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

wbur.org ^

[harmony]

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

Laugh and be happy. Tautologies are there to amuse (provided you are not the tautologist).

"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 have been sounding dismissive. My apologies. Truth be told, I took the authority very seriously for a while -- not at all casual nor dismissive. I didn't find it very easy to defy the authority when the time came. It was one of the most difficult things I have done. I guess it depends on whether, by 'defy', we mean 'wear funny clothes and listen to bad music' or 'paradigm shift'.

No, I'm not interested in defying authority for the sake of it. Just having a healthy skepticism -- enough to be ready to defy the authority when empathy demands it.

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

When I am wrong it's another day in the life of me :-) Hrm ... I think, when I am wrong, it is an opportunity to know better next time. I guess that goes for the authority, too "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Some authorities are like I try to be -- they learn from their mistakes. Others just insist that it wasn't a mistake.

"The one thing authority has over the rebels is a sense of order."

Orderliness is good, but there's much to be said for disorder. Order keeps the trains running on time, but that's not much good if everyone's miserable.

"While I have a great deal of sympathy for my anarchist brethren, many of them mistake liberty for licentiousness."

Ah, "revolutionaries from the waste down"?

"IMHO, I do not think you can have that in a "multicultural" society. One man's good is another man's evil."

So who's right? I would not be arrogant enough to say that my philosophies are so correct, and so complete, that I cannot benefit from the philosophies of others (and hopefully, they from mine). I take the good with the bad, and as I do with my own culture, I'll use the empathy and the logic to discern the difference.

In fact ... I think you say a similar thing:
"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."

"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..."

There is much to be said for the American ideal. There is also much to be said for it's military and economic brunt. This is a quote from the blog of an Iraqi, by the handle Salam Pax. Interpret it how you will.

"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
-- Samuel P. Huntington

[TradicalRC]

I'm not babbling. Perhaps you should clean your screen.

Sorry if I confused you. Had I intended to throw you off I might have written Cucullus non facit monachum to your original post.

[TradicalRC]

Not everything is subject to interpretation for the simple reason that words have meaning.
Granted that some words change meaning slightly over time but really, not All or most words for that matter. If language was that malleable we would never be able to understand or enjoy Blake or Burns to say nothing of Sophocles. We can read And enjoy these thanks to the fact that words actually change very little for the most part.
If one is to start with the hypothesis that everything is dubious then that idea itself is dubious, no?
Be careful how you use the word faith. My faith is both subjective and objective, with the absolute God re-forming my sinful subjective self. I would also argue that since God started the whole shebang, my faith existed before empathy was ever thought of.
When I use the term subjective, I generally consider its philosophical pedigree: starting with DesCartes' Cogito ergo sum through Nietzches dionysianism and on to the several bastard grandchildren we have today: the various isms of identity politics, the Calipornia if it feels good do it mentality, the I know its false but it feels true types, the Oprah watchers, the Deconstructionists and "post-modernists"-really there is no end to this list.
Okay what about the unibomber? no overriding authority to manipulate away his little empathy there? What gives?

I disagree that all things are subjective and I do believe that anyone can transcend his own time (as most good artists have). If you recognize empathy and logic as the only tools you have, then you are the one who is fooled.

We live in a world that paints everything gray but there is more black and white than most people take the time to recognize.

[TradicalRC]

I find that there can be much misery where there is disorder as well.
As to the quote, I am well aware that America is the object of much envy and contempt. The author makes a gross simplification in stating that organized violence is the fulcrum of western superiority and he indulges in a huge presumption where he claims to speak on behalf of all of those non-Western folk. The fact is the West was no more violent than the East or the native americans or the Africans, we were merely better at it than other cultures. Like it or not that is the very definition of superiority. It largely stemmed from a superior technology which stemmed from a superior emphasis on science which grew out of philosophy that could only have come from western culture. The only way other cultures can compete or attack western culture is by stealing what we invented. It's a back-handed compliment in a way.
So who's right? Me, of course.;^)
If there is no such thing as good then really, there is nothing to argue about: it's all relative or subjective or a matter of taste. If there is such a thing as good or morality then there is a moral law-maker and you can argue the finer points on that.
Stay tuned next week when we'll discuss hypothetical situations.

[pctech]

ok, perhaps babbling is a bad term. How about rambling? Talking just to be talking. I gave you sources for my statements, check them out, then try and tell me again your so-called "church" isn't the murderer of innocent millions throughout the middle ages.

[Elsie]

If there is no such thing as good then really, there is nothing to argue about:

Indeed.....

In the animal world, there is no good or bad: why is it that Humans have 'evolved' this trait?

[Elsie]

"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." -- Samuel P. Huntington

And WE never forget that we are USUALLY drawn INTO these battles.

---

"Ya mess with the bull, ya get the horn"

Somebody noteworthy said this before me.....

[TradicalRC]

Campion was right your "source" was a polemicist.
Certainly the Roman Church had a hand in murder back in the medeival ages, I do not dispute that. But what's your point? That the Catholic martyrs under the protestants don't count?
Colonial Americans were involved in slaughtering native Americans are you going to disown your government? THAT history is far more recent, does it count less?
Protestant churches were the first to sign on with approval to Roe v. Wade, are you going to own up to the modern-day slaughter of the innocents granted by "progressive-minded" protestants (not to mention dissenting Catholics).
I realize that you may not belong to the denominations that supported it, but the point is that we can argue about the sins of commission of a century or a millenium ago, but let's not lose sight of what the secularists and secular-minded Christians are doing today.

[jimt]

The media continues to portray homosexual men as 'gay', loving, sweet, kind, girl-boy types that love dressing up and doing girly things, but never address the disgusting sex acts they do nor the diseases they propagate.

An honest discussion of those acts and the resultant diseases would certainly detract from the "hip" image.

[pctech]

No, my source isn't "a person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation," all he did in Foxes Book of Martyrs was state fact. And with 1500 years of evidence to fall back on it wasn't hard find a reason to argue in the first place.

As for Hunt, Ankerberg, Manhattan and others like them, all they do is base their findings on what is written in God's word and how the roman catholic church, among others, does not measure up biblically.

Now as for our present situations, Roe v Wade included, yes I will admit that the modern day slaughter of millions can be laided at the feet of "progressive minded" religious leaders, protestant, catholic, mormons,jehovah witnesses and many others by my count. It can also be blamed upon the "falling away" that is foretold in the New Testament.

"I realize that you may not belong to the denominations that supported it, but the point is that we can argue about the sins of commission of a century or a millenium ago, but let's not lose sight of what the secularists and secular-minded Christians are doing today."

It's too bad no one remembers what the catholic church did all those centuries ago. And they have never once apologized to anyone for those atrocities. And while there may have been some "catholic" martyrs as you state, those martyrs were not true martyrs in the sense that they were persecuted for their faith, for the most part they were struck down by protestants trying to defend themselves.

Most every church have their skeletons to hide, but to say "come home to the mother church" to me is at the height of foolishness because the roman catholic is not biblical in any sense. Granted, there are very few churches that are now biblical which gives credance to the views of yourself and others who say as much. It't just too bad we live in a messed up world.

[TradicalRC]

You're so right. Henry VIII was just "defending himself" against St. Thomas More.
When Catholics kill protestants its pure evil; when protestants kill Catholics it's merely self defense.
You have the gall to accuse others of burying their head in the sand.
As for the biblical foundation of the Roman Catholic church
Christ gave the keys to the first Pope, Peter, saying that He would build his church on that rock. Granted, he was punning on the name of Peter but He delivered.
As for churches that stand foursquare AGAINST abortion, the Roman Catholic Church comes to mind immediately. Who else?
They have always stood against artificial contraception. The protestant churches used to until they got with the secular program.
As for no one remembering the darker aspects of church history, I've heard nothing BUT what you've been sputtering about from liberals all my life. And when that isn't enough they make stuff up like Hitler's Pope and garbage like that. Just ignore those ignorant Jews who praised the Pope after WWII.

[pctech]

You know, more than liberals spout items pertaining to the pope and Hitler. Again, try looking up Ankerberg, Hunt, Manhattan, Chinquy, and others that the catholic church has tried to silence.

And as for the keys being handed to Peter, that's utter nonsense. Jesus didn't hand the keys to Peter, he handed the keys to those who would profess the same faith as Peter. Peter means "small stone, or little pebble" whereas Christ is always referred to as the "Rock." (and no I'm not talking about Dewayne Johnson)

Your whole church is based upon a lie because Peter was never a pope, he never even went to Rome! Peter was the apostle was the apostle to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and it says much in the scriptures. And unfortunately for you it isn't the liberals who have stood against the catholic church, but born again conversative christians who know the truth about your church and the evils it has spawned over the centuries.

And as for the catholic church standing against abortion, isn't just a little ironic that they take that stand yet for years the french government found the bodies of newborns under convents that were the result of children born to nuns who had sexual relations with priests?

As much as I'd be tempted to say these evils pertain to the catholic church, some protestant denominations have been guilty of much the same things in recent years and they are no better than your church. So I can't say these types of things are confined to only the roman catholic system. But suffice to say, the Roman Catholic church, in allegence with apostate protestant religions, is the whore of Revelations 17 and 18. So you best get used to the idea of judgement, cuz your church will have plenty to answer for, as will we all, when this dispensation is ended and the Judgement of Christ is upon us.

[TradicalRC]

Wow. Fire AND brimstone.

I haven't actually heard a real live protestant refer to the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon before.

It's actually refreshing.

[pctech]

thank you, thank you, thank you

[Gianni]

I haven't actually heard a real live protestant refer to the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon before.

It's way more impressive in person, however I find that the people most prone to saying it (and the loudest of them) are backing down a bit now that all the other churches are rushing to allow pastors to preside in assless patent leather chaps and turn post-service coffee & donuts into a gay singles scene.

The remaining few harp on about an "invisible church." Demanding repeatedly that Christ left us nothing at all save their wisdom.

[harmony]

"If one is to start with the hypothesis that everything is dubious then that idea itself is dubious, no?" Now you are catching on :-) But the null hypothesis is not an assertion of nothing, it is the starting point: the absence of evidence for something. "Dubious" was probably too strong a word, but it works to remind me that I know nothing for certain, and as much as that irks me, I need to get used to it.

"...we were merely better at it than other cultures. Like it or not that is the very definition of superiority." Perhaps, Might does equal Right, just as long as we are under no illusions as to what that Right is. I would hate to see anyone mistake this evolutionary kind of Right for what one generally means by Right.

"If there is such a thing as good or morality then there is a moral law-maker and you can argue the finer points on that." (Did you put that implication around the wrong way? First, assuming that you did --) I never did understand that. If one is willing to take the Authority as an axiom, in order to justify the morality, why not just skip the intermediary and go straight to taking the morality as an axiom? It reminds me of using order as an argument for a Creator, and then ignoring the problem of the Creator's Creator. The question doesn't disappear just because it's taken up a level. If one is going to be purely pragmatic about it, one may as well be honest about one's motives. (Second, assuming that you didn't --) Good can mean many things. It need not be transcendental, and even if one does consider it that way, that transcendental quality could be argued as the reflection of some universality of the human condition, rather than evidence for some Thing external to human interest and need.

"When I use the term subjective, I generally consider its philosophical pedigree: ... DesCartes' ... Nietzches ... Calipornia ... Oprah ... Deconstructionists ... "post-modernists" " You are obviously better read than I am :P As I understood it, from Nietzsche's perspective, subjectivity would merely be a result of the onus upon us to construct our own value ... something Sartre expanded upon, I think. And I guess that comes from a rejection of a transcendental Right, something I don't really know if I agree with (or understand, for that matter), or its unknowability, something I whole-heartedly agree with, if for no other reason than understanding of my own limitations. But that aside, I think you're right, we won't get anywhere. I consider it a duty to construct the Right, and an arduous one at that. You, on the other hand, are probably scratching your head wondering why I trouble myself, when a perfectly workable Right has already been provided!

"I would also argue that since God started the whole shebang, my faith existed before empathy was ever thought of." :-) And I would argue that my empathy sought to enlist the assistance of fear, and so created your faith. I can see empathy doing it still, e.g. when a Mother threatens a child with punishment for doing dangerous things. I'm yet to see Creation, though, and I am not intellectually satisfied with the account that was left behind.

"If you recognize empathy and logic as the only tools you have, then you are the one who is fooled." Oh, too bad. Then there is no hope for humanity.

"Stay tuned next week when we'll discuss hypothetical situations." Do you reckon it's okay for us to be using this space for this?