tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post8797006603795059378..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: A Never-Ending, Circular DialogueA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-48474575912034407172010-06-24T07:50:45.190-07:002010-06-24T07:50:45.190-07:00I agree with Rob Eaton that there are conservative...I agree with Rob Eaton that there are conservatives/traditionalists and liberals/revisionists who are biblically literate and those who are not. The circular dialog that Mr. Haley has crafted - wonderfully - may well reflect the nature of much of the discussion on this important issue, but it does not reflect the thoughtful discussion of the biblically literate on both/all sides. Very little of that is conducted on blogs like this, where far too many of the responses to thoughful post by blog owners are merely "zingers."Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-90134200250746964862010-06-24T00:25:31.317-07:002010-06-24T00:25:31.317-07:00Daniel+,
Episcopagans as a term was not defined, n...Daniel+,<br />Episcopagans as a term was not defined, not by me, anyway, although I used it. However, as a group of Episcopalians, so called, who really don't know their faith - and so pagan - you haven't added anything to the argument by your contrary comment.<br /> I think the one who "coined" the term would suggest that a revisionist - as YOU inserted the term, not me - actually does know at least some of their bible and has chosen to reject portions of it, or at least "revise" parts of it as it is written.<br />Contrary? Well, not completely, I suppose. While you attempted to defend what you called "revisionist", you failed to be contrary in balance and defend what I called the "conservatives" and their own biblical illiteracy by "suggesting", as you could have included, that there are many who do know their bible, too.<br />The point, Daniel, is that the biblical teaching is extremely clear, and yet that is not where the argument goes, as the Curmudgeon has illustrated.<br /><br />Perhaps spend a little more time holding the thin line rather than pulling it to one side.....<br /><br />I know you have retirement coming up quickly, but, c'mon.<br />And congratulations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-17822802733549009962010-06-23T08:49:25.011-07:002010-06-23T08:49:25.011-07:00I would suggest that are many revisionists who kno...I would suggest that are many revisionists who know the Bible quite well and have come to their convictions on the basis of serious sudy of Scripture.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-67259774924284179362010-06-23T01:37:31.757-07:002010-06-23T01:37:31.757-07:00Cat lady,
Right. The Curmudgeon knows this well. ...Cat lady,<br />Right. The Curmudgeon knows this well. It is a problem on both sides of the aisle. On the one hand, although God knows this should be markedly improved by now in this season of upheaval, those who might be called "conservatives" (but not as a matter of Faith, if you get my drift) do not know their bible well enough to engage a discussion making use of scripture. And on the other hand the "Episcopagans" (as you called them) probably also do not know their bible well enough -- but know enough not to bring it into discussion!<br />And those revisionists who DO know their bible will simply choose to avoid it, seemingly at all cost - even to their souls' wholeness.amateurcanonisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00078764195735094947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-26157551218481646922010-06-22T14:04:14.760-07:002010-06-22T14:04:14.760-07:00Sorry, that was not my understanding. I gather we ...Sorry, that was not my understanding. I gather we DO agree that any Bible discussion with an "Epicopagan" revisionist is not really possible. Got it.Alexihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09222877183938209659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-51204781469251962302010-06-22T10:45:28.914-07:002010-06-22T10:45:28.914-07:00With regard to the horse/person argument, if the q...With regard to the horse/person argument, if the question asked was whether a person who worshipped satan and made sacrifices should be consecrated I wonder what the response would have been. Such a person could certainly claim to be Anglican and who is to tell them they're not?cyndeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467903331646957536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-77831534890601497802010-06-22T10:25:31.725-07:002010-06-22T10:25:31.725-07:00Mr. Haley,
I agree that the Primates were express...Mr. Haley,<br /><br />I agree that the Primates were expressing - as clearly as they could - the stand of their churches on the issue, even though it is unlikely that the synods of many of those churches had formally responded to the NH election. The PB, however, was reporting on the decision of TEC's synod. While the difference may be a minor, it is worth making as the PB was speaking on the basis of a formal decision of GC, which was not the case for some of the other Primates.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-54599282010455686212010-06-22T08:14:29.223-07:002010-06-22T08:14:29.223-07:00Sorry, Father Weir, you can't have it both way...Sorry, Father Weir, you can't have it both ways. Either the Primates speak for their provinces, or they don't. Do you contend that ECUSA's Bishop Griswold was not speaking in the name of ECUSA when he said that he would go ahead with the ordination of +Robinson, despite the request by <i>every other Primate in the Communion</i> not to do so? If he was not, fine and dandy -- then +Griswold acted on his own.<br /><br />But if (as I believe you will say), he acted on ECUSA's behalf, as its elected Primate, then you must also accept that the rest of the Primates in October 2003 were acting on behalf of their provinces, as well.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-25736651354514762602010-06-22T07:24:53.538-07:002010-06-22T07:24:53.538-07:00It continues to amaze me that the statements of Pr...It continues to amaze me that the statements of Primates or Bishops can be seen as reflecting the mind of the Communion, e.g. "The rest of the Anglican Communion begged us not to do it." Or this priceless quote: "...you don't want to accede to the request of all the other provinces not to ordain same-sex partnered individuals to be bishops." All the other provinces? Really!Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-51294087803163134142010-06-21T20:08:28.516-07:002010-06-21T20:08:28.516-07:00Cat Lady,
That's what I said. That is in fact...Cat Lady,<br />That's what I said. That is in fact what makes the curmudgeon's dialogue realistic. No bible references among two otherwise non-descript Episcopalians.amateurcanonisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00078764195735094947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-65556162045670581502010-06-21T19:21:52.192-07:002010-06-21T19:21:52.192-07:00Ummm, since when can you discuss the Bible with an...Ummm, since when can you discuss the Bible with an "Episcopagan Unitarian" revisionist? Discussing the Bible would mean that one of the parties was not truly an Episcopagan. SO i think The Curmudgeon was probably being faithful to what a revisionist would actually discuss. <br /><br />SC Blu Cat LadyAlexihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09222877183938209659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-50049479280581427982010-06-21T17:32:01.749-07:002010-06-21T17:32:01.749-07:00Alcoholics have a phrase that applies here: "...Alcoholics have a phrase that applies here: "Self will run riot".Auriel Ragmonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08395216240172741261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-91280804111750774622010-06-21T10:58:12.195-07:002010-06-21T10:58:12.195-07:00Amazing that you were able to complete the dialogu...Amazing that you were able to complete the dialogue without answering the original question with something about Bible.<br />But, then, that would seem to make the entire conversation authentic.amateurcanonisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00078764195735094947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-68622320091861331822010-06-21T09:22:49.687-07:002010-06-21T09:22:49.687-07:00The progressives have been quick to suggest that l...The progressives have been quick to suggest that less progressive folk leave the denomination, but the question that I cannot answer is why they want to stay in the Anglican Communion if there are entities that will allow gays to participate in the life of the church, e.g., Metropolitan Community Churches? None of the possible answers seem very uplifting. :-(An Anxious Anglicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16630532668798784975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-17668746367355196252010-06-21T05:35:30.996-07:002010-06-21T05:35:30.996-07:00Great Dialogue! I have heard versions of this over...Great Dialogue! I have heard versions of this over the years- sigh. However, I am not convinced that many in the "Episcopagan" revisionist camp really care much about staying in the Anglican Communion.<br /><br />Why? When at lunch after church one Sunday, I stated that I had thought of myself as Anglican for close to couple of decades now. My statement was met with "Then LEAVE the Episcopal Church!" from a revisionist "Episcopagan Unitarian" in our parish, ACK! WHy should I have to leave because I want to be Anglican?? Does that mean being Episcopalian and Anglican are mutually exclusive ? I think it does to many on the left.<br /><br />SC Blu Cat LadyAlexihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09222877183938209659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-41338154742810328592010-06-21T04:29:25.212-07:002010-06-21T04:29:25.212-07:00Brilliant and remarkably fair to the revisionist p...Brilliant and remarkably fair to the revisionist position.TLF+https://www.blogger.com/profile/01650010433581488888noreply@blogger.com