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.

"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.
>

http://books.google.com/books?id=C-5...um=5&ct=result

Catch ya later. Busy right now.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:26:23 -0800, Conscience wrote:

>
> 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.

Heh heh...not everyone loves gays...

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:51:30 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

>> 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.
>>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=C-5...um=5&ct=result
>
> Catch ya later. Busy right now.

From the link you provided, I'd say you're at the crack pipe again...

"Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
newsan.2008.12.04.00.03.57.732860@e86.GTS...
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:51:30 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=C-5...um=5&ct=result
>>
>> Catch ya later. Busy right now.
>
> From the link you provided, I'd say you're at the crack pipe again...
>


That's what I was thinkin'.

I looked at Joe's link, and Captain BesideThePoint just didn't seem to fit.
I couldn't think of what does fit, but the crack pipe comes closer than the
options I had rattling around inside of my hat rack.

Whatever he's busy at, I pray driving is not involved.

On 2008-12-03 16:03:14 -0800, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク <Trueno@e86.GTS> said:

> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:26:23 -0800, Conscience wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Heh heh...not everyone loves gays...

Joe will naturally miss the point. It isn't about loving or hating anyone.

It's an emphasis on conservatives as though they're the ones that need
to change 20 centuries of church history. The Enlightened Ones who've
perverted (no pun intended) Christian theology have been absolved of
all blame thanks to articles like this one.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:11:47 -0800, Conscience <nobama@gov.com> wrote:

>On 2008-12-03 16:03:14 -0800, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> said:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:26:23 -0800, Conscience wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Heh heh...not everyone loves gays...
>
>Joe will naturally miss the point. It isn't about loving or hating anyone.
>
>It's an emphasis on conservatives as though they're the ones that need
>to change 20 centuries of church history. The Enlightened Ones who've
>perverted (no pun intended) Christian theology have been absolved of
>all blame thanks to articles like this one.


I would guess that you are an Episcopalian...

--

Scott in Florida

Conscience wrote:

>Notice, Joe, the inflammatory headline.

That is the writing style of many newspapers in an attempt to catch
your attention so you'll read the rest. The New York Times goes
further though. The first and second paragraphs almost always use
language to set up the reader by blaming President Bush or Republicans
in some minute way for the rest of the article. Instead of just
reporting the facts of the case they insert sentences claiming
something like "dinosaurs became extinct as a result of George W.
Bush's lifting of the oil drilling ban" or some other non-sensical
correlation like that.

On 2008-12-03 23:34:48 -0800, Scott in Florida <MoveOn@outa.here> said:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:11:47 -0800, Conscience <nobama@gov.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-12-03 16:03:14 -0800, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:26:23 -0800, Conscience wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Heh heh...not everyone loves gays...
>>
>> Joe will naturally miss the point. It isn't about loving or hating anyone.
>>
>> It's an emphasis on conservatives as though they're the ones that need
>> to change 20 centuries of church history. The Enlightened Ones who've
>> perverted (no pun intended) Christian theology have been absolved of
>> all blame thanks to articles like this one.
>
>
> I would guess that you are an Episcopalian...

That would be an incorrect guess. Similar situations exist within the
Methodist and Presbyterian churches. The latter also has people
considering a restored, theologically sound church. I'm just a
non-denominational, non-church attending guy.

"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.

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.

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

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.