Episcopal Church Urged to Table Disciplining Bishop

DeaconScott »

Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

Gratus -

Yes, I did say that.

I don't know what "homosexualism" is, I've never heard that expression before. Do you mean "homosexuality?"

And I don't know that you mean by "the fallacy of" homosexualism. A fallacy is a logical error. Either you are using that expression incorrectly, or there is some syllogism somewhere which you think "homosexualism" refutes. Or something like that. Which is it? I appreciate your desire to be pithy, but you overshot into cryptic - I think a little more information might have been called-for.

And I can't imagine what you could possibly mean by any "fallacy of Biblical criticism!" Hermeneutics, of which biblical criticism is a part, is simply necessary for biblical interpretation, without which no understanding is possible.


Meanwhile, you seem to believe that that brief pericope from Romans is a flat prohibition on same-sex genital sexuality. That is a position which many have held, and one which is not entirely inconsistent with the text, but it is not the only interpretation, and I am confident that it is a misinterpretation.

That is a description of flawed behavior which result from "the wrath of God ... against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18, which begins the passage of which your section is a part).

Also, Matt 5:19 refers to the commandments of the Hebrew Scripture (see v 17).

I think you may have fallen prey to the dangers of proof-texting out of context (and of using archaic translations).

Episcopal Church Urged to Table Disciplining Bishop

DeaconScott »

Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

akonda -

The Holy Spirit is referred to in many places as the Spirit of "Wisdom," which, in the Greek, is "sofia." The Holy Spirit is also frequently referred to as "the breath" of life or of God (cf the conversation with Nicodemus), which, in the Greek, is "pneuma."

Both of these are grammatically feminine nouns; consequently, it is entirely appropriate to refer to the Third Person of the Trinity using feminine pronouns or possessives.

It is entirely true that God, the Trinity, is unquestionably masculine, in at least some senses of the term. It is thus appropriate to use grammatically masculine expressions to refer to God.

And, obviously, the Second Person of the Trinity had been a man and not a woman in the human side of his Dual Nature, so it would be inappropriate to refer to him other than by using grammatically masculine expressions.

Episcopal Church Urged to Table Disciplining Bishop

DeaconScott »

Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 6

Iranaeus -

Well, no, actually.

The Diocese of New Hampshire and the Episcopal Church followed and follow their respective Constitution and Canons, and, being open to the Spirit and Jesus' commands, go where he leads.

TEC and the House of Bishops have always stated that we desire ardently to remain in communion with Canterbury and the rest of the Communion; indeed the rest of Christ's Body on Earth, the church. And we have, at some cost to ourselves, done all that our polity allows to do of what the Communion, through the Windsor Commission, has indicated it wishes us to do.

Most emphatically, the same cannot be said of Akinola, Orombi, and others.

And as I said later in my post, if we are wrong, I trust the Holy Spirit to guide us; if we are right, do you trust the Spirit enough to be led by her guidance?

Episcopal Church Urged to Table Disciplining Bishop

DeaconScott »

Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:03 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

Disloyalty is never a good thing, especially so in the church, most especially in the highest levels of leadership in the church. Schofield, Duncan, Iker, and others (Ackermann?) have demonstrated by their words and actions, not just conscientious disagreement, not loyal opposition, not theological dissent, but disloyalty.

They need to be given an opportunity to decide and to state with clarity whether their efforts to "disaffiliate" are what they appear to be: leaving the Episcopal Church.

Similarly, Venables, Akinola, Orombi and others need an opportunity to decide and state with clarity whether their incursions into other churches - TEC and ACC, at least - are what they appear to be: direct violations of ancient tradition and of key recommendations of the Windsor Report.

If things are as they appear to be, let it be so, and farewell. If not, let these arrant bishops return to the service which Our Lord consecrated them to, serving God's people through God's church.

If the church is headed in a wrong direction, the Holy Spirit, breathing wisdom through the church, will correct it, as the Spirit has always done. But if these bishops succeed in their efforts to destroy the church, there will be no church for the Spirit to correct.

Those who seek to destroy the church cannot be on the side of the angels, no matter how honestly they may hold their opinions, no matter how sincere they may be in their beliefs.

Archbishop of Canterbury Dismisses Three Wise Men as 'Legend'

DeaconScott »

Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Many thanks to "wilderness" for posting the link to the actual conversation. If one were to read it, one would see that this news story fails in several significant ways to characterize accurately the Archbishop's remarks (especially regarding the Magi and the behavior of the Star).

And that those remarks firmly uphold the Biblical accounts, as distinct from popular mythology, which (it appears) many think is God's Own Truth.

It astonishes me that so many seem to think that what isn't in the Bible is, what is in the Bible isn't, and that their own interpretation of what is and isn't, is the only faithful interpretation one may have.