Anglican Split Feared as Gay Bishop Is Consecrated (Can you say apostacy?)

wbur.org ^

[harmony]

[begin Cliff Notes] My motivation for that tagline was to shame the poster it was addressed to for their own tag. As with the rest of the post, I tried to do it by pointing out that they were being a poor representative of their group. I went on to imply that maybe all of Christianity had become as hypocritical as they were. I don't really believe that, but I figured that if this person thought they were being a bad testimony, they'd change their way for the sake of their religion's reputation. [end Cliff Notes]

"How Does a godless heathen like you KNOW what's not cool? Is it just random?"

Hehehehe -- no more random than contemporary interpretations of an ancient manuscript of dubious origin ;-)

But no, you raise a good philosophical question. How could I possibly know that it's not cool to equate Muslim American citizens and terrorists? Three answers.

First, it is shoddy logic. Some Muslims are terrorists does not imply all Muslims are terrorists. That's easy.

Second, it's not nice. I know it in the same way I know that it's not cool to blow people up, or to assume that every Black American I meet is a gangster. And that is simply driven by empathy. I would feel bad if happened to me, so I won't do it to others.

Finally, I'll answer with a rhetorical question. I suspect that you asked your question because you don't believe that a non-Christian can be moral? If I am right in that, here is my question: are you so bereft of logic and human empathy that you are incapable of discerning right from wrong, without some dogma to tell you?

Then what makes you think I am?

[harmony]

"The BOOK doesn't seem to think so..."

I have little doubt that the bible takes a very strong anti-homosexuality stance. The oft-quoted "King David was gay" thing looks like it could be misinterpretation, and even if it wasn't, it stands in stark contrast to the rest of the text. Given that it's rather difficult to change the Book these days, there's really no room to move there, that much is obvious.

What isn't so obvious is how the people will change. In 100 years from now, how will the progressive church justify what they will do? I'm almost inclined to believe that anti-homosexuality is *so* prevalent in the bible, that it will take a bit more than apologetics -- more than a few reinterpretations here and there, or a shift of focus sensu slavery -- to rectify the problem.

I can already see the homosexuality apologetics forming, but it looks unconvincing, to me at least. I don't know, perhaps in the future it will be better developed. It certainly would be easier to accept in a society where homosexuality is not frowned upon at all, which is what I imagine will happen in a century or three. People can do amazing feats of "I didn't see that" when they spot unpalatable things in the bible.

What I am certain of, however, is that whatever they do, it will mean a further deemphasis on the Old Testament, because that's were the most unequivocal statements are (but yes, they are also in the New Testament, but not quite as dramatic). Particularly if they take the "we'll just pretend that scripture's not there, shall we?" route.

[Elsie]

No accident, but it is called FUCHSIA in my e-mail font colors. (almost Freudian; eh?)

---

...it will mean a further deemphasis on the Old Testament...

Just as I do NOT have to follow the traffic laws in Paris, France as I drive around Indianapolis, NO one but the Israelites had the LAW given to them, so as a Gentile, the OT has not much emphasis now.

As Paul points up so well in Romans, the law never WAS able to anything more than to point out our (their) inability to KEEP it! thus, a need for a Savior: the One promised all throughout the OT.

[Elsie]

....you are incapable of discerning right from wrong, without some dogma to tell you?

[I'll bet he comes back with, "It's the dogma that DEFINES right and wrong."]

[expatpat]

Well, you probably know more about it than me, but "high" CoE (Anglican?)has always seemed like a group of CoE folks who like the ritual/ceremony of the RC church, but prefer to be without the Pope.

In any event, I'm glad that you're not like the ECUSA gang.

[harmony]

"As Paul points up so well in Romans, the law never WAS able to anything more than to point out our (their) inability to KEEP it! thus, a need for a Savior: the One promised all throughout the OT."

Heh. I wonder how our Jewish friends feel about you saying that.

I didn't mean to disparage the New Covenant/Old Covenant doctrine. But I'll admit, and it may well just be my own perception, that I think a good too many in the church just don't know their Old Testament well enough. On an intellectual level, even.

It's one thing to say 'Old Covenant', but it is a bit dismissive, and gives no appreciation of context, if it's just left at that. Else one goes around thinking of Judaism proto-Christianity rather than a tradition in its own right, or don't recognise their religion as a product of a culture very different from their local church (i.e. strongly patriarchal, war-like for good portions, and ambiguous regarding things we would consider crimes).

Of course, saying that will probably be at odds with you. I expect you believe your bible is untainted by cultural influences (except in inconsequential ways that don't alter the integrity of the central themes)?

"I'll bet he comes back with, "It's the dogma that DEFINES right and wrong.""

Sure, but that doesn't change what I said. Not having my right and wrong predefined for me does not impede my ability to find it.

And if he/she argues that, I'll proceed to argue the converse, just to be difficult. If you are used to accepting your definitions from some authority, will you notice when the authority gets it wrong? And if you do, will you just go with what the authority says anyway, because it's easier than questioning everything you've done for the past however-many years?

Ah, but I keep on forgetting. The authority can never get it wrong. Well, that's what the authority said anyway :-)

[keilimon]

I have heard it described as traditional worship without Protestant subtractions or Papal additions. Really, it is worship according to the seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. It is very close to the way Christians worshipped in the first several centuries after Pentacost. In many ways it is simialr to the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass, and very similar to Greek Orthodox worship. There are basic differences in dogma, but Orthodox is Orthodox, I guess.

Our Parish has high and low Masses, as some (I for one) like the "smells and bells" of our sung High Mass (beads, bells, incense - hippies or Anglicans?), some prefer a shorter Mass with fewer chants and a less formal approach.

[IrishRainy]

Exactly! I thought about the crowd and Barabbas immediately after reading that paragraph...pretty disturbing to me.

[IrishRainy]

OMG, a priest told YOU some secrets about the Church...and now you know The Truth?

You realize we have to kill you now, don't you?

[pctech]

Can't stand it when someone from your own "church" spills the beans huh? And it wasn't just him, even the laity within the catholic parish I worked at knew the truth about the Inquisitions.

And don't take his word for it. Ask David Hunt, John Ankerberg, and Arvil Manhattan about the truth about the old catholic church. As I said before, get your head out of the sand and look around.

[Elsie]

Heh. I wonder how our Jewish friends feel about you saying that.

 

Our 'Jewish' friends run the gamut from Ultra-Orthodox to flamin', damn near atheistic, Liberals.  (Kinda like our 'Christian' friends do.)

 

NONE of them are following all the things spoken of in the OT.

 

---

 

Not having my right and wrong predefined for me does not impede my ability to find it.

 

Find it?  How do you KNOW when you do?  What are YOUR standards?  From where do they come?

 

---

 

But I'll admit, and it may well just be my own perception, that I think a good too many in the church just don't know their Old Testament well enough.

 

AMEN Sister!!!

 

Not just the OT, but most things in the NEW they are blissfully unaware of!  Not only do a lot have a shallow 'faith in Jesus' (see the parable of the Sower) but they have faith in their ignorance (Jesus knows my heart: I mean well...)

[TradicalRC]

Who can you believe?

The "Bishop" Gene Robinson?

I guess since he's a bishop now, I should believe whatever he says.

[TradicalRC]

Okay...

So was St. Thomas More an Anglican?
If so, let me guess. He was an Anglican who got it wrong with regards to the Church of Rome. That was the gap in the faith of an otherwise good and intelligent man.

[TradicalRC]

I see. Everything is random.

I do not abide with contemporary interpretations of Scripture; I abide with what the Church has ALWAYS taught since the beginning.

The origin of the ancient manuscripts are not dubious except by the Authority of some Contemporary scholars. It strikes me as capricious that you sneer at "contemporary interpretations" of Scripture and then indulge in a "contemporary interpretation" of the nature of Scripture.

As to your logic: your first point is impeccable, IMHO.
Your second point is itself shoddy logic and indulges in a subjective empathy. The philosophical point is how does one Know what is good? If Your Empathy is the only measurement
how are the terrorists supposed to know what's good? Does not everyone do what they Believe is good?
Third point: I believe that it is possible to be moral without being a Christian, but without dogma? To quote Dorothy Sayers, "The Dogma IS the Drama. Everyone subscribes to a dogma of one kind or another. My question to you is, is it a time-tested Truth handed down by Tradition or a personal subjective empathy based on whatever era you happened to be born into?

[TradicalRC]

" <-this quotation mark should be inserted after the word Drama in post #174.

[TradicalRC]

Hey. That's MY thunder and you can't steal it! Mine. Mine.Mine!

Have a nice day.

[TradicalRC]

Not just a Tautology, but a miserable one at that!

It's easy to defy authority, adolescents do it all the time.
But if one is to be circumspect in these matters, one ought to understand the nature and origin of authority before casually dismissing it.

I do not consider all forms of authority good, but niether are all forms of rebellion. The French Revolution comes to mind as archetypal in this regard.

When authority is wrong it's bad but when you are wrong it's what?okay? a mistake? not AS bad?

The one thing authority has over the rebels is a sense of order. While I have a great deal of sympathy for my anarchist brethren, many of them mistake liberty for licentiousness. You cannot be free as a person OR a society unless there is virtue and goodness at hand. IMHO, I do not think you can have that in a "multicultural" society. One man's good is another man's evil. America rose to prominence on the world stage, not merely because she was free, but because she had a common culture: the Christian faith, the english idea of liberty, the roman forms of law and government, the greek ideas of politics. They took from these cultures the truths that transcended the time and place of those cultures and gave us a unique American culture using those ingredients that were necessary.
Now we have an atheistic/agnostic dominant culture, the French idea of liberty, the totalitarian idea of law and government and Marx and Gramsci's idea of politics.
No thank you.

[Held_to_Ransom]

No, and I would suggest you should go back and read the New Testament to try and find some reasonble response.

It's not really a matter of getting it right or wrong in terms of someone in Rome who, historically, as often as not has actually been just as fallible and error prone as Atilla the Hun. Lawyering and word splitting won't save you behind at the pearly gates.

[pctech]

You see, now you're just talking irrationally. Until you can do that don't resort to just babbling.

[harmony]

I didn't realise this would get interesting!

"I do not abide with contemporary interpretations of Scripture; I abide with what the Church has ALWAYS taught since the beginning."

How could you possibly know that what you abide in is what was always taught, except by some contemporary (unless you are a time-traveller -- I won't rule that out) interpretation of your own?

"The origin of the ancient manuscripts are not dubious except by the Authority of some Contemporary scholars."

And they are not not dubious except by the Authority of some other Contemporary scholars. So what is there to do? Perhaps if you start by saying "everything is dubious" (also known as the null hypothesis), you'll have a better chance of finding out which is the least dubious.

"It strikes me as capricious that you sneer at "contemporary interpretations" of Scripture and then indulge in a "contemporary interpretation" of the nature of Scripture."

Aiie. I wasn't sneering. I distinctly remember grinning and winking. [checks] Yep. There's a grin and a wink right there. But either way, you make a good point. It is indeed my interpretation. But unless you are almighty Eris Herself, your interpretation is also interpretation (and I wouldn't trust what She has to say anyway).

"Your second point is itself shoddy logic and indulges in a subjective empathy."

Subjective in that it lacks external verification, or subjective in that it lacks universality? For both, I'd ask, which is more subjective: faith or empathy? I'll bet your faith is better defined than my empathy, and no doubt it has many adherents. But I'll also bet that my empathy has even more adherents -- it existed before your faith was even invented.

"The philosophical point is how does one Know what is good?"

Ah. To be honest, I don't know. I'm inclined to argue that one can never Know for Sure. Even if one is given some divine revelation, one can never Know for Sure that the divine revelation is legitimate (or that the Divinity is well-meaning, for that matter). Sometimes I wonder if there are many things at all that can be Known at All. Does that bother you?

"If Your Empathy is the only measurement how are the terrorists supposed to know what's good?"

Terrorists knew what was good by letting their trust in a dubious authority override their empathy. And now you know why, for all the emoticons, I consider this serious business.

"Does not everyone do what they Believe is good?"

No. Especially if they have very high standards for good. That's why it's always easy to call Christians hypocrites. ... Does everyone intend to do what's good? I don't think so, not always, not most of the time. Most of the time, people just ignore what is good and pretend they don't see the contradictions. But I'm pretty cynical -- you might have more faith in the human condition than I.

"Everyone subscribes to a dogma of one kind or another. My question to you is, is it a time-tested Truth handed down by Tradition or a personal subjective empathy based on whatever era you happened to be born into?"

Whose to say it's not a personal, subjective empathy based upon what I mistakenly perceive to be a time-tested Truth handed down by Tradition? :-)

As to me personally: (3) It would be folly to presume my morality was outside of the context of the era I was born into. So yes, I, like every other human, am subject to my context. (2) Empathy and logic are the only tools I have at my disposal. If it's insufficient, well, what can I say? I can only do my best. (1) And as for subjectiveness, with the possible exception of mathematics, all things are subjective, especially things of this ilk. At the risk of offending you, if you can't see that, you'll only fool yourself.