm not sure I understand what you mean, are you saying he was right since he put 'coexistance' above beleiving in God?
quote:
The main problem in the Church today must be the Christians, all of us. We are sinners and therefore stick to our guns alot of the time out of pride, and I'm just as guilty of this as anyone.
)quote:
At the same time though, has the Western Church ever been in more difficulties than it has now, barring perhaps the theological fight against gnosticism/arianism in the early centuries AD? I mean these days I think few Christians of any hue would agree with the gnostics/arianists etc, and yet I feel with the 'Liberal' position these days, these guys might well be accepted as just another branch of the Church. I'm sure someone would say 'live and let live' and find some random bits of scripture to back it up.
quote:
OK so Spong's positions are probably beyond the pale for even most 'Liberals' but this refusal to accept the word of God in its entirety (imho) is the biggest problem in the Church today. Just as when divided political parties tend to lose elections, I'm worried divisions created by Liberals (OK and Sydney when they refuse to alow evensong and give up Daily Office etc) are making it harder and harder to witness to the outside world.
quote:Oh please don't. That's where we got The Prayer of Jabez from.
Originally posted by ken:
How often do you study the genealogies in Chronicles...
quote:I'm wondering if it has to be Jesus' blood, or if it can be the blood of anyone with a messiah complex? See, I work with this woman, who regularly gets up on her cross, and I was thinking of a better use for her...
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:If I were christian, would this be less amusingly gory sounding?
Originally posted by Custard123:
Isn't it good that the blood of Jesus does though!
Buy new Soul-Kleen™, now with 25% real blood of Jesus!
quote:I want to know how many war captives they've raped recently and if not, why not?
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I am curious to know how many of those who allege that others are selective in their interpretation of Holy Scripture are rigorous in their observation of the book of Leviticus?
(Not to mention Deuteronomy 23 vs 12-13. Oh, and v.1, but that's only applicable to Pyx_e. )
quote:*Sigh* It's true. Deep down, I do want to accept Sydney Anglicans, even though they're Arian...
Originally posted by philo25:
I think few Christians of any hue would agree with the gnostics/arianists etc, and yet I feel with the 'Liberal' position these days, these guys might well be accepted as just another branch of the Church.
quote:I'd be happt to continue this discussion with you, but perhaps it would be better on one of the 'Hell' threads in Purgatory or Dead Horses. (Or better still, if you read those threads you'll probably find that I or others have already laid out my view and you can just ask any clarifying questions.)
I feel your thinking raises many issues. What happens to the people who aren't Christian but lead 'good' lives? Do you think they'll go to heaven? I'm sure you'll disagree but I find Christianity to be pretty much of an either/or religion.
quote:Interpret Scripture in the light of Scripture. That includes where something appears in the scheme of Biblical theology.
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I am curious to know how many of those who allege that others are selective in their interpretation of Holy Scripture are rigorous in their observation of the book of Leviticus?
(Not to mention Deuteronomy 23 vs 12-13. Oh, and v.1, but that's only applicable to Pyx_e. )
quote:In other words, select what bits of the Bible you feel to be applicable on the basis of your particular interpretation of another part of Scripture. How is this different from what those of a more liberal persuasion stand accused of?
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:Interpret Scripture in the light of Scripture.
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I am curious to know how many of those who allege that others are selective in their interpretation of Holy Scripture are rigorous in their observation of the book of Leviticus?
(Not to mention Deuteronomy 23 vs 12-13. Oh, and v.1, but that's only applicable to Pyx_e. )
quote:ROTFLMAO!
That includes where something appears in the scheme of Biblical theology.
quote:The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
In other words, select what bits of the Bible you feel to be applicable on the basis of your particular interpretation of another part of Scripture. How is this different from what those of a more liberal persuasion stand accused of?
quote:Ooh - pork rump...
ROTFLMAO!
Please point me to an authoritive definition of "the scheme of Biblical theology".
quote:
Originally posted by philo25:
Originally posted by philo25:
IMO, it's pretty difficult to read the Bible and not understand from it that people who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will go to Hell, (or that prior to Jesus's coming to Earth, those who rejected God's word and did not trust that their messiah would come)
Tostoise's reply..
And yet very, very many Christians read the bible and don't draw that conclusion. How odd. Maybe it isn't that difficult after all...
quote:Well, I'm in good company with my "wrong" reading so I'll not worry about it too much if it's all the same to you.
OK, that's enough coming over all 'purgotorial' now I'll be 'hellish' - You appear to be reading it wrong then Tortoise!
quote:It doesn't. Hence the two Purg "What if I'm right?" threads.
So if there are a lot of passages saying, for example, that people who reject Jesus go to hell, then we'd incorporate that into our understanding of the Bible as a whole rather than saying "I don't believe God would do that because he is love." Instead, we'd be more likely to say "OK, so God is love and he sends people to hell. How does that work then?
quote:No, 'circular' is just fine.
Originally posted by Custard123:
Of course that's circular, though spiral would be a better way of putting it.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Nope.
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.
The Bible is pretty good at setting the parameters for understanding a passage. For example, every use of the word "sacrifice" carries with it the weight of all the other uses of it. So when you are studying a passage which uses that word, you need to understand the other passages.
quote:Nope.
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.
The Bible is pretty good at setting the parameters for understanding a passage. For example, every use of the word "sacrifice" carries with it the weight of all the other uses of it. So when you are studying a passage which uses that word, you need to understand the other passages.
quote:Utter bollocks. So do the liberals. So does virtually evey strand of Christianity.
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
In other words, select what bits of the Bible you feel to be applicable on the basis of your particular interpretation of another part of Scripture. How is this different from what those of a more liberal persuasion stand accused of?
quote:My favourite example of this is the use of John 1 to prove that the Bible and Jesus are actually the same thing.
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Custard poured out the following:
quote:Nope.
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.
The Bible is pretty good at setting the parameters for understanding a passage. For example, every use of the word "sacrifice" carries with it the weight of all the other uses of it. So when you are studying a passage which uses that word, you need to understand the other passages.
This assumes that whenever a word occurs in the Bible it means the same as it does everywhere else in the Bible. Patently not true - classic example is that Paul and James use 'faith' and 'works' in different ways, so a 'surface reading' of them makes them contradict each other - Luther fell into this trap.
Whereas words have meaning only in context. Anthony Thiselton - a noted evangelical scholar please note - has laboured this point to get it into the skulls of fellow evangelicals.
quote:
My favourite example of this is the use of John 1 to prove that the Bible and Jesus are actually the same thing.
quote:I really didn't want to get involved in this thread again. But this isn't the case. All it means is that we use the other uses of the word to inform the meaning of the word there in context. The other uses of the word (especially in that book/epistle) will particularly inform the meaning in that place. Its added evidence, but secondary to context. I don't think I have ever encountered any evangelical arguing that the same word means the same thing in the same way every time it is used.
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Custard poured out the following:
quote:Nope.
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.
The Bible is pretty good at setting the parameters for understanding a passage. For example, every use of the word "sacrifice" carries with it the weight of all the other uses of it. So when you are studying a passage which uses that word, you need to understand the other passages.
This assumes that whenever a word occurs in the Bible it means the same as it does everywhere else in the Bible.
quote:The other person I have heard effectively slate the "word groups" way of doing theology, and elevating the importance of context, is Don Carson, who, while not a Sydney evangelical, is certainly on the conservative side of things. I'm not sure who in these circles does hold to the view that you have effectively demolished.
Whereas words have meaning only in context. Anthony Thiselton - a noted evangelical scholar please note - has laboured this point to get it into the skulls of fellow evangelicals.
quote:Carson apparently preaches in both English and French. And discovered very early on in his career that there are some profftexts that he could get meaning out of in English - but not in French. And vice versa. So some of the commonly used interpretations simply didn't work - they were using the translation instead of the Bible. theologian and Bible translator - only to ta
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The other person I have heard effectively slate the "word groups" way of doing theology, and elevating the importance of context, is Don Carson, who, while not a Sydney evangelical, is certainly on the conservative side of things. I'm not sure who in these circles does hold to the view that you have effectively demolished.
Notably, Thiselton has not been at all unhappy about sharing a platform with Peter Jensen in the past.
quote:Only if the divorced person is a bishop. Otherwise you have to assume that Mathhew's gospel is wrong.
Originally posted by Sir George Grey.:
It has been pointed out that conservative evangelicals also pick and choose. Ken mentioned interest. Attitudes to divorce - long conceded as OK by many, contradicts Scripture.
quote:I am of course. If I should ever find myself to have mysteriously become a Jew then I would have to stop wearting clothes made from two different cloths, and give up my habit of boiling kids in their mother's milk. And if then God should re-establish sacrifical temple worship I'd have to be sure to follow all the rules of that as well.
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I am curious to know how many of those who allege that others are selective in their interpretation of Holy Scripture are rigorous in their observation of the book of Leviticus?
quote:Yes - they shared a platform at NEAC last September and contradicted each other.
Notably, Thiselton has not been at all unhappy about sharing a platform with Peter Jensen in the past.
quote:In your opinion, perhaps. I am aware of a number of evangelicals who believe that Christians are included within this covenant, and would hold that Leviticus is applicable unless directly negated elsewhere in Scripture.
Originally posted by ken:
But as things are, would it not be presumptious of me, a Gentile, to act as if I was within God's Covenant with Israel, when in fact I am not?
quote:I think you and Charles are both right/wrong. There is a perfectly legitimate point that many of the NT writers might well have had particular OT contexts, meanings and concepts in mind when they used particular words. Personally I think a good example of this is the term "hilasterion" in Romans 3. One then needs to think, argue and carefully work out if this really is the case, but of course one can't assume it. This is what many evos do.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I really didn't want to get involved in this thread again. But this isn't the case. All it means is that we use the other uses of the word to inform the meaning of the word there in context.
quote:I have too, but on the argument that from the context the word group can always be seen to mean the same thing, (in Pauline writings alone I think when I heard him speak) rather than they must always mean the same thing because the same word is used.
Originally posted by Seán D:
* Actually, I have heard Carson argue this precise point.
quote:That's fair. I withdraw my aside. I wonder if we heard him say this in the same context or whether he makes this argument a lot?!
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:I have too, but on the argument that from the context the word group can always be seen to mean the same thing, (in Pauline writings alone I think when I heard him speak) rather than they must always mean the same thing because the same word is used.
Originally posted by Seán D:
* Actually, I have heard Carson argue this precise point.
quote:OK - so I oversimplified my example coz I was in a hurry
Originally posted by Charles Read:
This assumes that whenever a word occurs in the Bible it means the same as it does everywhere else in the Bible
quote:Oooh - a (non post-) modernist liberal. I genuinely thought you lot were almost extinct.
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
quote:Utter bollocks. So do the liberals. So does virtually evey strand of Christianity.
Originally posted by Custard123:
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.
quote:Silly me. I thought that was what I was doing here!
spend some time finding out what those of different traditions actually believe
quote:And that says just how much you know. Have you been paying any attention at all on the boards (in particular to how well (or otherwise) -Spong is reguarded down here)? Or do you just make a caricature, attack it, and in the process become a poster child for almost all the liberal criticisms conservative evangelicals?
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:Oooh - a (non post-) modernist liberal. I genuinely thought you lot were almost extinct.
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
quote:Utter bollocks. So do the liberals. So does virtually evey strand of Christianity.
Originally posted by Custard123:
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.
quote:I believe that the infalliability of scripture is a discussion in dead horses (is the earth flat and only 4000 years old?)
How about this for a distinctive feature of evangelicalism then?
A belief in "The divine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture (as originally given), and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct"
quote:There are times I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
quote:Silly me. I thought that was what I was doing here!
spend some time finding out what those of different traditions actually believe
quote:Where? <looks over shoulder>
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:Oooh - a (non post-) modernist liberal.
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
quote:Utter bollocks. So do the liberals. So does virtually evey strand of Christianity.
Originally posted by Custard123:
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.
quote:Let's see - wild assumptions, walks around with eyes closed....
I genuinely thought you lot were almost extinct.
quote:I have noticed, and have been pleasantly surprised in doing so. I certainly know that Spong is an ultra-liberal, but hadn't had the opportunity to check deeper into the grounds of his liberalism (especially whether he is a modern or postmodern liberal).
Originally posted by Justinian:
And that says just how much you know. Have you been paying any attention at all on the boards (in particular to how well (or otherwise) -Spong is reguarded down here)?
quote:As you say, that's a dead horse, so there's not much point flogging it here.
I believe that the infalliability of scripture is a discussion in dead horses (is the earth flat and only 4000 years old?)
quote:I suspect the real difference is that you're looking for the right answer, I'm looking for the right question.
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:As you say, that's a dead horse, so there's not much point flogging it here.
I believe that the infalliability of scripture is a discussion in dead horses (is the earth flat and only 4000 years old?)
OK, so what do you believe then and how is it different to what I believe?
Custard
quote:It's still a matter of definition and interpretation. I can agree to the above as long as inspiration doesn't mean "plenary verbal", as long as infallibility means "it will not fail to achieve its purpose" and as long as "supreme authority" is understood in a way which is not inimicable to the proper use of reason and tradition in understanding and interpreting the said Scriptures.
Originally posted by Custard123:
How about this for a distinctive feature of evangelicalism then?
A belief in "The divine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture (as originally given), and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct"
quote:What do you mean by that? Well, the bit about you anyway - I understand what you mean about me.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I suspect the real difference is that you're looking for the right answer, I'm looking for the right question.
quote:yeah, but that's one of the problems with words - we need to be very careful that we all mean the same things by them.
Originally posted by linzc:
It's still a matter of definition and interpretation. I can agree to the above as long as inspiration doesn't mean "plenary verbal", as long as infallibility means "it will not fail to achieve its purpose" and as long as "supreme authority" is understood in a way which is not inimicable to the proper use of reason and tradition in understanding and interpreting the said Scriptures.
quote:Is that useful? I'd certainly agree with the conservative side.
Originally posted by Anselm:
IIRC the conclusion they came to, after mapping out various areas of disagreement, was that the key area of difference was the approach to Scripture.
Evangelical theology sees the Bible as the complete, full and authoritative revelation of God.
Liberal theology tends to view the Bible as containing the word of God, or being an historical (but not necessarily unique) record of others' encounter with the divine.
I guess it's the difference of seeing the Bible as an imperative text or simply an indicative text.
quote:You might also be well advised to clarify what you mean by liberal. Just because someone isn't an inerrantist or a con. evo. doesn't make them a liberal and within the liberal ranks you will find people who are essentially orthodox and people who are less so.
Custard, you would be strongly advised not to assume anyone around here is a liberal (modernist or otherwise) simply because they are not a fuckwit like you.
quote:It's a very short book:
Originally posted by Callan:
If you endeavour to bracket people into helpful little categories from the GLE book of identifying heresies,
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Perhaps Orthodox?
Originally posted by Seán D:
If you believe in the pre-eminence of neither, what on earth are you?! I need to label!
quote:Saviour Tortoise,
You seem to believe you have the ability to discern who gets in and who doesn't though some poor half-arsed understanding of God derived from a literal reading of some specific bits of the bible. That, it seems to me to be arrogant, self righteous bullshit. I at least acknowledge that my understanding of the mysterious ways of the ever-loving, ever-living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, may be a little bit more complicated than my tiny human brain can cope with.
Good luck if so. Of course I don't claim to competely understand God, but I feel I and anyone for that matter can understand what's written in the Bible with a bit of prayer and contemplation. That's why I'm rather bewildered by some in the Church, particularly ECUSA, and also The Catholic Church, want to take their own line rather than what I believe to be the Bible's line on many issues, or in the RC's case on Church structure. quote:Okay, now I have to know: what are you on Thursdays?
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
If you must label me, try middle-of-the-road Anglican[1].
[1] Except on Thursdays.
quote:Well I seem to be in line with "ultra-liberals" in believing that Christianity is pre-eminently about "love and compassion". I believe that's what God is trying to show us. It is the over-arching message of the bible. It is the over-arching message of the church. God is Love. Love God and love your neighbour. There is no other comandment greater than these. And yes, I place this above What The Bible Says(TM).
Originally posted by philo25:
I do feel Jensen overdoes it, he looks to the Bible for the way to operate a church, though he might be skipping over the love and compassion bits! Whereas to my mind some ultra-Liberals are only looking at the love and compassion bits and ignoring the message God has for us that will free us from certain ways of living that the Bible (literally imo) indicates are incompatible with his wishes for us.
quote:I'm sure you're right, particularly about these 'ultra-liberals' of which you speak, however, I'm not sure I've met one. I have, however, met plenty of people who are ultra-conservative. I wonder if it's to do with how I define those terms....
I feel both Jensen and ultra-Liberals are not taking the entirety of scripture and it's self-evident form of revelation -sometimes literal and sometimes symbolic, but always pretty obvious which is which - into account.
quote:Of course the Bible is about love and compassion. But does that mean then, that whenever God in the Bible tells us how a Christian should live, that he's being 'mean'? Or is it that he knows what's best for us and lets us know what that is, which is imho a v good example of his supreme love and compassion for us. I believe this is 'What The Bible Says (TM)' as you so wittily put it. I personally don't find God's love and compassion for us, and how God says we should try to lead our lives in the Bible, as mutually exclusive, rather the opposite. But it appears some in ECUSA don't accept this, nor perhaps Jensen either; two sides of the same coin?
Well I seem to be in line with "ultra-liberals" in believing that Christianity is pre-eminently about "love and compassion". I believe that's what God is trying to show us. It is the over-arching message of the bible. It is the over-arching message of the church. God is Love. Love God and love your neighbour. There is no other comandment greater than these. And yes, I place this above What The Bible Says(TM).
quote:Judgement is a task that is strange and alien to God. The question seems to be whether he does it or not...
Isaiah 28
16 So this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who trusts will never be dismayed.
17 I will make justice the measuring line
and righteousness the plumb line;
hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie,
and water will overflow your hiding place.
18 Your covenant with death will be annulled;
your agreement with the grave will not stand.
When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
you will be beaten down by it.
19 As often as it comes it will carry you away;
morning after morning, by day and by night,
it will sweep through."
The understanding of this message
will bring sheer terror.
20 The bed is too short to stretch out on,
the blanket too narrow to wrap around you.
21 The LORD will rise up as he did at Mount Perazim,
he will rouse himself as in the Valley of Gibeon-
to do his work, his strange work,
and perform his task, his alien task.
quote:Simple stuff, really - a metaphor for building almost anything ranging from an essay to a building. So, by saying this, the Sovereign LORD is demonstrating that he/she considers the audience to be particularly dim. It makes me start to believe that perhaps this really was written specifically for Philo69.
So this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who trusts will never be dismayed.
quote:So, basically, this is where the Sovereign LORD told Dubya to invade Iraq. I'll be durned.
I will make justice the measuring line
and righteousness the plumb line;
hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie,
and water will overflow your hiding place.
quote:This sounds kind of like we're being threatened to be mugged, after being exhumed. While this makes this Sovereign LORD person sound like a really sick motherfucker, it does sort of explain their affinity with Dubya.
Your covenant with death will be annulled;
your agreement with the grave will not stand.
When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
you will be beaten down by it.
quote:Most obviously read as being a variation of, "I'll keep in kicking you when you're down." Feel the love.
As often as it comes it will carry you away;
morning after morning, by day and by night,
it will sweep through."
quote:Or guys in white coats. It depends on how many goons you bring with you, and how easy it is to connect with 911.
The understanding of this message
will bring sheer terror.
quote:And here we have an arbitary reference to someone who's still getting used to sleeping with their girlfriend. Maybe this partially explains all the hostility.
The bed is too short to stretch out on,
the blanket too narrow to wrap around you.
quote:I guess I should have watched the X-Files a little more carefully. I think I missed the "alien masturbating on top of the mountain and in the valley" episode.
The LORD will rise up as he did at Mount Perazim,
he will rouse himself as in the Valley of Gibeon-
to do his work, his strange work,
and perform his task, his alien task.
quote:To my clearly above average mind I don't find much difficulty in understanding that you are a pissant. You've pointed out in Anselm's post the distinction between those who see the Bible as an unambiguous and authoritative revelation and those who see that the Bible contains the word of God*. Those of us in the second camp are there because that has seemed to be the best position according with what the Bible says about itself, what we observe about the world, and what we have experienced. Nothing to do with complicating matters. So take your patronising little comments, with or without the attempt to ameliorate the offensive things you say with smilies, and fuck off.
Originally posted by philo25:
To my no doubt average mind I don't find much difficulty in understanding which bits are to be taken literally or otherwise. All of you guys posting here are quite intelligent, perhaps many of you find the Bible too easy and wish to complicate matters for yourselves?
quote:Yep, I can see the basic problem with your interpretation here, RooK. See, one of the problems in Iraq is a lack of water. Dry, arid country, and with all the shelling and fighting, the water pipe system has taken some serious damage. Granted, it's not as bad as for the Palestines in the Gaza strip*, but still, the Iraqis have a whole lack of water. So how can you possibly suggest this verse is about invading Iraq?
Originally posted by RooK:
And now, for an alternate interpretation...
quote:So, basically, this is where the Sovereign LORD told Dubya to invade Iraq. I'll be durned.
I will make justice the measuring line
and righteousness the plumb line;
hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie,
and water will overflow your hiding place.
quote:I don't think that's a very nice thing to say about God.
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
God pre-ordained the film "The Day After Tomorrow". Fuckwit
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty Clock:
quote:I don't think that's a very nice thing to say about God.
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
God pre-ordained the film "The Day After Tomorrow". Fuckwit
I.T.T.W.A.C.W.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
The fuckwit was directed at RooK But I guess it would apply to God too, depending on what you thought of the film
quote:I'm not sure I can explain any better than that. The closest I can give is that to almost any question about God (and most other important ones), I can answer "Yes". ("Does God exist?" "Is God merciful?" "Is God loving?" "Is God kind" "Is God arbitrary" "Is the truth laid out in the bible?" "Is God capricious?" "Is God cruel?" "Is the bible a tissue of lies?" "Does God not exist?"). On months with an 'r' in them I tend to answer "No" to all the above questions.
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:What do you mean by that? Well, the bit about you anyway - I understand what you mean about me.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I suspect the real difference is that you're looking for the right answer, I'm looking for the right question.
quote:Very apt that a forum thread entitled hell seems to be going to hell in a hand-basket.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:And here's another one. Is it thursday?
Originally posted by mad:
quote:Very apt that a forum thread entitled hell seems to be going to hell in a hand-basket.
quote:Saves you having to type it all out yourself.
IBPs handy cut-out-and-keep guide to interracting on the Ship Of Fools number 63:
I thought this was supposed to be a Christian Website
sort of thing.
quote:Linzc, not only do you appear to have some problems accepting what the Bible says, confusing your partial rejection of what it's saying as what is it saying, now you also appear to have problems understanding what the word 'offensive' means. I have already apologised for any offence I made, which was unintentional. And by the way, we are in Hell so do stop crying. Don't you understand that if you keep on whining about me offending you, while at the same time calling me a pissant, patronising, fuckwit etc, that you are in fact the one being offensive, and deliberately so? Still, your self-contradictory views on theology don't appear to embarass you, so I guess I shouldn't expect any different with regards your view of other people's and your own offensiveness. I'm interested in the debate, and I do argue my points at least, without substituting arguments for swearing. I'm not doing it to be holier than thou, but to be less juvenile than thou! Smiley faces indicate that I'm trying to be jocular with any forthright opinion I'm making, it means I'm noticicing what I'm saying maybe controversial. I'm sorry if you have problems with this, but you appear to have so many problems I rather don't care anynore as to whether you'll take offence or no, since it appears you were born to take offence.
So take your patronising little comments, with or without the attempt to ameliorate the offensive things you say with smilies, and fuck off.
quote:Rook's over-laboured attempt at wit does contain an interesting position at it's core
As best I can tell, the bible fundamentally is just the longest-running precursor to modern tabloids and fad magazines. First of all, you've got the reader's digest version of a primitive people's myths, used metaphorically to reinforce and reflect the arbitrary laws and customs of the time. Then you've got seemingly pointless lists of genealogy, which seems a lot like how future generations will consider modern society's hype about the Royals. There's some Rolling-Stone type third person reports about a really cool guy, and the tragic rock-and-roll ending of his gig because "the man" just didn't understand or resented his work. Throw in some overdressed Dear Abby, mix in a pinch of "how to feel smug and superior" Martha Stewart for your soul columns, and garnish with dire warnings from biased sources. The actual tone of the work seems to be greatly affected by the various "version" that exist, which is really unimportant but still amusing.
Basically, I suspect that the bible is the bound collection of People Magazine back issues dating from 4000 BC to 100 AD. My regard for its usefulness for discovering fundamental truths or dictating how modern society should be is attributed accordingly.
, one in fact I used to adopt before I became a Christian. Reading the Bible without belief one would likely find it an interesting but essentially pointless novel, rather like War and Peace but with still more characters. Sure there'd be some wisdom in there and some beautiful ideas, perhaps more than you might find in other books. (Albeit I reckon it's the Bible that has influenced and triggered all the wisdom that future generations produce in any case)quote:'Points'? I personally would not like to follow anything unless I'm pretty sure what the Word of God is. Just like when I'm reading instructions on how to cook a meal, I don't want one that 'points' to the right temperature, length of time, when to stir etc, I went clear instructions, otherwise the result might be a culinary disaster! (Not unusual at my house, but I'm a crap cook) And when I'm looking at a map that will get me out of the forest, I'd rather not have a map with a set of 'pointings' in the general direction, but instead a recent Ordnance-Survey eddition. Likewise in life, I want an Ordnance-Survey, not an Ikea instruction leaflet!
Personally I would rather say that the Bible points to the Word of God, which I think enables one both to acknowledge its uniqueness as well as its humaness.
Although I disagree with Rook's conclusions, I think he's being more sensible in not taking the Bible too seriously given that his faith is not strong (I assume). If the Bible only points to the truth, well perhaps the Bhagavad Gita does too, so why not be a Hindu aswell? Imo I feel Rook's position has greater intellectual integrity. Paul himself says that if there is no resurrection, then our faith is futile. He says himself and quotes from Isaiah, that Jesus will be a stunbling bock for Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. I agree with him, if we only think that the Bible points to the Word of God, then how do we know if the Resurrection was real or not, what if God was not pointing in the right direction that day and Paul relied on his own feelings? If we're not even sure if what is reported in the Bible is real, then we won't know if what Jesus said was real or imagined. Then how can we trust him if he claims he is the Son of God? quote:[sings]You can't always get what you wa-ant[/Sings]
'Points'? I personally would not like to follow anything unless I'm pretty sure what the Word of God is. Just like when I'm reading instructions on how to cook a meal, I don't want one that 'points' to the right temperature, length of time, when to stir etc, I went clear instructions, otherwise the result might be a culinary disaster! (Not unusual at my house, but I'm a crap cook) And when I'm looking at a map that will get me out of the forest, I'd rather not have a map with a set of 'pointings' in the general direction, but instead a recent Ordnance-Survey eddition. Likewise in life, I want an Ordnance-Survey, not an Ikea instruction leaflet!
quote:RooK is a self described agnostic.
I personally feel I'd be a bit of a dumbass (some think I already am on this thread but hey) believing in something intangible, something very mysterious that the Bible only 'points' to. If I shared your opinion on the Bible Linzc, I'd end up like Rook and dismiss the whole thing as a collection of People magazine or whatever Canadian rag he reads Although I disagree with Rook's conclusions, I think he's being more sensible in not taking the Bible too seriously given that his faith is not strong (I assume).
quote:Perhaps it does. Perhaps the Koran is actually the literal word of God. Why do you believe it's the Bible that is so amazing and not the Koran?
If the Bible only points to the truth, well perhaps the Bhagavad Gita does too, so why not be a Hindu aswell?
quote:Can you spell non-sequitur? Why are we suddenly talking about the resurrection? We were talking about the Bible a paragraph ago!
Imo I feel Rook's position has greater intellectual integrity. Paul himself says that if there is no resurrection, then our faith is futile.
quote:You believe in Jesus rising from the dead just because some people wrote that He did
He says himself and quotes from Isaiah, that Jesus will be a stunbling bock for Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. I agree with him, if we only think that the Bible points to the Word of God, then how do we know if the Resurrection was real or not
quote:Paul was doing exactly what you're trying to do here - construct a cogent argument. Some kind of divine dictation doesn't come into it.
what if God was not pointing in the right direction that day and Paul relied on his own feelings?
quote:You believe He is the Son of God just because someone wrote down His claim to be?
If we're not even sure if what is reported in the Bible is real, then we won't know if what Jesus said was real or imagined. Then how can we trust him if he claims he is the Son of God?
quote:Not evangelising is part of your following Jesus (sorry, being a pedantic git)
I'm not prepared to follow Jesus, have people and family think I'm wierd for not getting drunk, evangelising, sleeping around etc.,
quote:But it's take it or leave it. As I said before, we have the Bible we have, not the Bible you want. I think Calvin's Institutues of Religion is more the sort of thing you were wanting.
give up many things in life that humans prize just for a set of 'pointings' in the general direction of God's Word. Still less a Bible that comprises a collection of 'Readers Digests' (shudder)
quote:It self-evidently isn't that though. If it were clear and unambiguous, we would hardly have people killing each other over what it says. If it were accurate, it would be able to count the number of legs locusts have, calculate Pi and be able to say who persuaded David to take his disastrous census.
but one that remains after all the millenia, a clear accurate and unambiguous account of God's Word to his prophets and mankind.
quote:Bingo! I knew hints of the "better/more faithful/more real Christian than you" subtext that too many fundies have would come through in the end. It always does. Go on, tell us we're not really saved - I know you want to.
I reckon it's important in the light of the arguments put forward by Rook and Linzc to ask ourselves what it is that makes a Christian, Christian.
quote:And you know what all these illustrious folk thought how exactly? Anything more substantial than "they were really holy so they'd obviously have the same ideas as me"?
I feel Linzc definition of the Bible pointing to the Word of God would not be accepted by any of the martyrs, Popes, ABC's or even the majority of Christians worldwide, still less Paul and the Apostles. It's not neccessarily the case that the majority within a group is always right of course, but it's a good indication in imo.
quote:<Dislaimer: the following is an analogy, that has limits. Don't bother pushing them, unless you wish to look particularly anal.>
Originally posted by mad:
Very apt that a forum thread entitled hell seems to be going to hell in a hand-basket.
quote:Clueless? Well how rude, just becuase of that I'm gonna try and be extra clued-up on this post...
Thus gushed forth Philo, like many a clueless fundy before and after: ..
No, my argument here, if you would be so good as to allow me to modify your allegory, is that the Haddock many people are mistaking for a Cod, is in fact a Haddock, and always has been! People may be confused as to the nature of the Haddock by the disappointing chips and swamping of vinegar (i.e. life and it's troubles, keep up with me here!) but the Haddock, I'm arguing, is a Haddock. I'm grateful to you for brining up the subject of Haddock and Cod by the way since I now know what I'm having for dinner Perhaps some of that Omega-3 oil will help me with the clueless-fundie disease I've come down with too Anyway, leaving those smiley's behind..quote:I feel that becoming a Christian and reading the Bible is a voyage of discovery in itself, I don't feel anything else has remotely enriched my life as much as becoming a Christian. But I also feel the beauty of the Bible means it self-evidently is the truth. I trust the fact that it's been written by many people and not just been dictated to one person (a la Koran). And also, having read bits of the Koran I find it quite dull and repetative, half of it goes on about how silly all the Jews and Christians are etc.
But why your lack of interest in a personal voyage of discovery about what God is really like, based on the pointers of the Bible?
Perhaps the Koran is actually the literal word of God. Why do you believe it's the Bible that is so amazing and not the Koran?
quote:Yup. I also believe you to be a liberal backslider becuase you say that you are. Shall I get all paranoid and start questioning whether that's true, and that you're not just pretending, or shall I judge what you write on it's merits? I do that with the Bible, I feel it correctly in my view describes the situation of helplessness and sin that we're in, and that the only solution is to trust the one that died in our place. I beleive the Bible correctly diagnoses our condition, therefore I trust the medicine will work too. Erich von Daniken is clearly bonkers!
You believe in Jesus rising from the dead just because some people wrote that He did
Erich von Daniken - I've found you a new market!
quote:Sorry I don't get what you're saying. Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek. Just becuase people don't, doesn't mean that Jesus was wrong, it means that we don't obey him. As for calculating Pi, what has that to do with the meaning of life and our afterlife? God I feel rather thoughtfully left us to discover scientific advances and his physical rules for our universe.
It self-evidently isn't that though. If it were clear and unambiguous, we would hardly have people killing each other over what it says. If it were accurate, it would be able to count the number of legs locusts have, calculate Pi and be able to say who persuaded David to take his disastrous census.
quote:Nope, I know what they thought, just as I know what you think, from what they wrote, and what other people wrote about them. Yep, I trust that, perhaps I'm naive, but going to the opposite extreme means one will end up paronoid and not trust the Moon landings etc..I also feel the goodness and 'truth' of what they wrote amongst other thins means that the Bible is God's word.
And you know what all these illustrious folk thought how exactly? Anything more substantial than "they were really holy so they'd obviously have the same ideas as me"?
quote:You know, I quite like it when inerrantists come out and say plainly that their believe in inerrant scripture is one of faith, not one that can be rationally argued. At least I can respect that position even if I think it's wrong.
Originally posted by philo25:
But I also feel the beauty of the Bible means it self-evidently is the truth.
quote:I learnt many years ago (like first time I saw it) that anyone trying to invoke 1 Ki 7:23 as proof the Bible was wrong via pi clearly a) doesn't know what they are talking about and b) is just looking for reasons not to believe, can't find any good ones and so settles on this.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Philo, have you ever actually read the bible?
If so, perhaps you would have noticed a few things that K:LB was pointing out. Like the fact that it gets the number of legs on a locust wrong. Like the fact that it claims pi is equal to three. Like the fact that there are two versions of creation in Genesis.
quote:That noble sentiment obviously explains why you have had to resort to posting this piece of profundity on the Death of Darwinism thread.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My agenda, which you prefer to slander, is simply to find truth. Once a particular religious viewpoint becomes more important than truth, you're shagged.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:I don't- it was a cheap shot at a dead horse. On the other hand, that you need to resort to gymnastics (especially with the locusts) and have not touched the two accounts of creation provides strong evidence for the case that it is not unambiguous- and if it is unambiguous (as is the issue here), it supports rape of war captives and genocide.
Originally posted by Custard123:
Justinian and Karl think this means the Bible claims that pi is EXACTLY 3. Now if any of my 14 year old maths pupils or my GCSE physics kids couldn't see why that was wrong, I'd want them put in remedial classes.
quote:And I said it was profound where? But your unbelievable arrogance in thinking that you, who by your own admission know bugger all about palaeontology, might have hit on something that all the mainstream palaeontologists had never thought of, put it straight into my mind.
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:That noble sentiment obviously explains why you have had to resort to posting this piece of profundity on the Death of Darwinism thread.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My agenda, which you prefer to slander, is simply to find truth. Once a particular religious viewpoint becomes more important than truth, you're shagged.
quote:Weight? What fucking weight? What the fuck are you talking about? I can't post here anymore "effectively" or "heavily" than you can; indeed, one of the interesting differences between internet and real life discussions is that the loud and opinionated cannot dominate by shouting down the other side. This is why creationists generally avoid written debates, by the by.
"Simply find truth"? Give me a break. You're simply a bullying loud-mouth that likes throwing his weight around. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you square in the face.
Neil
quote:Since you use such poor arguments as the one with pi, is it worth bothering with any of your others? Your seemingly unwise selection of arguments speaks against you.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I don't- it was a cheap shot at a dead horse. On the other hand, that you need to resort to gymnastics (especially with the locusts) and have not touched the two accounts of creation provides strong evidence for the case that it is not unambiguous- and if it is unambiguous (as is the issue here), it supports rape of war captives and genocide.
quote:What the FUCK?
Originally posted by Custard123:
I was struggling with this the other day. I'm still not completely there yet. But if I was preaching on one of those passages, I'd probably dwell for a while on the horrors of what was involved, then ask what reason could be so overwhelmingly important for God to order it. And as far as I can tell, the Bible gives two reasons. One was judgement on the inhabitants of the land for their sin (which I know you don't like, but which I happen to believe is important). The other was to keep God's people holy. So I'd then go towards thinking about how awful sin is - that it deserves genocide; how important personal and corporate holiness is - that in that context it was even worth killing people for, then probably bring people back to the cross, the forgiveness that is offered there and our response of striving to be holy.
quote:If you can't recognise the mountain of assumptions that you make in talking about "what the Bible says" then go away and come back when you have been educated enough to open your trap.
Originally posted by philo25:
Linzc, not only do you appear to have some problems accepting what the Bible says, confusing your partial rejection of what it's saying as what is it saying, now you also appear to have problems understanding what the word 'offensive' means.
quote:Grow up you sanctimonious twat. I recognise that lacking the brains to take a regular crap, you have to do it online and that you have no idea that others find your steaming pile offensive - that's why I'm pointing it out to you. I engage with your mindless drivel, not because my feelings are hurt, but as a public service.
I have already apologised for any offence I made, which was unintentional. And by the way, we are in Hell so do stop crying. Don't you understand that if you keep on whining about me offending you, while at the same time calling me a pissant, patronising, fuckwit etc, that you are in fact the one being offensive, and deliberately so? Still, your self-contradictory views on theology don't appear to embarass you, so I guess I shouldn't expect any different with regards your view of other people's and your own offensiveness. I'm interested in the debate, and I do argue my points at least, without substituting arguments for swearing.
quote:Translation - I am saying something I think may be offensive and am attempting to ameliorate its impact by using smilies. Oh wait... wasn't that what I just said?
Smiley faces indicate that I'm trying to be jocular with any forthright opinion I'm making, it means I'm noticicing what I'm saying maybe controversial.
quote:Awww, crap! I forgot you were a theological illiterate. Go read some Barth, or do some basic theology, please.The point I was making is that rather than seeing the word of God within the Bible, I see the Bible as revealing the Word of God. The term 'point' isn't the important bit - use 'directs us to', 'reveals', 'shows us' if you like. But the issue is that it is the Word of God = Christ, who is the ultimate revelation; and the purpose of the Bible is to bring us into relationship (another possible replacement for 'point') with Him. This formulation thus acknowledges the absolute uniqueness of the Bible, as our authoritative introduction to God-in-Christ, yet enables us to understand that the Bible is a human work, not the divine cookbook you so desire.
By Lovely-Linzc
quote:'Points'? I personally would not like to follow anything unless I'm pretty sure what the Word of God is.
Personally I would rather say that the Bible points to the Word of God, which I think enables one both to acknowledge its uniqueness as well as its humaness.
quote:Well rounded positions are not your strong point are they? Either the Bible is a divinely dictated manual or its entirely untrustworthy. Whoever claimed that nothing in the Bible is 'real'? And surely, having said that my belief is that the purpose of the Bible is to reveal the Word, that might give even a pea-brain like you a clue that I take Jesus' claims to be the Son of God as a faith position. My faith is in God-in-Christ. Yours seems to be in the Bible. And as for the resurrection, to the extent that the resurrection is the logical and necessary outcome of the belief that Christ is the Word of God, to that extent I can be sure of the resurrection (however we understand that mystery). Again, my faith is in the Word, not the book.
...if we only think that the Bible points to the Word of God, then how do we know if the Resurrection was real or not, what if God was not pointing in the right direction that day and Paul relied on his own feelings? If we're not even sure if what is reported in the Bible is real, then we won't know if what Jesus said was real or imagined. Then how can we trust him if he claims he is the Son of God?
quote:While you're away doing that theology study, throw in some reading comprehension and logic too. I have never defined a Christian on this thread. I talked about what I understand the Bible to be. These are not the same.
I reckon it's important in the light of the arguments put forward by Rook and Linzc to ask ourselves what it is that makes a Christian, Christian. I feel Linzc definition of the Bible pointing to the Word of God would not be accepted by any of the martyrs, Popes, ABC's or even the majority of Christians worldwide, still less Paul and the Apostles. It's not neccessarily the case that the majority within a group is always right of course, but it's a good indication in imo.
quote:Sorry folks, but that's the conclusion I am increasingly coming to on reading the Bible. That's how bad sin is.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What the FUCK?
Canaan's sin "deserved genocide"? Did you really mean that?
Custard - that's just horrible. Really fucking horrible. And very very scary.
quote:You see, it always boils down to this, doesn't it? You say:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Frankly, Custard, I don't think much of this God.
quote:and Lep added:
Sorry folks, but that's the conclusion I am increasingly coming to on reading the Bible. That's how bad sin is.
I believe in the kind of God who is so holy that even perfect created beings cannot so much as look at him. I believe in the God who, when he descended on Sinai, it any person or animal so much as touched the mountian, it had to be killed.
So Sodom and Gomorrah get totally wiped out by a meteorite or something because of their sin, the Canaanites get wiped out because of theirs (though some find various cunning ways out of it), later the nation of Israel gets judged heavily because of theirs. Before all of that, the vast majority of the world population get killed in a flood, which even in the NT is used as a warning for mockers (e.g. 2 Peter 3).
And then probably the grimmest of all, Revelation 14:19-20
19The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. 20They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.
So yes, I think it is the consensus of the Bible writers that sin deserves genocide, and hence that we all deserve genocide, but that God is holding off so that we can come to repentance. So how amazing it is that that same God humbled himself to come to earth as a man and died for us! Wow.
quote:and behold the antipodean theology of evangelism sails back into view.
You see, it always boils down to this, doesn't it? You say:
"I really don't want to believe in the God of the Bible"
quote:Excuse me? Charles, is it now your new tactic to find any theology you don't like and label it "Sydney evangelicalism" simply because its not "Charles Read evangelicalism"? I have never been to Sydney. I have read one book by Peter Jensen, which I thought was pretty dull. I do not even belong to the C of E, and think the whole Sydney project is, in that sense, quite misguided.
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Which Bible and which God are we talking about then? Not the God of love who is revealed in scripture. Yes, sin is serious - so serious Jesus died in our place to deal with it. So serious God dealt with it godself. But to take the OT genocide passages and use them in this argumnmt is to distort the picture of God the Bible reveals. Here's why some evangelicalks find 'Sydney' theology unbiblical.
How to approach those tricky OT passages then? Not as an example of what to do in all circumstances, nor as an indication of the totality of God's nature. Perhaps a good hermeneutical approach might be to say 'this is a big problem'!
quote:He's heard of them, and couldn't really give a fuck. Your constant harping on about this one shows you are running scared from the more serious inaccuracies and contradictions in Scripture.
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Mr. Karl “I search for the truth” Backslider has clearly never heard of the engineering concepts of measurement tolerances or the rounding of figures. A rounded-off value of Pi = 3 is within 5% of the correct answer.
If the actual diameter of the Bronze Sea was 9.7 cubits, and its actual circumference 30.4 cubits, then pi comes out near enough to 3.14. If I round off those dimensions to the nearest integer, I arrive at 10 and 30.
In a descriptive literary text that predates decimal notation and is clearly not a manufacturing specification or a mathematics textbook, the figures given are sufficiently accurate for the writer’s purpose. There is no error here.
It’s back to school for Karl, I think.
Neil
quote:It's odd.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He's heard of them, and couldn't really give a fuck. Your constant harping on about this one shows you are running scared from the more serious inaccuracies and contradictions in Scripture.
quote:How does committing genocide keep one holy? Were the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge or the Bosnian Serbs improved by their actions? Of course not. Killing people routinely is not morally improving. Any textbook on the psychology of war will tell you as much.
And as far as I can tell, the Bible gives two reasons. One was judgement on the inhabitants of the land for their sin (which I know you don't like, but which I happen to believe is important). The other was to keep God's people holy.
quote:Yes. I have been rumbled. My basic theological position is 'neo-charismatic, post-feminist, everyone-except-me-is-a-heretic'.
Excuse me? Charles, is it now your new tactic to find any theology you don't like and label it "Sydney evangelicalism" simply because its not "Charles Read evangelicalism"?
quote:Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly pay this bit of Scripture the greatest respect in realising this CANNOT be taken literally, as Jesus was actually standing there, body real, blood pumping as he said these words. Thus, unless he was performing some sort of surgical ritual that is not mentioned in the text, I CAN'T take it literally. Gosh, maybe I'm not a raving fundy after all.
Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
Do not show any respect to one of the fucking plainest bits in scripture:
"This is my blood"
"This is my body"
quote:Ah, but I agree with you. You need to ask the inerrancists these questions.
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
In what other area of human life is "history" not subject to opinion?
And why should Dreams and Prophecy = Dictated Truth?
And why should I be asked to hand in my evangelical card for believing so?
quote:I agree
Originally posted by dyfrig:
There is a quite subtle point being missed in the citing of the holiness passages, and it is this: the Holy God, before whom no-one can stand, who dwells in inapproachable light chooses to come down to Sinai and make himself known. Mike Riddell makes the point that Jesus, near the end of the Sermon on the Mount, cites the Levitical injunction to "be holy because I am holy", and then the God-Man immediately goes out to heal the sick, preach the good news and eat at table with sinners.
Do people really not get that the good news is actually that the awe-ful, holy, inapproachable God actually wants to embrace us sinners as his children without demanding that they be anything close to perfect and not ever let us go? Is that how distorted the "gospel" has become in some quarters?
the penny dropping did not apply to you.....quote:So he's just talking figuratively?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly pay this bit of Scripture the greatest respect in realising this CANNOT be taken literally, as Jesus was actually standing there, body real, blood pumping as he said these words. Thus, unless he was performing some sort of surgical ritual that is not mentioned in the text, I CAN'T take it literally. Gosh, maybe I'm not a raving fundy after all.
Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
Do not show any respect to one of the fucking plainest bits in scripture:
"This is my blood"
"This is my body"
quote:Oh dear. Linzc, your problem is that I disagree with you. Now, plenty of people here manage to disagree and debate without being quite so juvenile. It appears to me that everything you accuse me of you suffer from yourself. So, if you like I will go and read your beloved Barth, and perhaps you could read up on a bit of Freud and learn what 'projection' means in a psychoanalytical context.
Grow up you sanctimonious twat. I recognise that lacking the brains to take a regular crap, you have to do it online and that you have no idea that others find your steaming pile offensive - that's why I'm pointing it out to you. I engage with your mindless drivel, not because my feelings are hurt, but as a public service.
quote:You say that you accept that the Bible points us to God's Word, and so, once you read God's Word, what do you then think about it? That's the crux of the issue. Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your general position, but are you claiming that the Bible is God's Word, but that we don't necessarily have to follow God's guidance for us in there? Or would you question whether God has given us any guidance? Forgive me but I don't understand the position of accepting that the Bible contains God's word, but that the Bible is not itself authoritative. How can something that contains God's word, not be?
You've pointed out in Anselm's post the distinction between those who see the Bible as an unambiguous and authoritative revelation and those who see that the Bible contains the word of God*. Those of us in the second camp are there because that has seemed to be the best position according with what the Bible says about itself ..
quote:Oh please. All I'm doing as you well know is standing up for the con evo interpretation of the Bible; we beleive like all Christians that anyone who accepts Jesus as their Lord and Saviour is saved. I've mentioned that before. What we do have problems with though is 'Ultra-Liberals' attempting to water down God's guidance for us once we have accepted him, that's all, neither I nor any other person on this thread has indicated that 'Ultra-Liberals' (using that term for the sake of brevity) are not saved or are to be written out of the Kingdom, merely that we feel their interpretation of God's guidance for our lives has been watered down and influenced by modern societies expectations. There's a subtle difference!
So take your snide attempts to define me out of the Kingdom and shove it alongside the rest of your crap.
quote:And then you get mad at us for reasoning out which bits to take literally or not. That's not fair, is it, hey?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly pay this bit of Scripture the greatest respect in realising this CANNOT be taken literally, as Jesus was actually standing there, body real, blood pumping as he said these words. Thus, unless he was performing some sort of surgical ritual that is not mentioned in the text, I CAN'T take it literally. Gosh, maybe I'm not a raving fundy after all.
Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
Do not show any respect to one of the fucking plainest bits in scripture:
"This is my blood"
"This is my body"
quote:What are you talking about Karl? Are Sydney diocese planting in Chesterfield or what ?
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm more concerned with the way your lot are trying to run me and my kind out of the church.
quote:Karl many of the people that were massacred worshipedd false Gods such as Ball and even sacrificed their children to these idols. Of course it's a shame that there people were massacred. But I'm sure God would have saved those among them that genuinely sought God, like Rahab for instance.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Since you've decided to weigh on this one as well...
The obvious one would be:
"Thou shalt not commit murder" - backed up by a series of statements about not shedding innocent blood.
Contrast this with a series of commands to massacre men, women and children in Canaan.
Sounds pretty darned contradictory to me. The only way out of it is to call it "execution" and somehow justify the execution of babies. Do try.
quote:I was trying to think what this reminded me of. Then I realised - it's when Edmund Blackadder, during his trial for witchcraft says "But mother, I'll be burned!", to which his mother replies "Yes, that would be a pity".
Of course it's a shame that there people were massacred.
quote:Good job you are so kind then dyf.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
If it is permitted for you to bring God-biven human reason (for that is what you are doing) to this then it is perfectly legitimate for others to bring it to other texts.
To deny this simply won't do, young man.
Someone less kind than I might even suggest it was hypocritical.
quote:So if killing children is so deplorably wicked, why did God command it. Why is it horrendous and blasphemous to murder children in the name of Baal but right and proper to murder children in the name of Yahweh.
Karl many of the people that were massacred worshipedd false Gods such as Ball and even sacrificed their children to these idols.
quote:Well now, the fairy responsible for handing out a sense of irony* wasn't invited to your Christening, was she?
Of course it's a shame that there people were massacred.
quote:
Originally posted by philo25:
Karl many of the people that were massacred worshipedd false Gods such as Ball
Really? Well then fuck 'em, eh? Especially if it was that Johnny Ball - nasty piece of deity filth him with his "think of a number" mumbo-jumbo. I will not bow the knee nor suffer it to be bowed to ageing childrens presenters.quote:But they were pagans!!! Take that pity back and put it to good use, like in defence of those poor persecuted Fundies not lucky enough to live in Sydney.
Of course it's a shame that there people were massacred.
quote:Be careful, brother. ScRRRipture has nothing to say on that score - do not presume upon God's mercy.
But I'm sure God would have saved those among them that genuinely sought God, like Rahab for instance.
quote:After which point they can go screw themselves too, eh? After all, they'd done their job - if they fail to get the message themselves, they can scarcely expect God's continued help and protection. Fair's fair.
Another point is, I believe God used Israel as a vehicle to bring knowldge of God and his Son to all mankind. As such I believe it was necessary for Israel to exist and grow strong in order that it would survive as a nation (albeit under Roman occupation and various exiles before that) to the point where Jesus was born in this world.
quote:Damn right it was necessary - what you feeling so sorry for them for? After all, as you so clearly articulate, they deserved no better. It was a GOOD thing all those men, women and children were slaughtered - innocent, guilty, whatever. God knows his own. The best way to wipe out Godless practices is just to wipe out the people that perpetrate them. Yes, siree - that'll learn them.
I believe it was necessary to establish Isreal as a country in order for Judaism to survive to the point where Jesus was born, unfortunately the massacres of people already living on the land promised to Moses and the Isrealites appears to have been necessary ... given that all kinds of things were going on in Canaan like child-sacrifice etc., I reckon it wasn't such a bad thing that those God-less practices were wiped out.
quote:Holy Scripture does not and cannot have authority in its own right. It must derive that authority from some external source.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I don't think anyone (well, not me at least) denies that there is a role for reason in understanding the scriptures. The discussion (here, briefly, and in Dead Horses at length)is about whether certain bits of the Bible can be said to be describing events as having happened, when they did not, because our reason tells us so. This, IMO, elevates reason to a role of authority above Scripture, and that's why I'm not happy with the route.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:I could at this point give you advice abpout elephants and variable numbers of blind men, or about Augustine, who struggled on this very point, and how he came to come to terms with it through an argument about context, but I'm sure I've told you before (and they didn't cut any ice with you then), and besides, I wouldn't be insulting you.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Still no advice on how, should I be persuaded that the massacre monster God is the real one, I go about loving him.
Ah well.
quote:Thing is, there's a lot of both about.
Originally posted by RooK:
For who would voluntarily swallow the pile of shit that you've demonstrated your faith to be, other than the foolish and monumentally stupid?
quote:I guess the fact that he can step OUT of the discussion and see what rubbish is being posted and that he does a damn good job of being a host has nothing to do with him having the job?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Oh Rook. You are so sweet.
I can see now why you host Hell, and post almost nowhere else. So much easier to insult a point of view that is (contra your post) held by many intelligent people in the world (even if Custard, Philo and I may not be among them) than to actually engage with it.
Just you keep spitting bile in every direction, scrabbling away in your little cave, to hide from
the light. It's really just....well...endearing.
quote:Stockholm Syndrome
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Still no advice on how, should I be persuaded that the massacre monster God is the real one, I go about loving him.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
for all those who do- sometimes it's the only thing you can do. (Especially as praying might be out of the question...)
quote:IIRC, you don't believe in a literal 7 day creation?
The discussion (here, briefly, and in Dead Horses at length)is about whether certain bits of the Bible can be said to be describing events as having happened, when they did not, because our reason tells us so. This, IMO, elevates reason to a role of authority above Scripture, and that's why I'm not happy with the route.
quote:There are so many things wrong with this that despite all the responses one has not yet been covered. These folks can hardly be faulted for worshipping false gods when the one true God did not see fit to show himself to them. Pretty unfair of the one true monster God never to give them a clue about how they should live and whom they should worship, and them have them slaughtered wholesale.
Originally posted by philo25:
many of the people that were massacred worshipedd false Gods such as Ball and even sacrificed their children to these idols. Of course it's a shame that there people were massacred. But I'm sure God would have saved those among them that genuinely sought God, like Rahab for instance.
quote:Ah, here you are. And still dispensing truth.
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:That noble sentiment obviously explains why you have had to resort to posting this piece of profundity on the Death of Darwinism thread.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My agenda, which you prefer to slander, is simply to find truth. Once a particular religious viewpoint becomes more important than truth, you're shagged.
"Simply find truth"? Give me a break. You're simply a bullying loud-mouth that likes throwing his weight around. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you square in the face.
Neil
quote:Actually, I don't have a problem. I think you're an arrogant snot who has the temerity to claim to understand how I think, or how I come to conclusions. I think that you're a self-righteous snob who wants to claim the moral high-ground because you insist on trying to hold purgatorial discussions in hell. I know without a doubt that you've no theological understanding at all (see below). But for all that, I enjoy a good rant in hell. So no, I don't have a problem. And I have a professional supervisor with whom to talk over any projection issues I might have, so I'm feeling fine thanks very much.
Originally posted by philo25:
Oh dear. Linzc, your problem is that I disagree with you. Now, plenty of people here manage to disagree and debate without being quite so juvenile. It appears to me that everything you accuse me of you suffer from yourself. So, if you like I will go and read your beloved Barth, and perhaps you could read up on a bit of Freud and learn what 'projection' means in a psychoanalytical context.
quote:Ohhhhh! *tears hair out* Ok, words of one syllable:
You say that you accept that the Bible points us to God's Word, and so, once you read God's Word, what do you then think about it? That's the crux of the issue. Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your general position, but are you claiming that the Bible is God's Word, but that we don't necessarily have to follow God's guidance for us in there? Or would you question whether God has given us any guidance? Forgive me but I don't understand the position of accepting that the Bible contains God's word, but that the Bible is not itself authoritative. How can something that contains God's word, not be?
quote:Your own words were:
quote:Oh please. All I'm doing as you well know is standing up for the con evo interpretation of the Bible; we beleive like all Christians that anyone who accepts Jesus as their Lord and Saviour is saved. I've mentioned that before. What we do have problems with though is 'Ultra-Liberals' attempting to water down God's guidance for us once we have accepted him, that's all, neither I nor any other person on this thread has indicated that 'Ultra-Liberals' (using that term for the sake of brevity) are not saved or are to be written out of the Kingdom, merely that we feel their interpretation of God's guidance for our lives has been watered down and influenced by modern societies expectations. There's a subtle difference!
So take your snide attempts to define me out of the Kingdom and shove it alongside the rest of your crap.
quote:Now I won't speak for Rook, but the only issue I have been talking about on this thread is how we understand the Bible. So how the fuck is the question of what makes a Christian relevant unless you are implying that my views are somehow sub-Christian?
I reckon it's important in the light of the arguments put forward by Rook and Linzc to ask ourselves what it is that makes a Christian, Christian.
quote:I almost fell over flat on my back when I read this horseshit. Are you really saying Philo that when the 10 commandments says "Thou shalt not kill", God was saying "Thou shalt not kill anyone in your own country"!!!!!??????
Later Philo said:
Karl, you mentioned earlier there was a contradiction between 'Thou shall not kill' and the various massacres etc. The commandments applied only to Isrealites and those aliens living with/amongst them, not to Canaanites and other people-groups.
) is that we all try treating each other as we would like to be treated. You know, equal respect for each other's views, church practices, conceptions of God, ideas of the nature of truth, views on inerrancy, etc. Christians are all saved by grace after all. . Oh well. Seems like a good idea to me anyway.quote:Just a point of clarification - isn't the commandment better translated "Thou shall not murder" rather than "Thou shall not kill". Not all killing was forbidden - indeed execution was sanctioned in the law for some crimes. What was forbidden was murder - presumably one individual's act of anger against another.
Originally posted by linzc:
quote:I almost fell over flat on my back when I read this horseshit. Are you really saying Philo that when the 10 commandments says "Thou shalt not kill", God was saying "Thou shalt not kill anyone in your own country"!!!!!??????
Later Philo said:
Karl, you mentioned earlier there was a contradiction between 'Thou shall not kill' and the various massacres etc. The commandments applied only to Isrealites and those aliens living with/amongst them, not to Canaanites and other people-groups.
quote:Some killing is sanctioned as punishment for particular sin.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So if you kill one person it's murder, but if you kill thousands that's OK?
This is getting more bizarre by the minute.
quote:You said my thinking on the laws on death was bizarre - could you elaborate?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I seem to recall, long ago lost in the mists of time, starting a Purg thread asking how God differed from Big Brother, and how some brands of evangelical "soundness" differed from Doublethink.
Le plus qu'il change
quote:The entire point of the start of this thread was that Jensen by scrapping evensong is not respecting the church practices and views of some members of his own congregation and many other anglicans.
equal respect for each other's views, church practices, conceptions of God, ideas of the nature of truth, views on inerrancy, etc. Christians are all saved by grace after all.
quote:I find it difficult. But when I remember that
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You don't find that bizarre?
quote:If anyone is truly innocent of sin, they can take their place in heaven - a much better place than this earth since "to die is gain".
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'll see all your points and raise you "innocent babes in arms" which you don't seem to have realised the importance of.
quote:Karl, one way to stop all innocents dying would be for God to simply ban all sin. However, since he gave us free will, in order for him to abolish our capacity to sin, he would have to take the free will away too. Thanks Fish Fish for correcting me on the commandment I rather sloppily wrote as 'kill' when it is in fact murder. There is a clear distinction here that Fish Fish explained well.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'll see all your points and raise you "innocent babes in arms" which you don't seem to have realised the importance of.
quote:Well, if God is the powerful God who created the Universe and set up its physical rules, then I think he might just about manage to do perform such tasks as stopping the sun in the sky.
There are fairly strong reasons on both archeological and literary grounds to regard Joshua as mythical rather than historical - in genre it is closer to the Aeneid or Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, than it is to Thucydides or Macaulay. Another good reason for not treating the book of Joshua literally is the Copernican theory of astronomy - the sun does not travel across the sky every day, rather the earth rotates on it's axis. If this were to stop the results would be... interesting.
Would you honestly say that the book of Joshua was a work of history if you weren't committed to a theory of Biblical inerrancy?
quote:Imo, the theological implications of the holocaust are that people are sinners, and the Nazis did something 'very evil'. The Nazis were pagans, and not motivated by Christ or his glory at all. Since God has given us free will, he will not intervene to stop Nazi's doing terrible things. I and many others feel He wants us to understand the full horror of what 'I will them over to themselves' means. Sin is serious, and if God protects everyone from sin, then how will we know just why sin is bad, if we are forever protected from its affects? That's why it is so important to follow God and his guidelines, as revealed most clearly to us in the Bible (OT AND NT, which supercedes the OT with regards to matters of 'mass killings') and not our own thinking.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
So, first we hear that it's a "shame" that someone gets massacred. Then we get "it's alright being dead - you go to heaven!"
I am toying with the idea of inviting Fish Fish and Custard123 to share their thoughts on the theological implications of the Holocaust.
Or would that be just too embarrassing for all concerned?
quote:I just love armchair theologians who pontificate from their positions safe in the relative security of the First World, 21st Century. Would you enjoy God's justice if it rolled over you in early, historic Canaan in the form of a bunch of rampaging nomads crossing the Jordan, looting and murdering?
Perhaps those people who were massacred, aswell as imo to help establish Israel for the purposes I described earlier (and not insignificant purposes imo!), were there to show us the reality of sin, and just what kind of punishment sin really deserves. I'm not for one moment saying that I'm entirely comfortable with people being massacred in Canaan etc, that's why I trust God it was for very good reasons.
quote:Ah, silly me. Clearly I hadn't quite understood how serious sin was so I needed upwards of six million innocent people to die to teach me this. The death of God incarnate clearly wasn't a serious enough impetus.
Originally posted by philo25:
I and many others feel He wants us to understand the full horror of what 'I will them over to themselves' means
quote:OK...
Actually, I don't have a problem. I think you're an arrogant snot who has the temerity to claim to understand how I think, or how I come to conclusions. I think that you're a self-righteous snob who wants to claim the moral high-ground because you insist on trying to hold purgatorial discussions in hell.
quote:Yep, I thought so. Linzc is allowed to claim he is right and that he has alot of knowledge regarding these issues, but other people are wrong and lack knowledge. Also, disagreeing with Linzc and conducting 'purgotorial' arguments in Hell (everyone else appears to be making 'purgorial' arguments btw) is offensive, but being rude and juvenile isn't, apparently. Aren't you claiming to know how I think aswell, when you claim that 'I was trying to write you out of the kingdom'? I'm quite fascinated by your employment of double standards and your definition of what is and isn't offensive Linzc. I'm by now tired of essentially re-iterating the fact that you're being hypocritcal in complaining about this, so I won't be responding anymore to these aspects of your posts as it's frankly a waste of my time and yours. I will however reply to any theological points you make, and shock horror, yes I will disagree with your points sometimes, just as I'm more than happy for you and others to disagree with mine.
I know without a doubt that you've no theological understanding at all
quote:Thanks for the explanation. Now, you say your faith is in God and in him being made flesh, not in the accuracy of a book. So how do you know who God is, his character? If the book is innacurate in some way, how do you know to what extent it is innacurate? How would you even know who the Christian interpretation of God is today, without his Bible? Yes I'm aware the Bible wasn't there in the beginning, but God spoke directly to Abraham and Moses and his prophets, and oral traditions performed the same function our Bible does today, until scripture was formally written down, from about 1000BC onwards I think.
The Bible points us to the ultimate revelation of God-in-Christ. That is its purpose. It is trustworthy in that purpose. It needs to be understood, interpreted and applied according to that purpose. That means we have to do the hard work of figuring out how laws about different materials, stories of genocide in the name of God and historical and scientific inaccuracies are all part of the ongoing and progressive revelation of the God-who-was-in-Christ. The fact that this process is messy, leads to different ideas and opinions, and doesn't allow you to sit down and figure out God's Perfect Will For Your Life in 5 minutes over breakfast is where faith comes into it. That faith is in God and the Word (God made flesh), not in the accuracy of a book.
quote:One is reminded of Simon de Montfort: "Kill them all: God will recognise His own."
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So killing people really doesn't matter. They'll go to heaven.
I'm bowing out. Your position speaks for itself.
quote:Maybe Mousethief is right.
philo25 wrote: Karl many of the people that were massacred worshipedd false Gods such as Ball....
quote:Custard,
Originally posted by Custard123:
Sydney evangelicalism has grown up in a context of people attacking it all the time doctrinally, which probably explains why it is sometimes a little confrontationalist. They're human, and we all stuff up from time to time.
quote:Theological implications - I'd say the main one is that people are fundamentally bad. In Germany, the vast majority of "normal, decent people" went along with the Holocaust. Also worth using it as a reminder that death comes even to those in the "prime" of life.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
So, first we hear that it's a "shame" that someone gets massacred. Then we get "it's alright being dead - you go to heaven!"
I am toying with the idea of inviting Fish Fish and Custard123 to share their thoughts on the theological implications of the Holocaust.
Or would that be just too embarrassing for all concerned?
quote:Yes, lets look at the (innacurate? or accurate? who knows) Bible to see what Jesus said. But do I think what Jesus says here is consistent with my idea of God? And I hope there's no 'magic' in this or I'm off.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:Ah, silly me. Clearly I hadn't quite understood how serious sin was so I needed upwards of six million innocent people to die to teach me this. The death of God incarnate clearly wasn't a serious enough impetus.
Originally posted by philo25:
I and many others feel He wants us to understand the full horror of what 'I will them over to themselves' means
There is a story in the gospels - somewhere around Matthew 18 I believe, but I could be wrong - where Jesus asks the crowds about the deaths of 18 people killed when a tower collapsed on them or others killed by the occupying Romans who had their blood mixed with the altar sacrifice. What does Jesus say in answer to his own question?
and some of them were massacred. Whether to help establish Israel in order for the Gospel to be spread to all mankind or no, it's up to people to decide their point of view on that. quote:My point isn't that you can't conduct purgatorial arguments in Hell, my point is that if you choose to do so you can't get all self-righteous when people use strong language. If you want to debate by purgatorial standards you know where to go.
Originally posted by philo25:
quote:Yep, I thought so. Linzc is allowed to claim he is right and that he has alot of knowledge regarding these issues, but other people are wrong and lack knowledge. Also, disagreeing with Linzc and conducting 'purgotorial' arguments in Hell (everyone else appears to be making 'purgorial' arguments btw) is offensive, but being rude and juvenile isn't, apparently.
I know without a doubt that you've no theological understanding at all
quote:Yes I am, and I have given the evidence as to why, and I note that in neither of your responses could you give any alternative explanation.
Aren't you claiming to know how I think aswell, when you claim that 'I was trying to write you out of the kingdom'?
quote:You answer your own question. I don't 'know', I have faith. You have faith that the Bible is a 100% accurate manual for living. I have faith that God is trustworthy in using the writings of erring men and women to reveal what he wants us to know about Christ. I also happen to think that my belief is more consistent with what the Bible says about itself, and far more consistent with the other ways God works in the world.
Thanks for the explanation. Now, you say your faith is in God and in him being made flesh, not in the accuracy of a book. So how do you know who God is, his character? If the book is innacurate in some way, how do you know to what extent it is innacurate?
quote:So you say, but I would argue exactly the converse - by unthinkingly accepting everything in the Bible at face value we clutter up our understanding of God with all sorts of unhelpful crap. You'll need to actually put forward an argument rather than just saying it's so.
But if we claim there are innacuracies in the Bible, then we begin imo to lose sight of who God and his Messiah is, and want He wants. We know some of who He is by accepting bits we deem to be accurate, but then lose sight of other bits.
quote:You feel this, I feel the opposite.
As I explained with Callan's thinking in an earlier post, I feel we get into all sorts of trouble theologically if we only accept some bits as accurate and others bits as not. Now I'm not claiming there are no difficulties at all with taking an innerantist view of the Bible, but I feel there are far less than with, as I see it, us choosing which bits we feel are consistent with God and which bits aren't in the Bible.
quote:But you don't get it do you! It always all comes down to faith. You choose to have faith that the Bible is God's perfect revelation and the Koran is not. In an exactly parallel way I choose to have faith in the Christian God not the Muslim God.
I don't feel I would be able to know who God the Father is, or who Jesus is and what his purpose was on Earth was, if I didn't rely on the accuracy of the Bible. Perhaps that's a deficiency in my intellect, but please if you will, and Callan anyone else etc, explain to me how one can trust who God really is, if we cannot entirely trust who the Bible is saying He is, due to certain innacuracies. How can one maintain a Faith in the Christian idea of God, as opposed to the Muslim/Hindu version? Is it becuase some deem there to be still greater innacuracies in the Koran?
quote:Thanks for this helpful background CB - my knowledge is very much more about Sydney evangelicals in England.
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
quote:Custard,
Originally posted by Custard123:
Sydney evangelicalism has grown up in a context of people attacking it all the time doctrinally, which probably explains why it is sometimes a little confrontationalist. They're human, and we all stuff up from time to time.
Any chance of you providing some evidence to support that assertion? I've only got 30 years adult experience of the Anglican Church in Australia, so there may well be things you know about it which I don't.
However, I'll take my chances from my limited perspective:
Sydney evangelicalism was the default position of the Anglican Church in Australia at the time of its inception. This is not a matter of theological significance so much as historical happenstance: the the late 18th Century, the CofE was largely evangelical, though not in the tradition of REFORM or Sydney.
Australian Diocese were established progressively with the settlement of the country, and tended by and large to reflect the prevailing trends of the CofE at the time of their establishment. This meant that the church across the country exhibited considerable diversity, but most Diocese, with the notable exception of Melbourne, were internally fairly homogenous. There were, of course, exceptions in every place (the Evangelical rump in Adelaide, the Anglo-Catholic establishments in Sydney). For the most part, compromise was achieved, and folk got on okay.
As a result of being first cab off the rank, as it were, the Anglican Diocese of Sydney enjoyed considerable financial benefits. It has remained by far the most wealthy of any of the Diocese, largely because of the property which was gifted to what was at the time of settlement the Australian Church in toto, but subsequently became the Dio.Sydney.
The current tenor of evangelical (fundamentalist) thinking in Sydney Anglicanism probably stems from a particular coterie of highly able, rigorous and rationalist students in the late 1960's and early 1970's. This group also had a significant impact on the university student work, first in Sydney and then more widely, through the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students. This was reinforced by a focus on University churches. It also nurtured some excellent academics, some of whom went on to teach at Moore College.
These connections created an environment where the current Sydney Evangelicalism was able to thrive unhindered. It has only been in relatively recent years, as the distance between the current Sydney position and that of evangelicals and moderates in other Diocese (and other countries) has become clear, that the Sydney position has faced any sort of theological challenge. This has been further exacerbated by the practice of Sydney -trained clergy planting churches in other Diocese, sometimes within the bounds of parishes which identify themselves as evangelical.
Even in the face of this opposition, there is very little evidence that the Diocese of Sydney perceives itself as being assailed on all sides. It continues to threaten schism, to use its numbers to impose its will on the National church, and to pursue an aggressive agenda in student work and church planting.
I'll repeat my point of some pages ago, on the off chance that it might eventually penetrate the veils of prejudice and prick the baloon of self-righteousness: This isn't an evangelical v. liberal brawl, or an irrenancy v. infallibility debate, or a difference about music or vestments... This is about a bunch of blokes setting out to systematically redefine what it means to be an Evangelical Anglican in such a way that many of us who have long held a deep commitment to Anglicanism and to the principles of Evangelicalism find ourselves confronted, threatened, abused and in peril of becoming theologicaly and ecclesiologicaly homeless.
quote:Wasn't Job written first?
Originally posted by dyfrig:
The early Bible writers clearly interpret it in the latter category. As you rightly point out, some later threads in Israelite literature actually question this view - this is at its most poignant in Job, of course.
quote:Of course not! Genesis starts on page 1, and Job doesn't start until page 470!
Originally posted by Wood:
Otherwise excellent post, Dyfrig, but for one thing...
quote:Wasn't Job written first?
Originally posted by dyfrig:
The early Bible writers clearly interpret it in the latter category. As you rightly point out, some later threads in Israelite literature actually question this view - this is at its most poignant in Job, of course.
quote:Except, of course, present Herself to me in any unambiguous way.
Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
In some ways I'm very sad, you seem to have no connection to a personal God, one who has done EVERYTHING he can to have a one-on-one relationship with you,
quote:Am I glad I stayed out of this thread.
Originally posted by linzc:
... but I would argue exactly the converse - by unthinkingly accepting everything in the Bible at face value we clutter up our understanding of God with all sorts of unhelpful crap.
quote:Custard,
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:Thanks for this helpful background CB - my knowledge is very much more about Sydney evangelicals in England.
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
quote:Custard,
Originally posted by Custard123:
Sydney evangelicalism has grown up in a context of people attacking it all the time doctrinally, which probably explains why it is sometimes a little confrontationalist. They're human, and we all stuff up from time to time.
Any chance of you providing some evidence to support that assertion? I've only got 30 years adult experience of the Anglican Church in Australia, so there may well be things you know about it which I don't.
However, I'll take my chances from my limited perspective:
<big snip to remove background stuff>
I'll repeat my point of some pages ago, on the off chance that it might eventually penetrate the veils of prejudice and prick the baloon of self-righteousness: This isn't an evangelical v. liberal brawl, or an irrenancy v. infallibility debate, or a difference about music or vestments... This is about a bunch of blokes setting out to systematically redefine what it means to be an Evangelical Anglican in such a way that many of us who have long held a deep commitment to Anglicanism and to the principles of Evangelicalism find ourselves confronted, threatened, abused and in peril of becoming theologicaly and ecclesiologicaly homeless.
For what it's worth, Sydney Anglicanism seems to be largely being embraced by conservative evangelicals in England, and I haven't heard too many grumbling noises about it as opposed to about conservative evangelicalism in general, except on the Ship.
Custard
quote:IRL, I haven't come across any opposition to Oak Hill from evangelicals. Though Pete Braodbent expressed something distinctly resembling it on here.
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
My understanding is that both Sydney style Evangelicalism here and the REPA/REFORM equivalents in the UK have caused considerable consternation among traditional evangelical Anglicans. They may well be less of a concern to other conservative evangelicals for whom the Anglican tradition is of no interest.
quote:There's congregationalism and congregationalism though. It is true that many (but by no means all) of the Oak Hill people I know are probably congregationalist rather than episcopelian in their leanings wrt church governance. But most if not all would also agree strongly with the 39 articles and want to stay in the C of E as long as it would have them.
Nunc has already pointed to clergy whose attitude is thoroughly congregationalist, to the point of declining to bury people who weren't 'members' of the church.
quote:Again, from my experience, Sydney evangelicals are much more likely to have women in leadership roles in the churches than old-style conservative evangelicals (some of whom didn't allow women to speak up front at all). Here in the UK anyway. OTOH, I know what you are saying here. I guess this boils down to whether they are right about women preaching or not rather than simply them being a negative influence.
I could cite examples of theologically trained lay-women who were preaching regularly 20 years ago, and rarely get offered a pulpit today, while guys with much less training spout forth their fundamentalist clap-trap for hours on end.
quote:Does Moore take women for ordination? Oak Hill does.
And women who are told by their clergy that it would be an act of disobedience if they pursued ordination, despite their strong sense of vocation.
quote:depends how seriously they take it I guess!
Or those who are accused of lacking 'Gospel priorities' if they take liturgy seriously.
quote:I guess again it depends on the details (and to what extent the person had changed their views). But again, I don't know of anything like that happeneing in England.
Or academics who leave Moore to teach in other places and find themselves accused of having 'gone soft' because they are willing to listen to others and engage in constructive dialogue.
quote:I am, as are all the Oak Hill types I know, fully in favour of women using their gifts for the building up of God's church - we'd just probably disagree with you over the context in which that should be expressed.
Or traditional evangelical Anglican clergy who encourage the women (lay or ordained) to fully and freely explore the gifts for ministry which God has given them, and are given to understand that it would be a waste of time applying for a job in Sydney, unless they want to go to an Anglo-Catholic parish. Of course, if, for family or other reasons, they did take such a parish, they would then be seen to have sold out!
quote:On the contrary, I accept both the 'Harry Potter' bits and the 'Thucydides' bits as Scripture. What I don't do is insist that they are the same kind of literature.
Nonetheless, while Callan is quite witty in couching con evo positions on the OT in terms of a 'Big Brother' God, his I would coin 'halfway-house' interpretation of the Bible rather diminishes its message. Callan apparently is comfortable with reading through the Bible, and only accepting those bits that are written in a style similar to Thucydides, and anything with any 'Harry Potter' in it he dismisses!
quote:It's all definition of course - what is a 'conservative evangelical' Anglican church in the UK? FWIW I attended an evangelical Anglican church in Kent for 4 years (97-00) and during that time was also involved in the Diocesan Continuing Ministerial Education programme, so I got to know about 20 clergy from the Diocese reasonably well, of which about half a dozen self-identified as evangelical. I was also good friends with our own Rector and the two curates that were around in that time period. Of all of these UK evangelical anglicans, one was a gung-ho Sydney admirer, the rest had grave difficulties with Sydney's ethos and were seriously concerned about Sydney's affect on the Anglican Communion more widely.
Originally posted by Custard123:
For what it's worth, Sydney Anglicanism seems to be largely being embraced by conservative evangelicals in England, and I haven't heard too many grumbling noises about it as opposed to about conservative evangelicalism in general, except on the Ship.
quote:ok. I don't know Kent well at all, being a Mancunian. In fact, I think I could count the number of Kentish churches I can name on the fingers of one hand. From what little I hear though, I'd class St Nick's Sevenoaks as conservative evangelical. Apologies to anyone involved if my impression is incorrect.
Originally posted by linzc:
It's all definition of course - what is a 'conservative evangelical' Anglican church in the UK? FWIW I attended an evangelical Anglican church in Kent for 4 years (97-00) and during that time was also involved in the Diocesan Continuing Ministerial Education programme, so I got to know about 20 clergy from the Diocese reasonably well, of which about half a dozen self-identified as evangelical. I was also good friends with our own Rector and the two curates that were around in that time period. Of all of these UK evangelical anglicans, one was a gung-ho Sydney admirer, the rest had grave difficulties with Sydney's ethos and were seriously concerned about Sydney's affect on the Anglican Communion more widely.
quote:Nunc this is another one of your outrageous generalisations. You know two people who have been horribly treated by Anglican clergymen in Sydney in two geographically diverse suburbs. There are hundreds of Anglican clergy in Sydney and there is nothing in your post to suggest that the terrible thing you have described is, as you assert, ‘not isolated to one or two individual ministers’. Are there some less than perfect ministers in a diocese the size of Sydney? What a shocking surprise! I know dozens of clergy in Sydney and I can say with confidence that they would all be appalled at the alleged behaviour that you describe, goodness me and they’re Moore College trained and all!.
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
For instance, "ministers" refuse to bury people not connected with their immediate congregation; funeral parlours often have to call around people who are willing to minister to those who are grieving - regardless of religious faith. I would have thought that, far from turning such people away, here is a golden opportunity for Christ to shine through one and "witness" the gospel in a unique way (albeit obliquely). But noooo. I have direct evidence from this in the experience of at least two people whom the funeral parlours contact to fill in. And this is not isolated to one or two individual ministers.* It seems to be something that is directly related to the mindset produced by the present day Moore College, and it is such that I am at a complete loss to explain it, completely flabbergasted by an approach that lacks a basic care for other vulnerable people.
• And it covers a wide geographic area, from the north of Sydney through to the mid-southern suburbs of Sydney.
quote:flabbergasting in the ignorance it displays of what actually goes on at Moore College. There is an open day coming up. Maybe you should attend before you add to the pile of gross inaccuracies you have created over the years on this board and others about college life and college training. I know this is Hell, but surely there is a limit to the number of crimes that one woman can attribute to a Theological College of which she knows almost nothing. Open days are normally attended by those who are thinking of going to college, but they are open to everyone. They’ll even give you lunch for free. August 28th 10am to 2pm. Phone 9577 9999 to book. John Woodhouse will be there, so will Narelle Jarrett, ask them any question you like. Ask Narelle about the subject she teaches on grief counselling. Just stop blaming Moore College for everything that gets up your nose. As I have come to know Barry Webb, Peter O’brien, Paul Williamson, Andrew Cameron, Narelle Jarrett, Mark Baddley, Brian Rosner, Richard Gibson, Wendy Colquhoun (for non-Sydneyites, a sample of the faculty who immediately spring to mind) I have found them to be gentle, humble, godly Christian leaders. Through the ups and downs of community life I have seen them deal with situations of grief and distress (including that in my own family) with compassion and empathy and Christian love. I thank God for the mindset they have encouraged us to adopt.
It seems to be something that is directly related to the mindset produced by the present day Moore College
quote:Interesting. I'm happy that there are caring people there. My experiences have been somewhat different.
Originally posted by CJS:
Through the ups and downs of community life I have seen them deal with situations of grief and distress (including that in my own family) with compassion and empathy and Christian love. I thank God for the mindset they have encouraged us to adopt.
quote:Well, sin can cause depression. So if what you had done was sinful, perhaps (and just perhaps) it was a cause for your depression. A decent minister will not forever dodge the issue of sin. If they do, they are failing their calling as shepherds to their flock. Just how sensatively that's done can obviously vary greatly - but I'm sure insensativity (or bad reactions to perceived insensativity) is not the preserve of Moore college or Oak Hill graduates. I'm sure we can all tell our horror stories of insensativity.
Originally posted by Ian H:
I was told by one Moore College type that my depression must have been caused by me having sex (as sex is the major cause of depression).
quote:
Originally posted by Ian H:
I was told by one Moore College type...
quote:Ahhhhhhhh! This is the very thing that gets me hellish!
And other MC graduates / students told me equally insane things.
quote:Yes, it's called Fiction.
Oh - LATA, isn't "sin causes depression" a reasonable three word summary of Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment?
quote:But of course.
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Are you for real, Fish Fish? Do actually believe this nonsense you sprout?
quote:WTF is this? Have you actually read any of the posts? I don't like some of the MC types who believe that their way is the only way and the rest of us are "at best sub-Christian". I am fed up with a supposedly Anglican diocese wanting to be Baptist / Reformed (which are both wonderful and valid expressions of Christianity) yet holding on to the name "Anglican". Piss off!
Fish Fish shat the following:
People don't like them [Moore College] because they don't like what the Bible says, and try to dodge it or reinterpret it (water it down?).
quote:I beg to disagree. Some depression is a result of sin and guilt, just as some illness is a result of sin and guilt. Sometimes Jesus heals people where sin has caused their illness (e.g. Mark 2:1-12) and sometimes he heals where sin is not the cause (e.g. John 9:3).
Originally posted by Cusanus:
Depression, you idiots is a disease. It is a chemical imbalance in the brain. It needs treatment by a doctor. It is NOT feeling sad, or guilty, and it is NOT caused by sin. Got that? Now shut the fuck up about it.
quote:FF, in basic theology we agree on much. However, aside from some of the stuff you have written here being quite insulting to people who have depression, this is a completely bonkers reading of Mark 2.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Sometimes Jesus heals people where sin has caused their illness (e.g. Mark 2:1-12) and sometimes he heals where sin is not the cause (e.g. John 9:3).
quote:Wow - sorry you disagree - and sorry if I've been insensative.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
FF, in basic theology we agree on much. However, aside from some of the stuff you have written here being quite insulting to people who have depression, this is a completely bonkers reading of Mark 2.
quote:Cusanus - I apologise if I have offended you.
Originally posted by Cusanus:
Depression, you idiots is a disease. It is a chemical imbalance in the brain. It needs treatment by a doctor. It is NOT feeling sad, or guilty, and it is NOT caused by sin. Got that? Now shut the fuck up about it.
quote:The question is inappropriate as long as the person has not been checked by a doctor for chemical imbalance. Such a person is already in the depths of despair, and such a question will make things much worse.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Some depression is a result of sin and guilt, just as some illness is a result of sin and guilt. Sometimes Jesus heals people where sin has caused their illness (e.g. Mark 2:1-12) and sometimes he heals where sin is not the cause (e.g. John 9:3).
So while the minister may have been grossly insensitive in the way he asked the question, the question is far from invalid or inapropriate.
quote:Moo - I completely agree - that would be my aproach as well.
Originally posted by Moo:
The question is inappropriate as long as the person has not been checked by a doctor for chemical imbalance. Such a person is already in the depths of despair, and such a question will make things much worse.
If it has been established that the problem is not medical, it is still a mistake to start making suggestions about which sins the depressed person may have committed. He should be encouraged to talk about what was happening in his life before he became depressed. It's possible that he suffered some bereavement or major reversal in his career plans which devastated him.
If a person is depressed because of sin, this fact should be uncovered by quiet conversation, not judgmental questioning.
Moo
quote:My assumption was that IanH told the "Morre College Type" that he had had sex and now felt depressed. If this was the case, then it was entirely reasonable to ask "is your depression a consequence of having sex".
Originally posted by Ian H:
I was told by one Moore College type that my depression must have been caused by me having sex (as sex is the major cause of depression).
quote:Which is clearly totally inappropriate.
Originally posted by Ian H:
In the interests of the whole story, I have never had sex and, given "Have you had sex?" was the first question he asked after I said I was feeling down, I was taken a bit aback.
quote:Fish Fish, I've tried to engage rationally with this discussion, and have clearly failed to make any impact on the people who need to hear what life is really like on this side of the world.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Mind you, he wasn't actually from Moore College was he? So I'm not sure how that's relevant to the OP!
)
quote:I can see the guilt part, but the sin connection is totally pulled from your own ass. If someone believes that something is really a sin, and develop guilt about it, I can see that contributing to depression - but the "sin" part is utterly superfluous.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I beg to disagree. Some depression is a result of sin and guilt, just as some illness is a result of sin and guilt.
quote:For what it's worth, he was a graduate of Moore. I meant "Moore College graduate" not "Moore College type" -- I must learn to use Preview Post.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Mind you, he wasn't actually from Moore College was he? So I'm not sure how that's relevant to the OP!
quote:Fishy dear, much of what you say strikes me as nonsense. Usually I get a good belly-laugh out of it. But when you start on your Fundy-Pop Psychology and class a good deal of shipmates, who have been quite open about the depression that they suffer, as sinners now paying for those sins (forgive me if I have your diagnosis wrong, but that's pretty much how it sounds), I feel the need to point out to you that you are talking drivel.
Just wondering what exactly was nonsense about what I said?
quote:I made shipmate?!?!?!?
Originally posted by Custard123:
Thanks for turning up CJS - it is good to have my guesses about what is going on in Sydney braodly confirmed by someone with first hand knowledge of Moore. Oh, and congrats (?? if that is the right term) on attaining Shipmate status.
Custard
quote:Ian I don't know how long ago all this depression thing was for you, but are you doing OK now?
Originally posted by Ian H:
Fair point CJS re my "picking on" MC - I do not deny I have a lot of issues with how I was treated by certain graduates / students there. I will be more careful in the future.
I was quite unclear in the context. In the interests of the whole story, I have never had sex and, given "Have you had sex?" was the first question he asked after I said I was feeling down, I was taken a bit aback.
Thankfully a friend suggested I see a doctor afterwards...which was a help.
quote:*snort* Thankyou for writing off my posts as just cranked up media garbage.
OTOH, I haven't spoken to Nunc about this so don't know if this was first hand knowledge or via the media. I know from personal experience how good the media are at getting the wrong end of stories and twisting them. If first hand, then I sincerely hope and expect that it was just a very small minority.
quote:Your’re right I misread, but again, your suggestion that Anglican clergy in Sydney have a general principle of not taking the funeral’s of ‘outsiders’ is simply wrong.
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Fortunately for Ian, he has met Anglican clergy from other dioceses, and good quality Uniting Church clergy who have brought him back to Jesus, so keep your Moore College mits off him!
quote:*snort* Thankyou for writing off my posts as just cranked up media garbage.
OTOH, I haven't spoken to Nunc about this so don't know if this was first hand knowledge or via the media. I know from personal experience how good the media are at getting the wrong end of stories and twisting them. If first hand, then I sincerely hope and expect that it was just a very small minority.
Oh, and CJS, it wasn't two people who had had bad experiences at the hands of unsympathetic Moore trained clergy; you misread my post.
What I was actually saying, is that at least two people I know are being asked to take funerals/crematorium/graveside committals - because your buddies refuse to have anything to do with the families and loved ones left behind. It's not just once or twice: it's a veritable drought of Sydney Anglican clergy - and the funeral parlours are complaining about it.
Actually, your suggestion I pop along to the Moore Open Day is a good one: it would give me pleasure to speak to people about the ordination selection process here, and compare it with other places... especially seeing as I am a woman.
*Now taking bets on which of the lovely people CJS mentions above will be the first to suggest that it's impossible for women to be called to be deacons or priests, and say something along the lines of "Now, dear, can we interest you in some quality children's ministry?"*
quote:I find it ironic that I'm called an arrogant fuckwit by someone who accuses me of pastoral insensitivity. Thanks for the practical illustration of what I am lacking.
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
That, however, is consistent with the rest of the batshit you've posted on this thread. It is my fervent prayer that if I ever find myself in need of pastoral care or intelligent advice I do so a very long way from you, and anyone else who shares your perspective. You are an arrogant fuckwit.
quote:I find it mind-numbingly stupid that you could be such a fuckwit as to even consider that pastoral care is to be expected in Hell. Thanks for the practical illustration of what you are lacking.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I find it ironic that I'm called an arrogant fuckwit by someone who accuses me of pastoral insensitivity. Thanks for the practical illustration of what I am lacking.
quote:Niceness in Hell!?!?! What is happening!?!!?
Originally posted by CJS:
Ian I don't know how long ago all this depression thing was for you, but are you doing OK now?
Thanks - drugs are keeping me happy. quote:Having spoken to Nunc about vocations and such, I can be 1000% sure she does understand how things work. Whether she was having a laugh [I can just imagine her kitted up in a cloak and swinging a thurible through Moore College] or was serious [if I was considering a vocation I think I'd take the chance to go to an Open Day and at least get started on the process...] I am unsure of, but I do know she is quite knowledgable in terms of ordination / vocation processes.
Originally posted by CJS:
Firstly, there would be little point consulting any of the college faculty about the ordination selection process because Moore College does not and has never run the ordination selection process, the Archbishop, in consultation with his Department of Ministry Training and Development does that.
quote:I am not asserting that it is a "general policy". I am merely pointing out that the fact that what seems a significant number of Sydney Anglican clergy are doing in refusing to deal with "outsiders" illustrates a breathtakingly insular view of pastoral care - which in my opinion is appalling. I don't know the numbers who are actually refusing to do this, but it must be quite some, for two notable and well frequented crematoria to be concerned...
Your’re right I misread, but again, your suggestion that Anglican clergy in Sydney have a general principle of not taking the funeral’s of ‘outsiders’ is simply wrong.
quote:Darling Sweet, if I decided to pursue vocation in Sydney, I know where I would go and what I would do. However, you can't tell me that the staff at Moore are completely ignorant about such things - and if I didn't know, I am confident they would point me in the right direction. Besides, I would've thought they would be experienced in handling ordinands, and know enough about the process to align what they teach with the candidature process.
That you could make such a false assertion does not surprise given that this very post demonstrates two misunderstandings of how things work in your diocese. Firstly, there would be little point consulting any of the college faculty about the ordination selection process because Moore College does not and has never run the ordination selection process, the Archbishop, in consultation with his Department of Ministry Training and Development does that.
quote:Mate, I used to attend the Cathedral, I was an assistant verger there and enthusiastic congregant. I've witnessed women being deaconed. I have spoken with several Sydney women deacons. It is my understanding, however, that there are increasingly fewer women going along the diaconal path in Sydney, precisely because they do not see the diaconate as the end of their call; in Anglican circles the diaconate is still the stepping stone to the priesthood... And the other aspect of this of course is that women are discouraged from preaching, and as deacons are supposed to do at least some of this (in addition to other things), People In Charge in the diocese are quietly discouraging women from being ordained at all...
Secondly, I find it astonishing that someone who claims to be an expert on the machinations of her diocese does not realize that women are deaconed in Sydney. Indeed I have female friends who I expect will be made deacons on the same day that I am. I know that most on this board will consider the policies of Sydney diocese on women's ministry inadequate and if you want to have that argument I’m sure that there is something in the dead horse section. Flog away.
quote:That's right, I know nothing whatsoever and am just an aggro liberal with an axe to grind. My experience and the experience of many people I know is nothing to be taken seriously... (Remind me not to come anywhere near you if I ever need pastoral care.
My point is only to reiterate that Nunc’s periodic sweeping assertions about ‘the way it is’ in Sydney diocese need to be taken with an artery clogging amount of salt.
)quote:Riiiiight.
Nunc, don’t forget the free lunch. We stole SMBC's chef and he's good.
quote:That’s right, you can make sweeping unsubstantiated and inaccurate generalisations about the clergy in Sydney on the basis of heresay, slander people on the faculty of Moore College and misrepresent the details of Sydney’s policies on women’s ministry because you’re not an insensitive Jensenite. The experience of you and ‘many people you knowTM' must become the lens through which all reality in Sydney is viewed and anyone who suggests that you’ve got it wrong (in hell no less) is incapable of pastoral care. Now I understand Darling Sweet
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
That's right, I know nothing whatsoever and am just an aggro liberal with an axe to grind. My experience and the experience of many people I know is nothing to be taken seriously... (Remind me not to come anywhere near you if I ever need pastoral care.
