Saturday, November 13, 2010

That was then ... This is now


25 comments:

Ann said...

perfect

Elizabeth Kaeton said...

"Author! Author!"

whiteycat said...

Priceless!!!

Grandmère Mimi said...

Excellent, Susan!

Jim said...

Yup pretty much. There must be something to like about the covenant. Oh yeah, it is written on flammable paper so it can be used to start a camp fire!

FWIW
jimB

Martin T. said...

Have any of you actually read it? Not just commentaries, but actually read it for yourself??

MackBeemer said...

Bishop Robinson writes, "It's time for "tolerant" religious people to acknowledge the straight line between the official anti-gay theologies of their denominations and the deaths of these young people. Nothing short of changing our theology of human sexuality will save these young and precious lives." -- The Rt Rev Gene Robinson

Actually, the line goes back much further... to Dachau, Treblinka, Bergen-Belsen, and the "Final Solution."

Jesus said we are to know them by their fruits!

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

@Martin ... read. marked. learned. inwardly digested. this one and the St. Andrew's Draft

next question?

Grandmère Mimi said...

Have any of you actually read it?

Echoing Susan, Martin, yes. More than once. The text of the Covenant gets no better on second, third, or fourth reading.

Ann said...

@Martin - certainly have - so many times that if I read it on paper there would be no print left.

Ann said...

inwardly digested? oh no, Susan - hope it did not make you sick -- I could not choke it down

Jim said...

Martin,

I have read it half a dozen times, written a detailed analysis of it and flow-charted the arcane idiocy that is section 4 twice, both the current silliness and the St. Andrew's draft that preceded it.

I am a trained business analyst and bring a structural view to it. From which by the way it makes no sense unless as Fr. Frasier says its purpose is to expel TEC, AC Canada and probably one or two conservative provinces.

FWIW
jimB

Martin T. said...

Well, if certain people haven't pushed for "certain things", there wouldn't be a need for a covenant. Women's ordination didn't do this, the ones that left over it left a long time ago. We're not the only Church that has women ordination and women bishops. And I'm not talking about the liberal side of the Lutherans. Even some of the RC bishops admitted there was nothing in scripture that forbid it. For them it's tradition, and some Christians just don't want to be under female authority. That's just the way it is for some. But the things that happened since 2003 can't be supported by scripture, tradition or reason, yes I also said reason. What reasonable thing is it to do something that the majority of those that whom fellowship with you consider abhorrent? Last time I checked, political correctness isn't in the scriptures. It's time our Church had a wake-up call, or don't be surprised nor cry and whine when ACNA gets to be a full member of the communion. You'll find a lot more people walking out of the door, even in liberal LA.

IT said...

If the majority dictated the pace ofchange, the South would still be under Jim Crow and inter-racial marriage would be illegal. If we never changed our thinking thanks to science, epileptics would be undergoing exorcisms and gay people would still be getting lobotomies at Atascadero.

And as for people walking out of the church, my experience is that a voice for radical inclusion is bringing them in. The Episcopal church we attend is growing in large part because of its prophetic social voice.

Martin T, you need to get over it. If that means you need to move on, to be healthy, well, there are plenty of places more to your liking. I don't see shutting the barn door on TEC will be useful as the hoofbeats have long since faded into the distance. It's simply an attempt to eliminate and punish, rather like a child strikes out and hits after the fact, when he doesn't get what he wants.

Martin T. said...

So having a view contrary to yours makes me "unhealthy"? What is unhealthy (and just plain stupid) is comparing apples and oranges to make your points. No one did a better job of doing the eliminating and punishing than those who continue to cry and whine about how they're not accepted. You're no better than those on the far right. Just two sides of the same coin to me Mr.IT....Smaller and purer just like how the RCC wants their community.

Grandmère Mimi said...

Mr.IT....Smaller and purer just like how the RCC wants their community.

Martin, Mr IT is female, a lesbian, and an atheist. Thanks for the laugh, though.

Martin T. said...

Sorry,Mimi. I didn't know. Ok...Ms.IT..who doesn't even have a a dog in this fight then. Why on earth would a atheist care about what goes on in ANY church is beyond me,lol. Must not be a very good atheist.

MarkBrunson said...

Now . . . who is it that doesn't know what - or whom - they're talking about Marty T.?

And you've been told - your views are - objectively - unhealthy.

wv: jortl - what intelligent Swedes do every time they read one of Martin T's. "observations."

JCF said...

{Sigh}

Adopting the "Neener, neener, neener" method of argumentation, Martin T, is going to impress precisely NOBODY w/ your "reason, yes I also said reason".

We BOTH read Holy Scripture. We interpret differently.

We BOTH (thoroughly) read the Anglican Covenant. We interpret it differently.

...and there we are.

{Sigh}

uffda51 said...

Martin T., the Anglican Covenant would have us believe that LGBT persons are children of a lesser god than your God. Two hundred years of biblical scholarship and a century of medical research, not to mention real life experience, have proven that this is not the case.

Martin T. said...

As I said before, in your world, unhealthy=don't agree with me. Mark, I'd hate to live with the anger you have. You really should seek counseling with your spiritual adviser. JCF, I'm here to impress no one, just to offer a different outlook on the same subjects, outlooks that most hard left liberals run and hide from...or just denounce them as "unhealthy". uffda51, it doesn't say that they are subhuman. Everyone has a place in the Church,everyone. No one is entitled to the sacrament of ordination or matrimony, please get that fact straight first and foremost. The things that have been going on since 2003 are unacceptable and has done nothing to even advance any of your causes. It only cost a lot of bad blood, lost time, and tons of money. If you and anyone else wants to dismiss it as "the cost of discipleship", that's fine. Just look of the word discipleship first because thumbing your nose at scripture and the rest of your fellow Anglicans isn't in that definition I can promise you that.

MarkBrunson said...

As I've told you, your "disagreement" stems from unreality and hatred. You desire to harm others.

Stop pretending. Accept the harm you've done. Murder is murder, even if it's second hand. You and people like you are the reason children have killed themselves, the reason gays and lesbians are hunted down in Africa. There's blood on your hands, Martin and LGMarshall, both.

Anger? Jesus had it. Paul had it. I've got it, too. And for the same reasons. I've seen my "spiritual counselor," thanks for the (false) concern.

We know what you are, but what should scare you is . . . so does God.

Martin T. said...

Mark...please tell me you're joking. Please tell me this is a parody...You can't be serious you just can't be. My God, if you are, please seek help. The last place you should be is on any type of blog. If you are serious, please talk to someone.

IT said...

Concern troll:A concern troll visits sites of an opposing ideology and offers advice on how they could "improve" things. The term originated on Daily Kos.[citation needed]

The concern troll's message is: "I have some concerns about your methods. If you did these things to make your message less effective, it would be more effective."

Concern trolls appear most frequently on very opinionated sites and are generally easily spotted by the locals, since their advice is uniformly bad for them and good for their ideological opponents. Some so-called parodists "concern troll" on Conservapedia, and there has been evidence of concern trolling on Free Republic.[1]

Another common tactic is the "a plague on both your houses" approach, where the concern troll tries to convince people that both sides of the ideological divide are doing the same thing, or are just as bad as each other, knowing the site's reason for existing in the first place is to promote one side of the ideological divide. This preys on the sites' willingness to actually debate critics and allow dissenting commentary, since there normally isn't any more to these accusations than the endless repetition of the assertion.


Appropriately, the capcha is "gases"

Martin T. said...

"Concern troll"..."Unhealthy views"...."Blood on your hands"...the far left really could use better spokesmen/women/whatever new thing that's invented...