Well, I disagree with you then. When you have priests calling abortionists saints, you have an out of control church (TEC) that is overrun with a political agenda, you have not addressed this.
Straw Man. This doesn't address the context at all, for I said that in reply to this: "Tell it to the traditional Anglicans who couldn't stand for their radical leftist agenda and formed the ACNA."
Therefore, I'm talking about the "traditionalism" of those "traditional Anglicans" who formed ACNA. That's the point I'm addressing.
No you didn't, the others are completely separate and you can't show me otherwise.
If you lived in the 50's, are white, and lived in my diocese, you'd call women's ordination and equal rights for blacks very, very liberal. That's the point.
I did show a flaw.
Yep, if you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you. Last time I checked it wasn't a sin (in most denominations that is) to be black or a women.
Straw Man again. Context is everything.
The church got it wrong and sexual issues are completely different, do some reading on it.
I assure you I've
very learned. My point is that your argument is flawed based on rose-colored glasses and a quazi-Manichean "them vrs. us" mindset.
Wrong again, ask the liberals from yesterday what they think about liberlism today. Again, you inject your personal opinions and pretend like it's a fact.
Again, Straw Man.
They've been saying practically that phrase since Roman times. We even have historical records of it. Why don't you do a little historical research on the issue.
It's the whole "the next generation is going to be the death of us" or "the next generation is more lax on virtue than mine" shpiel. Slippery Slope galor. The whole thing is hooey; things just keep getting recycled over and over again. Same issue, just in a different color.
Mine either, my outlook is rather moderate socially and politically. I don't like the fact that RADICAL leftist politics have infiltrated TEC. Can you not understand this???
I didn't say different. See more below.
Again, you are not saying anything, except showing your own arrogance.
And insults come into play, which is typical.
OH MY!!! Guess what?? I am too!! I guess that makes our opinions more qualified and correct than those who are not??? More arrogance, how big of an ego do you have???
I'm not the one with insults.
Furthermore, I find the inability to actually reply to a post in its context a show of bad scholarship. Also, see below.
Do you? It sure doesn't sound like it.
I personally know the Bishop of Alaska. I also know two Canons, including the Canon of the Ordinary, in the Diocese of Rochester, both personally. Shall I continue?
Of course, there are conservative dioceses (although very few).
And the conservatives, period, regardless of diocese.
The point is that the majority of bishops, clergy, and laity hold to a radical leftist theology and political leaning.
No proof given.
If you don't understand or agree with this, I don't know what else to tell you, step outside of South Carolina.
I lived in the Diocese of Rochester for a
long time. The old timers like me who were around when P/R/E was still around in CF can authenticate that statement. A few still post here.
I'm a fan of orthodoxy myself, but political agendas have infiltrated and influenced Anglicanism, surely you understand this? My parish is very diverse, yet we all get along, no demonizing here.
When did I say otherwise?
I'm not sure you quite comprehend the fact that saying "liberal on social issues leads to liberalism in theology is a Slippery Slope" means that I don't think TEC has adopted a bit of liberal theology. Nor do I think you comprehend the fact that such a statement is mutually exclusive. What you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that I'm arguing your idea that liberalism on social issues leads to liberalism in theology is wrong. I can do that while saying that TEC has certainly embraced at least some liberal politics. What I
disagree is exactly
how.
A fellow historian should be able to see the difference. I sure you do now that I've explained it point blank.
My parish is too.
Yes, you did. Go back and read what you put and ease back your massive ego. You, implied, that my line of thinking was akin to Strom Thurmond.
Wrong. I said, and I quote: "'It starts off with liberalism on social issues'? Please. Equal rights to blacks and other racial/ethnic minorities were a liberal and progressive idea back as late as the 1960's. The age of Strom Thurmond is gone. Or women in earlier decades."
Which was in reply to: "Unfortunately, this is true and it's becoming more widespread (especially in TEC). It starts off with liberalism on social issues and then liberalism on theological issues. Just look at TEC, little by little orthodox theology and values have been 'chipped' away at over the last 40 years. Currently, we have a Presiding Bishop that questions the divinity of Christ, the miracles, and calls individual salvation 'heresy.'"
My statement wasn't directed at your person but at your argument. My post's context what based on the idea that you seem to think that "it starts off with liberalism on social issues and then liberalism on theological issues." I even quoted that exact same line in my reply. That's what I'm rebutting.
There is no way you can logically say that I called you a racist at all.
When I showed you it wasn't, you have resorted to saying nothing and assuring me that your views are correct. We are both orthodox, yet you take issue with the fact that i've shown TEC has a radical political agenda. Most of us in TEC will tell you that the national church has a radical social/political agenda, again ask any TECer!
I am a member of TEC. My issue is not what you say it is and I've proven that above. Please next time be more careful, and use less insults.
