On 2008-12-04 08:48:07 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:

> "Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
> news:gh74iv$3ah$1@news.albasani.net...
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us...al.html?ref=us
>>
>> Notice, Joe, the inflammatory headline. The fault of the schism in the
>> Anglican church is due to conservatives.
>>
>> We don't need to address how over the decades it was the liberal
>> theologians that started the rift. Ordaining women, homosexuals, and even
>> no longer requiring to believe in basic Christian tenets such as the
>> bodily Resurrection, the Trinity, or salvation by faith. These have all
>> been doctrine for nearly twenty centuries.
>>
>> No. It's the conservatives not wanting to accept the changes forced upon
>> them by The Enlightened. They're at fault.
>>
>> You will now disagree.
>>
>
>
> I disagree for a number of reasons.

Of course. I expected nothing more.

> 1) Inflammatory headline: What? Because of the word "conservative"? Here's
> the intended definition: "one who adheres to traditional methods or views".
> That's an accurate description of the people who want to form their own
> church. But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I emailed the author to
> ask if that was her intended definition.

Good luck. But in all the decades of church revisionism from the left,
I've yet to see a story in the mainstream press that puts the blame
where it belongs.

> 2) Church rifts caused by things like ordaining women? Clue: They can vote
> now, and run big successful companies.

Clue: Your insular view of Christian theology is ignorant of the fact
that the NT completely and clearly disallows women in the clergy. It
isn't just the Roman Catholic church that understands this indisputable
fact. I don't believe that it's a coincidence that every denomination
that starts out with the ordination of women ends up ignoring church
history and orthodoxy to their detriment. Many have gone on to
full-blown cult status.

> I can understand how someone might
> have issues with gays, an issue which will be debated forever, like the 2nd
> Amendment. But ordaining women? Considering how many clergyunits put their
> congregations to sleep, I'd think it would be a good idea to open up the
> pulpit to the other half of the human race, thereby doubling the odds of
> getting interesting leaders.

Asked and answered.

> I'm openminded, though. Copy three paragraphs which you believe are the most
> biased. Paste them into your next message. Tweeze them apart and show me how
> they're biased.

Three paragraphs from what? The aforementioned story or another yet to
be read. If it's the original story, then here you go:

"Conservatives alienated from the Episcopal Church announced on
Wednesday that they were founding their own rival denomination, the
biggest challenge yet to the authority of the Episcopal Church since it
ordained an openly gay bishop five years ago."

The bias? Founding their own rival denomination. They're trying to
restore what was originally their denomination's Biblical foudations.
The liberal theologians already "founded" their own denomination by
perverting the status quo. Obviously the intent was yet again to put
the conservatives on the defensive.

"Conservative leaders in North America say they expect to win approval
for their new province from at least seven like-minded primates, who
lead provinces primarily in Africa, Australia, Latin America and Asia.

These are the same primates who met in Jerusalem over the summer at the
Global Anglican Future Conference and signed a declaration heralding a
new era for the Anglican Communion. Most of these primates a few weeks
later boycotted the Lambeth Conference, the international gathering of
Anglican bishops in England held once every 10 years.."

The likely bias? Imagine the leadership in Obama's church, with the
"Rev." Wright at the helm, being described as "primates". Does any
right-thinking individual believe that charges of racism wouldn't be
thrown at the author? More has been made of far less this campaign
season. In this case, it is my sincere belief that the word was chosen
carefully among more suitable labels such as "church leadership" or
"bishops". The next paragraph uses the term two more times for
emphasis. A very subtle but clever bit of writing, but then the best
propaganda is always subtle.

There are your three infected paragraphs. You, most certainly, will
now disagree.

"Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
news:gh935o$7gf$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2008-12-04 08:48:07 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:
>
>> "Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
>> news:gh74iv$3ah$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us...al.html?ref=us
>>>
>>> Notice, Joe, the inflammatory headline. The fault of the schism in the
>>> Anglican church is due to conservatives.
>>>
>>> We don't need to address how over the decades it was the liberal
>>> theologians that started the rift. Ordaining women, homosexuals, and
>>> even
>>> no longer requiring to believe in basic Christian tenets such as the
>>> bodily Resurrection, the Trinity, or salvation by faith. These have all
>>> been doctrine for nearly twenty centuries.
>>>
>>> No. It's the conservatives not wanting to accept the changes forced
>>> upon
>>> them by The Enlightened. They're at fault.
>>>
>>> You will now disagree.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree for a number of reasons.
>
> Of course. I expected nothing more.
>
>> 1) Inflammatory headline: What? Because of the word "conservative"?
>> Here's
>> the intended definition: "one who adheres to traditional methods or
>> views".
>> That's an accurate description of the people who want to form their own
>> church. But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I emailed the author
>> to
>> ask if that was her intended definition.
>
> Good luck. But in all the decades of church revisionism from the left,
> I've yet to see a story in the mainstream press that puts the blame where
> it belongs.
>
>> 2) Church rifts caused by things like ordaining women? Clue: They can
>> vote
>> now, and run big successful companies.
>
> Clue: Your insular view of Christian theology is ignorant of the fact
> that the NT completely and clearly disallows women in the clergy. It
> isn't just the Roman Catholic church that understands this indisputable
> fact.

Why do YOU think women should not be ordained? Do you have your own personal
analysis of that issue, or is it just that it's a rule from antiquity? Is
there something about women which keeps them from doing the job to your
satisfaction?


> I don't believe that it's a coincidence that every denomination that
> starts out with the ordination of women ends up ignoring church history
> and orthodoxy to their detriment. Many have gone on to full-blown cult
> status.
>

To their detriment how?


>> I can understand how someone might
>> have issues with gays, an issue which will be debated forever, like the
>> 2nd
>> Amendment. But ordaining women? Considering how many clergyunits put
>> their
>> congregations to sleep, I'd think it would be a good idea to open up the
>> pulpit to the other half of the human race, thereby doubling the odds of
>> getting interesting leaders.
>
> Asked and answered.
>
>> I'm openminded, though. Copy three paragraphs which you believe are the
>> most
>> biased. Paste them into your next message. Tweeze them apart and show me
>> how
>> they're biased.
>
> Three paragraphs from what? The aforementioned story or another yet to be
> read.

Another yet to be read? Are you suggesting that I did not read the entire
article? If yes, then you should direct your anger at whatever it is in your
life that's really eating away at you.


> If it's the original story, then here you go:
>
> "Conservatives alienated from the Episcopal Church announced on Wednesday
> that they were founding their own rival denomination, the biggest
> challenge yet to the authority of the Episcopal Church since it ordained
> an openly gay bishop five years ago."
>
> The bias? Founding their own rival denomination. They're trying to
> restore what was originally their denomination's Biblical foudations. The
> liberal theologians already "founded" their own denomination by perverting
> the status quo. Obviously the intent was yet again to put the
> conservatives on the defensive.

Do you have any data which shows what percentage of the congregations as a
whole are opposed to ordaining women? For example, if there are 10 million
Episcopalians in America, how many might follow those who are splitting from
the main church? These numbers are important. If the new church only
attracts 118,000 out of 10 million, then it can be argued that the main
church evolved in a way which best served the vast majority of its
congregation.


> "Conservative leaders in North America say they expect to win approval for
> their new province from at least seven like-minded primates, who lead
> provinces primarily in Africa, Australia, Latin America and Asia.
>
> These are the same primates who met in Jerusalem over the summer at the
> Global Anglican Future Conference and signed a declaration heralding a new
> era for the Anglican Communion. Most of these primates a few weeks later
> boycotted the Lambeth Conference, the international gathering of Anglican
> bishops in England held once every 10 years.."
>
> The likely bias? Imagine the leadership in Obama's church, with the
> "Rev." Wright at the helm, being described as "primates". Does any
> right-thinking individual believe that charges of racism wouldn't be
> thrown at the author? More has been made of far less this campaign
> season. In this case, it is my sincere belief that the word was chosen
> carefully among more suitable labels such as "church leadership" or
> "bishops". The next paragraph uses the term two more times for emphasis.
> A very subtle but clever bit of writing, but then the best propaganda is
> always subtle.

The meaning of the word "primate" is proper and appropriate, considering the
subject matter. If someone used it to describe Wright, they would've chosen
the wrong word because he is not a bishop. Don't you own a dictionary?

Etymology: Middle English primat, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin
primat-, primas archbishop, from Latin, leader, from primus. Date: 13th
century
1 often capitalized : a bishop who has precedence in a province, a group of
provinces, or a nation

Conscience wrote:

>>2) Church rifts caused by things like ordaining women? Clue: They
>>can vote now, and run big successful companies.
>
>Clue: Your insular view of Christian theology is ignorant of the
>fact that the NT completely and clearly disallows women in the
>clergy. It isn't just the Roman Catholic church that understands
>this indisputable fact. I don't believe that it's a coincidence that
>every denomination that starts out with the ordination of women ends
>up ignoring church history and orthodoxy to their detriment. Many
>have gone on to full-blown cult status.

I attend a United Methodist church where 3 out of 4 past associate
pastors have been women. Frankly I don't have a problem with the
situation and in some cases think they are more attentive to church
members' personal needs. My favorite Sunday School teacher is a
retired school principal who also happens to be a lesbian although she
does not make that public. It's not hard to tell since her partner is
with her during church and I've been to their house.

Having said that I do agree with you that allowing traditional
Christian values to erode in order to appeal to the general public or
in hopes of attracting a larger audience undermines the rest of the
Biblical message. The United Methodist Church has become quite liberal
in many social views and as a result has begun to lose membership.
Certain passages are not preached upon lest they be too distasteful for
parishioners. My church sells pumpkins prior to Halloween, which I
find to be just wrong. There are other things to include but I think
you get the point.

By contrast denominations that adhere to the traditional, conservative
message of the Bible and preach personal responsibility, the difference
between right and wrong, the lessons learned of past generations, etc.
are going strong and increasing membership. I do not agree with many
tenets of the Southern Baptists but admire their ability to stick to
their principles and not bend with the wind, or as in the case of the
Anglicans bend over with the wind.

--
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." ~ Alexander Hamilton

On 2008-12-04 09:30:06 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:

>> Clue: Your insular view of Christian theology is ignorant of the fact
>> that the NT completely and clearly disallows women in the clergy. It
>> isn't just the Roman Catholic church that understands this indisputable
>> fact.
>
> Why do YOU think women should not be ordained? Do you have your own personal
> analysis of that issue, or is it just that it's a rule from antiquity? Is
> there something about women which keeps them from doing the job to your
> satisfaction?

It's a faith issue. If one believes that Paul's writing were inspired
by God, which I do, then I'm hardly in a position to disagree. The
following paragraph explains why I believe the issue speaks for itself.

>> I don't believe that it's a coincidence that every denomination that
>> starts out with the ordination of women ends up ignoring church history
>> and orthodoxy to their detriment. Many have gone on to full-blown cult
>> status.
>>
>
> To their detriment how?

By leaving orthodoxy and plummeting to inconsequential and extremist
viewpoints. Listen to TBN some time. Joyce something-or-other is a
classic example. You'd see.

>>> I'm openminded, though. Copy three paragraphs which you believe are the
>>> most
>>> biased. Paste them into your next message. Tweeze them apart and show me
>>> how
>>> they're biased.
>>
>> Three paragraphs from what? The aforementioned story or another yet to be
>> read.
>
> Another yet to be read? Are you suggesting that I did not read the entire
> article? If yes, then you should direct your anger at whatever it is in your
> life that's really eating away at you.

Not at all. I just wanted to be clear that you weren't asking me to
comment on another story containing bias. Don't get your panties in a
bunch.


>> If it's the original story, then here you go:
>>
>> "Conservatives alienated from the Episcopal Church announced on Wednesday
>> that they were founding their own rival denomination, the biggest
>> challenge yet to the authority of the Episcopal Church since it ordained
>> an openly gay bishop five years ago."
>>
>> The bias? Founding their own rival denomination. They're trying to
>> restore what was originally their denomination's Biblical foudations. The
>> liberal theologians already "founded" their own denomination by perverting
>> the status quo. Obviously the intent was yet again to put the
>> conservatives on the defensive.
>
> Do you have any data which shows what percentage of the congregations as a
> whole are opposed to ordaining women? For example, if there are 10 million
> Episcopalians in America, how many might follow those who are splitting from
> the main church? These numbers are important. If the new church only
> attracts 118,000 out of 10 million, then it can be argued that the main
> church evolved in a way which best served the vast majority of its
> congregation.

Numbers are a red herring. If a majority of the population of the U.S.
are pro death penalty, which they are, then why do some states refuse?
Being a minority or a majority doesn't make one right or wrong. How
many think ordination of women is right in no way changes or diminishes
Biblical authority.


>> "Conservative leaders in North America say they expect to win approval for
>> their new province from at least seven like-minded primates, who lead
>> provinces primarily in Africa, Australia, Latin America and Asia.
>>
>> These are the same primates who met in Jerusalem over the summer at the
>> Global Anglican Future Conference and signed a declaration heralding a new
>> era for the Anglican Communion. Most of these primates a few weeks later
>> boycotted the Lambeth Conference, the international gathering of Anglican
>> bishops in England held once every 10 years.."
>>
>> The likely bias? Imagine the leadership in Obama's church, with the
>> "Rev." Wright at the helm, being described as "primates". Does any
>> right-thinking individual believe that charges of racism wouldn't be
>> thrown at the author? More has been made of far less this campaign
>> season. In this case, it is my sincere belief that the word was chosen
>> carefully among more suitable labels such as "church leadership" or
>> "bishops". The next paragraph uses the term two more times for emphasis.
>> A very subtle but clever bit of writing, but then the best propaganda is
>> always subtle.
>
> The meaning of the word "primate" is proper and appropriate, considering the
> subject matter. If someone used it to describe Wright, they would've chosen
> the wrong word because he is not a bishop. Don't you own a dictionary?

Bishop would not be the only subsitute but you knew that.

Don't be patronizing. It's beneath...well...never mind. You know very
well what happened to a politician several months ago when he
innocently used the word "monkey". Go ahead and tell me you'd bet
money that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson wouldn't have made a proverbial
mountain out of the use of that word when applied to black church
leadership.

On 2008-12-04 09:33:13 -0800, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> said:

> Conscience wrote:
>
>>> 2) Church rifts caused by things like ordaining women? Clue: They
>>> can vote now, and run big successful companies.
>>
>> Clue: Your insular view of Christian theology is ignorant of the
>> fact that the NT completely and clearly disallows women in the
>> clergy. It isn't just the Roman Catholic church that understands
>> this indisputable fact. I don't believe that it's a coincidence that
>> every denomination that starts out with the ordination of women ends
>> up ignoring church history and orthodoxy to their detriment. Many
>> have gone on to full-blown cult status.
>
> I attend a United Methodist church where 3 out of 4 past associate
> pastors have been women. Frankly I don't have a problem with the
> situation and in some cases think they are more attentive to church
> members' personal needs. My favorite Sunday School teacher is a
> retired school principal who also happens to be a lesbian although she
> does not make that public. It's not hard to tell since her partner is
> with her during church and I've been to their house.
>
> Having said that I do agree with you that allowing traditional
> Christian values to erode in order to appeal to the general public or
> in hopes of attracting a larger audience undermines the rest of the
> Biblical message. The United Methodist Church has become quite liberal
> in many social views and as a result has begun to lose membership.
> Certain passages are not preached upon lest they be too distasteful for
> parishioners. My church sells pumpkins prior to Halloween, which I
> find to be just wrong. There are other things to include but I think
> you get the point.
>
> By contrast denominations that adhere to the traditional, conservative
> message of the Bible and preach personal responsibility, the difference
> between right and wrong, the lessons learned of past generations, etc.
> are going strong and increasing membership. I do not agree with many
> tenets of the Southern Baptists but admire their ability to stick to
> their principles and not bend with the wind, or as in the case of the
> Anglicans bend over with the wind.

Well said. I'm aware of people leaving many denominations when they
begin to leave tenets of the faith. This is directly responsible for
the growth of non-denominational churches which, as a rule, do not
change Biblical theology to suit their sociological desires.

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:33:13 +0000 (UTC), "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

>Conscience wrote:
>
>>>2) Church rifts caused by things like ordaining women? Clue: They
>>>can vote now, and run big successful companies.
>>
>>Clue: Your insular view of Christian theology is ignorant of the
>>fact that the NT completely and clearly disallows women in the
>>clergy. It isn't just the Roman Catholic church that understands
>>this indisputable fact. I don't believe that it's a coincidence that
>>every denomination that starts out with the ordination of women ends
>>up ignoring church history and orthodoxy to their detriment. Many
>>have gone on to full-blown cult status.
>
>I attend a United Methodist church where 3 out of 4 past associate
>pastors have been women. Frankly I don't have a problem with the
>situation and in some cases think they are more attentive to church
>members' personal needs. My favorite Sunday School teacher is a
>retired school principal who also happens to be a lesbian although she
>does not make that public. It's not hard to tell since her partner is
>with her during church and I've been to their house.
>
>Having said that I do agree with you that allowing traditional
>Christian values to erode in order to appeal to the general public or
>in hopes of attracting a larger audience undermines the rest of the
>Biblical message. The United Methodist Church has become quite liberal
>in many social views and as a result has begun to lose membership.
>Certain passages are not preached upon lest they be too distasteful for
>parishioners. My church sells pumpkins prior to Halloween, which I
>find to be just wrong. There are other things to include but I think
>you get the point.
>
>By contrast denominations that adhere to the traditional, conservative
>message of the Bible and preach personal responsibility, the difference
>between right and wrong, the lessons learned of past generations, etc.
>are going strong and increasing membership. I do not agree with many
>tenets of the Southern Baptists but admire their ability to stick to
>their principles and not bend with the wind, or as in the case of the
>Anglicans bend over with the wind.

Not all Anglicans bend with the wind.

That is what is breaking apart the Episcopal church.

--

Scott in Florida

"Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
news:gh95h8$ake$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2008-12-04 09:30:06 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:
>
>>> Clue: Your insular view of Christian theology is ignorant of the fact
>>> that the NT completely and clearly disallows women in the clergy. It
>>> isn't just the Roman Catholic church that understands this indisputable
>>> fact.
>>
>> Why do YOU think women should not be ordained? Do you have your own
>> personal
>> analysis of that issue, or is it just that it's a rule from antiquity? Is
>> there something about women which keeps them from doing the job to your
>> satisfaction?
>
> It's a faith issue. If one believes that Paul's writing were inspired by
> God, which I do, then I'm hardly in a position to disagree. The following
> paragraph explains why I believe the issue speaks for itself.
>
>>> I don't believe that it's a coincidence that every denomination that
>>> starts out with the ordination of women ends up ignoring church history
>>> and orthodoxy to their detriment. Many have gone on to full-blown cult
>>> status.
>>>
>>
>> To their detriment how?
>
> By leaving orthodoxy and plummeting to inconsequential and extremist
> viewpoints. Listen to TBN some time. Joyce something-or-other is a
> classic example. You'd see.
>

Yes. I'm sure that switching the a female priest is the end of everything
good about a church. All of them. "Every", to use your word.

TBN: You have no future in comedy.


>>>> I'm openminded, though. Copy three paragraphs which you believe are the
>>>> most
>>>> biased. Paste them into your next message. Tweeze them apart and show
>>>> me
>>>> how
>>>> they're biased.
>>>
>>> Three paragraphs from what? The aforementioned story or another yet to
>>> be
>>> read.
>>
>> Another yet to be read? Are you suggesting that I did not read the entire
>> article? If yes, then you should direct your anger at whatever it is in
>> your
>> life that's really eating away at you.
>
> Not at all. I just wanted to be clear that you weren't asking me to
> comment on another story containing bias. Don't get your panties in a
> bunch.
>
>
>>> If it's the original story, then here you go:
>>>
>>> "Conservatives alienated from the Episcopal Church announced on
>>> Wednesday
>>> that they were founding their own rival denomination, the biggest
>>> challenge yet to the authority of the Episcopal Church since it ordained
>>> an openly gay bishop five years ago."
>>>
>>> The bias? Founding their own rival denomination. They're trying to
>>> restore what was originally their denomination's Biblical foudations.
>>> The
>>> liberal theologians already "founded" their own denomination by
>>> perverting
>>> the status quo. Obviously the intent was yet again to put the
>>> conservatives on the defensive.
>>
>> Do you have any data which shows what percentage of the congregations as
>> a
>> whole are opposed to ordaining women? For example, if there are 10
>> million
>> Episcopalians in America, how many might follow those who are splitting
>> from
>> the main church? These numbers are important. If the new church only
>> attracts 118,000 out of 10 million, then it can be argued that the main
>> church evolved in a way which best served the vast majority of its
>> congregation.
>
> Numbers are a red herring. If a majority of the population of the U.S.
> are pro death penalty, which they are, then why do some states refuse?
> Being a minority or a majority doesn't make one right or wrong. How many
> think ordination of women is right in no way changes or diminishes
> Biblical authority.
>
>
>>> "Conservative leaders in North America say they expect to win approval
>>> for
>>> their new province from at least seven like-minded primates, who lead
>>> provinces primarily in Africa, Australia, Latin America and Asia.
>>>
>>> These are the same primates who met in Jerusalem over the summer at the
>>> Global Anglican Future Conference and signed a declaration heralding a
>>> new
>>> era for the Anglican Communion. Most of these primates a few weeks later
>>> boycotted the Lambeth Conference, the international gathering of
>>> Anglican
>>> bishops in England held once every 10 years.."
>>>
>>> The likely bias? Imagine the leadership in Obama's church, with the
>>> "Rev." Wright at the helm, being described as "primates". Does any
>>> right-thinking individual believe that charges of racism wouldn't be
>>> thrown at the author? More has been made of far less this campaign
>>> season. In this case, it is my sincere belief that the word was chosen
>>> carefully among more suitable labels such as "church leadership" or
>>> "bishops". The next paragraph uses the term two more times for
>>> emphasis.
>>> A very subtle but clever bit of writing, but then the best propaganda is
>>> always subtle.
>>
>> The meaning of the word "primate" is proper and appropriate, considering
>> the
>> subject matter. If someone used it to describe Wright, they would've
>> chosen
>> the wrong word because he is not a bishop. Don't you own a dictionary?
>
> Bishop would not be the only subsitute but you knew that.
>
> Don't be patronizing. It's beneath...well...never mind. You know very
> well what happened to a politician several months ago when he innocently
> used the word "monkey". Go ahead and tell me you'd bet money that Al
> Sharpton or Jesse Jackson wouldn't have made a proverbial mountain out of
> the use of that word when applied to black church leadership.


Irrelevant what those two would think. But, if I don't comment on it, you'll
say I didn't answer your question. Sharpton would shoot his mouth off
because he loves news cameras. Jackson would probably say something like
"The motive for using the word was obviously to insult, but we can brush
that off because the person who used the word is illiterate."

In the article, the word "primate" is known to be correct in the eyes of all
sentient, educated adults. Any who disagree are outside the subset of adults
known as "sentient and educated". That subset does not matter. They will
blow away like fallen leaves.

"Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
news:gh95l9$aui$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2008-12-04 09:33:13 -0800, "badgolferman"
> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Conscience wrote:
>>
>>>> 2) Church rifts caused by things like ordaining women? Clue: They
>>>> can vote now, and run big successful companies.
>>>
>>> Clue: Your insular view of Christian theology is ignorant of the
>>> fact that the NT completely and clearly disallows women in the
>>> clergy. It isn't just the Roman Catholic church that understands
>>> this indisputable fact. I don't believe that it's a coincidence that
>>> every denomination that starts out with the ordination of women ends
>>> up ignoring church history and orthodoxy to their detriment. Many
>>> have gone on to full-blown cult status.
>>
>> I attend a United Methodist church where 3 out of 4 past associate
>> pastors have been women. Frankly I don't have a problem with the
>> situation and in some cases think they are more attentive to church
>> members' personal needs. My favorite Sunday School teacher is a
>> retired school principal who also happens to be a lesbian although she
>> does not make that public. It's not hard to tell since her partner is
>> with her during church and I've been to their house.
>>
>> Having said that I do agree with you that allowing traditional
>> Christian values to erode in order to appeal to the general public or
>> in hopes of attracting a larger audience undermines the rest of the
>> Biblical message. The United Methodist Church has become quite liberal
>> in many social views and as a result has begun to lose membership.
>> Certain passages are not preached upon lest they be too distasteful for
>> parishioners. My church sells pumpkins prior to Halloween, which I
>> find to be just wrong. There are other things to include but I think
>> you get the point.
>>
>> By contrast denominations that adhere to the traditional, conservative
>> message of the Bible and preach personal responsibility, the difference
>> between right and wrong, the lessons learned of past generations, etc.
>> are going strong and increasing membership. I do not agree with many
>> tenets of the Southern Baptists but admire their ability to stick to
>> their principles and not bend with the wind, or as in the case of the
>> Anglicans bend over with the wind.
>
> Well said. I'm aware of people leaving many denominations when they begin
> to leave tenets of the faith. This is directly responsible for the growth
> of non-denominational churches which, as a rule, do not change Biblical
> theology to suit their sociological desires.
>

I'm curious: Do splintering churches affect you personally in any way? If
yes, how?

On 2008-12-04 10:12:32 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:

>>> To their detriment how?
>>
>> By leaving orthodoxy and plummeting to inconsequential and extremist
>> viewpoints. Listen to TBN some time. Joyce something-or-other is a
>> classic example. You'd see.
>>
>
> Yes. I'm sure that switching the a female priest is the end of everything
> good about a church. All of them. "Every", to use your word.
>
> TBN: You have no future in comedy.

I know of no exception to my claim. Not one. TBN wasn't for comedy
relief. It was mentioned for the "disgust" factor.

>>> The meaning of the word "primate" is proper and appropriate, considering
>>> the
>>> subject matter. If someone used it to describe Wright, they would've
>>> chosen
>>> the wrong word because he is not a bishop. Don't you own a dictionary?
>>
>> Bishop would not be the only subsitute but you knew that.
>>
>> Don't be patronizing. It's beneath...well...never mind. You know very
>> well what happened to a politician several months ago when he innocently
>> used the word "monkey". Go ahead and tell me you'd bet money that Al
>> Sharpton or Jesse Jackson wouldn't have made a proverbial mountain out of
>> the use of that word when applied to black church leadership.
>
>
> Irrelevant what those two would think. But, if I don't comment on it, you'll
> say I didn't answer your question. Sharpton would shoot his mouth off
> because he loves news cameras. Jackson would probably say something like
> "The motive for using the word was obviously to insult, but we can brush
> that off because the person who used the word is illiterate."

What ARE those two going to do now that racism ended on November 4th?
They're going to need a whole new spiel.


> In the article, the word "primate" is known to be correct in the eyes of all
> sentient, educated adults. Any who disagree are outside the subset of adults
> known as "sentient and educated". That subset does not matter. They will
> blow away like fallen leaves.

I never said it wasn't correct. I said it was intentionally chosen,
and another term would most certainly have been used had the subject
been black clergy.

But you knew that.

On 2008-12-04 10:13:07 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:

>> Well said. I'm aware of people leaving many denominations when they begin
>> to leave tenets of the faith. This is directly responsible for the growth
>> of non-denominational churches which, as a rule, do not change Biblical
>> theology to suit their sociological desires.
>>
>
> I'm curious: Do splintering churches affect you personally in any way? If
> yes, how?

Not a bit, unless you count empathy for those who must leave due to
their orthodoxy.