defending your views

[crimsonleaf]

Yes, its all there in the Creed.


Is it? Or is it an attempt to explain one of our core beliefs to non-Christians? Because that's not a bad description, if you're trying to explain the gist of Christianity to an outsider without bogging down in the paschal mysteries, which are, lets be honest, a little hard to grasp the first time you hear them.

Well, one of our well-respected atheist/agnostics has described it as "almost hilariously PC", so I'll go with that. That's post #141 if you need help. Maybe the term "Son of God" wouldn't have been too deep in the context of the AB of C's statement. I looks to me as if you're making a point to defend an argument you wish you'd never started.

 

[crimsonleaf]

So I was thinking of the right quote.

Point is unchanged. You fobbed off a point about what plainly reads as a prophecy of Jesus' returning in his lifetime as being updated based on evidence, so I suggested the same approach re. women seeking to become bishops.

And for what I hope is the last time, I've not commented either way on whether women should be bishops or not.

I don't mind real debate, or even real arguments, but straw men I will not defend, and neither will I continually spoon feed people who can't follow a conversation without chipping in with irrelevant comments.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Well, one of our well-respected atheist/agnostics has described it as "almost hilariously PC", so I'll go with that. That's post #141 if you need help. Maybe the term "Son of God" wouldn't have been too deep in the context of the AB of C's statement. I looks to me as if you're making a point to defend an argument you wish you'd never started.

Not at all. I'm not an Anglican, I don't speak for the Anglican church. Maybe the ABofC genuinely does believe that Christ was a mere human, of no divinity. But I don't believe that's the actual position of the Anglos, since they still say the creed.

But is the PCness of the Anglos on their website where they discuss Christ what you're REALLY worried about? Because if so, I can see your point. That is, indeed, a core belief of the Church that, in a certain light, appears to be being massaged a little.

But is that the issue you REALLY mean?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Not at all. I'm not an Anglican, I don't speak for the Anglican church. Maybe the ABofC genuinely does believe that Christ was a mere human, of no divinity. But I don't believe that's the actual position of the Anglos, since they still say the creed.

But is the PCness of the Anglos on their website where they discuss Christ what you're REALLY worried about? Because if so, I can see your point. That is, indeed, a core belief of the Church that, in a certain light, appears to be being massaged a little.

But is that the issue you REALLY mean?

Well, it was the issue I was talking about in the post you can't find. What are you implying?

 

[Gadarene]

And for what I hope is the last time, I've not commented either way on whether women should be bishops or not.

I don't mind real debate, or even real arguments, but straw men I will not defend, and neither will I continually spoon feed people who can't follow a conversation without chipping in with irrelevant comments.

You implicitly have done with your melodramatic comment about people "not being able to handle the message", and you'd rather pearl-clutch about some nebulous boogeyman by the name of "liberalism" instead of conceding that they may actually have evidence the church isn't currently taking into account. Because they should be following the church, not vice versa.

If you're concerned about protocol over evidence, then I suggest you don't care very much about evidence.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Well, it was the issue I was talking about in the post you can't find. What are you implying?

That you don't really care about the ABofC's semantic couching of terms, but that you are rather more concerned about other issues... issues that don't actually make an appearance in the Creed, perhaps. If I'm mistaken, I sincerely apologise.

But I think I'm not...

 

[crimsonleaf]

You implicitly have done with your melodramatic comment about people "not being able to handle the message", and you'd rather pearl-clutch about some nebulous boogeyman by the name of "liberalism" instead of conceding that they may actually have evidence the church isn't currently taking into account. Because they should be following the church, not vice versa.

If you're concerned about protocol over evidence, then I suggest you don't care very much about evidence.

No, the argument about women bishops is irrelevant. I used it in the context of highlighting the Archbishops comments about the Church laity being "wilfully blind" and his claim that the Church needed to adjust to modern thinking. I finished it with a quote from him to further illustrate my point. Jane had made previous comments about liberalism and my posts were a follow up.

See what I mean about you building strawmen and being unable to follow?

 

[crimsonleaf]

That you don't really care about the ABofC's semantic couching of terms, but that you are rather more concerned about other issues... issues that don't actually make an appearance in the Creed, perhaps. If I'm mistaken, I sincerely apologise.

But I think I'm not...

Well, if you can muster the courage to speak plainly I can address your concerns. At the moment I feel as if I have to be a Blechley Park worker to fathom it out.

 

[Gadarene]

No, the argument about women bishops is irrelevant. I used it in the context of highlighting the Archbishops comments about the Church laity being "wilfully blind" and his claim that the Church needed to adjust to modern thinking. I finished it with a quote from him to further illustrate my point. Jane had made previous comments about liberalism and my posts were a follow up.

See what I mean about you building strawmen and being unable to follow?

I'm following them just fine.

And none of your posts thus far on the matter have considered that evidence - for your claim to be interested in it - might be on the side of modern thinking. You're more concerned about the church being led by liberalism - by anyone else other than the church.

Like I said, to then go any say that you're considering the evidence - not buying it. If you don't like what your words imply, then try choosing a different stance.

 

[jpcedotal]

So are heterosexual atheist marriages a threat to 'serious' marriage, or is it just the homosexual atheist marriages that are?

hetero marriages where neither person is a Christian are not considered marriages in the eyes of God.

The state may acknowledge it, but God does not.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Well, if you can muster the courage to speak plainly I can address your concerns. At the moment I feel as if I have to be a Blechley Park worker to fathom it out.

Cool reference.

OK, in no particular order, in a "for it/agin it" kind of way, what are your thoughts on;

Prayer in schools,
abortion,
Religious based secular law,
Same sex marriage,
gender equality
Religious equality (i.e the Muslims and Hindus get off as many holy days relevent to them as their Christian co-workers)
The welfare state,
Unmarried parenting

and that'l do for now.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

hetero marriages where neither person is a Christian are not considered marriages in the eyes of God.

The state may acknowledge it, but God does not.

In a secular state, God doesn't have to for it to be recognised legally.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Cool reference.

OK, in no particular order, in a "for it/agin it" kind of way, what are your thoughts on;

Prayer in schools,
abortion,
Religious based secular law,
Same sex marriage,
gender equality
Religious equality (i.e the Muslims and Hindus get off as many holy days relevent to them as their Christian co-workers)
The welfare state,
Unmarried parenting

and that'l do for now.

Flattered as I am by being selected as your oracle, I have views on all of these, and they are completely irrelevant to our discussion. I'm happy to defend my views when I've placed them in the public arena, but I'm not filling in a questionnaire unless there's a paid job at the end of it.

Is there, by the way?

I suppose I could give a small clue. My views are likely to be in line with yours if you're a good Catholic.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

My views are likely to be in line with yours if you're a good Catholic.

Heh. All the clue I need. Yep, my assumption was correct.

 

[keith99]

hetero marriages where neither person is a Christian are not considered marriages in the eyes of God.

The state may acknowledge it, but God does not.

So your Christ was the result of a long line of people born out of wedlock on both sides.

Interesting.

Most view Christ rather differently

 

[crimsonleaf]

Heh. All the clue I need. Yep, my assumption was correct.

More cryptic stuff; more assumptions; more veiled accusations?

I'd ask you to man up and come right out with whatever you think I think, then we can discuss it and I can correct you, which will be inevitable, but you might take offence at the term.

You seem to have alluded to my views possibly being in line with those of a good catholic as a bad thing. Are you a bad Catholic?

Spit it out, won't you?

Edit* Oh - I forgot: Heh.