Religion and Philosophy

in one day remains.

18002. Jimmy Page - 6/26/2002 9:09:24 AM

Good Morning all.

Congrats on the millenial, Mr. Jones.

OK, you've got the Aztec taste for human fleash, you've got the viking raids on northern Europe, you have the various and sundry Old World Empires, whether Eastern or Western, that relied upon conquest to grow. The point is that man, as a race, has been and continues to be violent - no one people can claim innocence in that regard.

Some seem to want to wallow in the misery of the past, others to forget, others to wallow in the guilt while proclaiming "but I myself am so different, not like the rest of THOSE americans."

Sorry, you're all one of us now.

I think it's nonsensical to claim that no lessons have been learned from the past.

I also think, that despite certain claims made about racism in the US (which certainly still exists) that the problems in the US are less than those elsewhere. Look, how large this country is and how diverse, and compare the problems here with those of Europe/Africa/Middle East.

And ivan, saying that you have no choice but to stay in the US is simply false. Many an immigrant TO the US (my father included) came with nothing but the clothes on their backs and managed to do quite well. If it's so much better elsewhere, go. There is truly nothing that stops anyone.

And sak- your ackowledgement, that you don't want to help or be part of society as the world moves by you says volumes. Fine, you prefer bitterness and sniping to anything constructive. Continue to be blue.

And on that note, time to get to work. Later.

18003. godlessclif - 6/26/2002 9:10:00 AM

ivan osokin: you think the west's genocide of the indigenous population was purely motivated by greed? please. and i suppose the holocaust was motivated by economics. sheesh.

Albert Speer asked, "How can we divert resources from the war effort to your evacuation of jews?"

"The Fuehrer has ordered the physical extermination of the Jews and only a Jew would count the cost." -Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich

18004. ivan osokin - 6/26/2002 9:30:06 AM

And ivan, saying that you have no choice but to stay in the US is simply false. Many an immigrant TO the US (my father included) came with nothing but the clothes on their backs and managed to do quite well. If it's so much better elsewhere, go. There is truly nothing that stops anyone.

JMPage:

i agree with that partly. but I'm not saying i can't go anywhere else (i could), i'm saying there is nowhere else to go. when your parents (or my grandparents, etc.) left their countries to come here, they assumed they were leaving their province for a new (and presumably better) one. however, my point was that i can't go anywhere to escape this province because its tentacles are everywhere. my grandparents, for instance, came over from sicily...even in Catania, where they lived, it was drastically different from the US. what's more, Catania did not have influence over the US. now, if i were to want to emigrate to, say, Germany, i'd find that things like the healthcare system and the various efforts to "rebuild" the infrastructure are, in fact, mirroring (or starting to) the united states models. america has managed to convince people that it works better than they do...what i really think is that people are starting to understand that resistance is futile and they're making the best of it.

and, it used to be better elsewhere...now there is no "elsewhere".

18005. godlessclif - 6/26/2002 9:37:54 AM

I love it. The Anglo Credo" we won in the past. We did so because we were more violent and less human than you.

we own the world. we were able to own it because we screwed you and everyone that looks like you with systematic bigotry and prejudice. We made you knuckle under at gunpoint and taught your children they were stupid and inferior.

Now don't wallowing in it or expect to be treated equally or even fairly because we will use our economic advantage to keep cheating you forever and there is nothing you can do about it.

I don't feel guilty about my special priviledges and don't give a #$%^ about you and hate and despise everyone that looks like you."

The answer to that attitude on the part of the anglos in the twin towers is suicide bombing. It is the attitude that made irishmen blow up pubs and people die for a chance to kill you and everyone that looks like you.

Jesus.

18006. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 9:41:10 AM

nd that things like the healthcare system and the various efforts to "rebuild" the infrastructure are, in fact, mirroring (or starting to) the united states models. america has managed to convince people that it works better than they do...

I don't know how America is covincing people of anything. It's our 'success' that they want to model. Our way makes money. I'm not saying that's right. Our system is all about pushing they systems limits. It's what brought us great successes as well as some problems.

But for the players... both success and failures can be pretty darn lucrative.

18007. sakonige - 6/26/2002 9:41:17 AM

Message # 17994

Delete the whole fucking thing, for all I care. It's just chat. You people take this shit too seriously.

18008. Indiana Jones - 6/26/2002 9:44:25 AM

Posts like 18007 are going to cause me to have a stroke.

18009. sakonige - 6/26/2002 9:45:08 AM

The point is that man, as a race, has been and continues to be violent -no one people can claim innocence in that regard.


But there are degrees of violence. Some people commit genocide, and some don't. Some people can claim innocence of genocide, others can't.

18010. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 9:50:50 AM

Well we're all 'dirty' for our inherited responsibility for the genocide of the Neandertals.

Funny all the prehistory we don't have the benefit of microanalysis of.

Could be that the 'Native Americans' weren't so native... or that one tribe committed genocide on another... but we don't have the benefit of history to 'chat' about it here.

18011. sakonige - 6/26/2002 10:06:58 AM

There is indisputable evidence that the New World nations that had the capacity to commit genocide didn't. Western anthropologist have made an effort to discover evidence of mass exterminations, but all they find is organized ritual sacrifice and 'mysterious' disappearances of entire cities where people just got up and walked away.

18012. sakonige - 6/26/2002 10:11:58 AM

Message # 18002

Being American means not giving a damn about anything but my own immediate self interest. So that's what I do when I interract with you.

18013. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2002 10:12:08 AM

ivan

I think the picture you paint of Europe is of your own making, not a representation of how things really are. Yes, if you visited Sweden you would see Starbucks and McDonalds on every street corner, you would note that the cinemas mostly show American movies that there is a lot of American stuff shown on TV, and that young people look more or less like American youths. You would perhaps think, then, that Sweden is just like America except that public transport is a bit better and most houses a bit older. But if you moved here and got to know the mechanics of Swedish society and what makes it tick you would understand that there are big differences. I'm not saying that things are 'better' here, but they are certainly different. And if you moved to Germany or Ireland you would find that things are different there too, but in other ways.

18014. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 10:15:19 AM

I don't know if I could live in a place where there is a McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner.

18015. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2002 10:23:32 AM

Poetic license, you know.

18016. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 10:26:32 AM

American movies have for the most part always been better than the rest of the world's... although Europe and Asia have been putting out better and better stuff.

If you put aside the criticisms (I think all cultures have problems with racism etc.) I think what defines America's culture (or lack thereof) is the fact that it has always been such a melting pot. There is a lot of pride in heritage, but at the same time you adapt to all the sub-cultures around you.

18017. Jimmy Page - 6/26/2002 11:19:20 AM

Clif-

I recommend medication.

Sak -

But there are degrees of violence. Some people commit genocide, and some don't. Some people can claim innocence of genocide, others can't.

I can claim innocence of genocide. I'd betcha some decent bucks or beads or whatever you'd like that you won't find too many Americans alive today guilty of genocide.

Perhaps you'd like to blame someone's great great grandparents. Sorry mine weren't here. And I'll give you double or nothing on the money I win on the above bet, that you won't find too many Americans in power related to the people you blame either in your guilt by relation several generations removed approach.

I don't know if "new world" "nations" committed genocide or not. Neither do you. Some of those nations were fairly small. The point is that even if your great great great granduncle was the great poobah of a tribe that wiped out another small tribe, it doesn't bloody your hands today. If evidence of it were found today we could all learn from it. The reason it's important to keep the memory of the holocaust alive is so that we can learn, and where possible try to prevent a similar occurrence, not to punish every living German for the next 300 years.

18018. Jimmy Page - 6/26/2002 11:20:41 AM

ivan -

forget your objections to the healthcare system. There's another reason not to move to germany. sak would blame your grandchildren for the holocaust and tell them that they stink.

18019. sakonige - 6/26/2002 12:49:29 PM

I can claim innocence of genocide.

You can't claim you didn't profit from it.

18020. sakonige - 6/26/2002 12:59:07 PM

by the way, the transgressions North American native nations committed against eachother have all been resolved and forgiven long ago. We New Worlders are way ahead of the rest of the world in exonoration.

18021. sakonige - 6/26/2002 1:02:36 PM

It's one of the coolest and most enduring features of our character, the way we can just stop fighting and forget about it. There are no thousand-year-old grudges over here, except the ones brought here from the Old World.

18022. Jimmy Page - 6/26/2002 1:03:06 PM

Sak -

You can't claim you didn't profit from it.

Sure I can.

We New Worlders are way ahead of the rest of the world in exonoration.

The above is laughable to the extent you intend to include yourself in any way, shape or form. Just go back and read your own words for a refresher.

18023. judithathome - 6/26/2002 1:25:56 PM

American movies have for the most part always been better than the rest of the world's... although Europe and Asia have been putting out better and better stuff.

This is patently untrue. "Movies" started before the 1970s. You do know this, right?

18024. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 1:44:37 PM

I'm entitled to my opinion... I don't necessarily go for the modern movies. I'm a big fan of classics and think most of the best movies ever made were pre-1970.

A short list of some of best Movies ever made... many pre-1970

Rear Window
Cassablanca
Gone With The Wind
Little Big Man

... I'd have to sit down with Maltin's book to remind me of them all.

Some of my favorite foreign films

Amilie (French)
Eat Drink Man Woman (Japan)
The Pathfinder (Sweden I think)

18025. judithathome - 6/26/2002 1:50:10 PM

Sorry...I'm a foreign movie snob. Old ones, to boot.

Didn't mean to be so combative! ;-)

18026. Rama - 6/26/2002 2:01:01 PM

so in a nutshell, rama disagrees for the sake of disagreement and tries to reverse the position by tossing back an allegation of racism.

No, I pointed out blatant nonsense, item by item and I pointed out your clearly demonstrated racism.

18027. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 2:02:03 PM

So what do you recommend? Maybe I will rent something.

18028. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 2:03:03 PM

sorry to be off topic too... you can tell me in movies... I forgot where I was.

18029. judithathome - 6/26/2002 2:03:15 PM

I think the movie stuff ought to go to movies, for one thing. ;-)

18030. judithathome - 6/26/2002 2:03:46 PM

Ha! x post!

18031. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 2:04:53 PM

I can bring it back to topic...

God! I really liked that movie Little Big Man!

18032. DanDillon - 6/26/2002 3:37:19 PM

Nobody bless America

Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

18033. jexster - 6/26/2002 4:33:27 PM

GodlessCliff FYI....

I will be leading the Mote in the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a recitation of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary tonight at 7:00 PDT.

18034. jexster - 6/26/2002 4:34:06 PM

Judith bring Cllr

18035. Jenerator - 6/26/2002 8:04:15 PM

Ivan,

Re:Message # 17918

I have to admit, I don't really see that much difference between Crowley and Satanism. I don't think he did either. Sure, he might have had his peaceful moments in the OTO and writing poetry, perhaps he even had some altrusitic intentions, but overall, we're talking about a man who called himself a "fiend" and identified with the Great Beast 666. His lifestyle definitely emulated this, too...pedohilia, bestiality, drug addiction, and insanity.

18036. Jenerator - 6/26/2002 8:05:11 PM

Sakonige,

I smell like soap.

18037. sakonige - 6/26/2002 8:22:26 PM

Yeah, right.

18038. sakonige - 6/26/2002 8:25:54 PM

I'll bet you actually smell like plastic and burned gasoline, but that's ok.

18039. jexster - 6/26/2002 9:31:49 PM

I bet Jen smells like Yardley's.

18040. jexster - 6/26/2002 9:34:16 PM

Let's get started, Cliff and Cllr won't show..


I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America...one nation under God etc.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

I believe in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ his only son Our Lord...and the resurrection of the body and the Life everlasting. Amen..

Hail Mary full of grace, the lord is with you....

18041. ivan osokin - 6/26/2002 10:04:52 PM

Jen:

Crowley never declared himself a satanist or dwelled on "satan". i've read over 20 of his books and references to the words lucifer, satan, the devil or related words is infinitessimal. for instance, in his 900+ autobiography, there are less than 7 references in the index to any of the aforementioned words...and none of them in any way praising or supporting satan.

there is no worship of satan or ritual designed to invoke satan in his texts.

what happened is that crowley built up his own reputation and hype as a wicked man (his parents were members of the strict Plymouth Bretheren and his mother called him "the great beast"...which is why he sarcastically donned the monicker...he knew it would piss off his mother's ilk). he was a prick, and liked the fact that he upset people.

amazingly, though crowley is considered the cause for just about every "evil" in society, there is little (if any) scholarship devoted to studying him or his work. the closest to it is the opinion of christian detractors.

personally, i think crowley was probably an asshole of a person...he certainly held victorian ideas about women, and he lived off the largesse of others by promoting himself as a guru. the fact that people either misconstrue his work and criticize him based on a superficial glance at it is just as silly as people who worship him as some avatar of spirituality.

i do not consider anything he's written or done to be the equivalent of "satanism" as coined in the modern vernacular. in fact, i don't know that there is any true "satanist" because there is no "religion" about it...every supposed satanist i've ever heard of, or met, is essentially trying to do whatever the opposite of christianity may be. "satanism" is more of a christian taboo than religion...a peculiarly christian fetish. i think satanism is rebellion for the sake of rebellion...pissing off your parents as crowley did to his.

18042. ivan osokin - 6/26/2002 10:05:07 PM

jen...

and his poetry sucked.

18043. ivan osokin - 6/26/2002 10:15:52 PM

an amendment on what i just said above.

i do understand that to many, anyone who purposely defies, inverts, or proposes antagonism towards christianity is doing the work of satan and therefore, is a satanist. so i understand why even an understanding of crowley will bring about charges of satanism by christians. i think that perhaps another term should be used, though, because satanism implies some interaction with satan when clearly one can be anti-christianity but also be anti-satan.

18044. Snowowl - 6/26/2002 10:43:38 PM

I imagine that any atheist must be anti-Satan in the sense that they would give no more credence to the existence of such a being than they do to the existence of God.

In the strictest sense they're neither pro nor anti, since they just don't believe such beings exist.

18045. judithathome - 6/26/2002 10:54:18 PM

Works for me. Thanks, Snow.

18046. Jimmy Page - 6/27/2002 8:42:59 AM

ivan -

I'm certainly no expert on crowley, but your posts re: him are head on with what little I do know. As I understand it, he was more of a pagan, mixing and matching various rites as they seemed to either suit him (or excite him sexually). He wasn't really too consistent in what he said or did either.

From the Christian perspective though, there is one God and one God only. There is also the Devil.

If you're a Christian (or perhaps any kind of monotheist) and you see someone worship someone or something or many someone/somethings that are anathema to the tenets of your religion, then you're probably going to conclude that that other person is worshiping the devil, whether that other person knows it or not. So it's easy for a christian to dump many traditionally pagan/wiccan type religions into the catch-all category "satanic" or "satanism."

From the perspective of the pagan/wiccan, however, who has rejected the idea of one God, being labelled a satanist is probably inaccurate since it implies that the individual knows of the one God, BELIEVES that he exists, and instead CHOOSES to worship the devil. I'd agree that there probably aren't too many of those around. At least not serious ones anyway. They're more likely to be rebellious teens who are trying to show they don't conform so they head over to the nearest store where they can buy some "cool" upside down crucifix jewelry, etc....

18047. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 8:47:57 AM

As a Christian... I spend very little time worrying about what other people are doing, and more about what I need to do for myself.

18048. Jimmy Page - 6/27/2002 8:48:58 AM

Of course then again, there is Anton LeVay and the Church of Satan....

18049. Jimmy Page - 6/27/2002 8:53:59 AM

iiibbb -

Isn'tthat aproach ignoring several Christian priniples though, including Matthew 28:19?

18050. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 9:14:10 AM

I don't think so. I will talk about my beliefs to anyone. Teaching, and coercion are seperate things. Baptism is supposed to be someone's personal choice (or their parents').

I am not equipped to quote chapter and verse... but here's a stab. Mt 7.1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

and their is another place I can't find that essentially says you are not equipped to judge others... only God knows what's in their heart and you are in no position to judge what is a sin and isn't.

As far as prostilizing... I don't know why leading by example isn't effective in it's own way.

18051. Jimmy Page - 6/27/2002 9:33:33 AM

iiibbb -

I wasn't talking about judging, so i misunderstood what you meant. as to proselyzing, by example, I think it works. Some people don't have the gift of openly discussing what they feel (some don't know they don't have it and come across as very heavy-handed).

I'm interested in the statement:

Baptism is supposed to be someone's personal choice (or their parents').

I'm not aware of any biblical basis for the proposition that a parent can make the choice. I know that parents do, but I think the act itself is meaningless if the decision isn't made personally.

18052. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 9:52:29 AM

j page:

thanks...you have a level-headed view of the crowley/satan issue. personally, i would find it offensive to be called a satanist because i'm a pagan, but i wouldn't be offended at being called a non-christian...which is accurate, at least.

it's also quite an interesting phenomena how crowley's myth far eclipses his rather mundane life. i mean, bestiality? i've never even heard that allegation! pedophilia? same thing.

as an example of how he purposely called such negative attention to himself: he told the british press that he sacrifices hundreds of his own children every year. but he was making reference to wasting his reproductive seed through masturbation. of course, the press made a big deal about it until they could find nothing to show that he killed anyone ever.

fascinating character, over-rated as cause for the evils of the world, and an interesting sociological study if anyone would actually do it without bias.

18053. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 9:54:31 AM

Well yes... ultimately you're the one who decides what you believe. I only said parents not as a biblical basis for it, but the fact that the actual act of babtism is often a decision made by the parents (mine babtised me). Parent's babtise their kids I guess because it's a while before they can make that decision for themselves, and it does fulfill Mt 28:19 that you cited.

It's not surprising that Christian parents want their children to be Christian.

The statement about judging is just that I won't bother worrying about the motives of some writier... whether he's satanic or agnositic or whatever. I think people are better off prostelizing what's good about their Christian experience than what's evil about the world.

If you believe and want God in your life... none of that 'evil' can touch you anyway.

18054. Jimmy Page - 6/27/2002 10:06:58 AM

ivan -

I wouldn't go so far as to call Crowley's lifestyle "mundane," although the myth certainly eclipses reality.

As to pedophilia, wasn't Crowley's view that "the age of consent" is the age at which someone reaches puberty? Since individuals usually reach puberty long before the age of consent set forth in the laws of most "civilized" places, Crowley was seen as supporting pedophilia. Don't quote me on that, but that's what I remember about that issue.

18055. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 10:49:35 AM

jpage;

you may be right on that. but if so, i suppose anyone in england or the US during the 19th century may have been a pedophile too...same with India.

i don't recall, however, him saying that about the age of consent. i don't recall him saying ANYTHING about the age of consent, though i'm SURE he would think somewhere around the age of 15 or 16 to be acceptable. i've never actually heard of allegations that he cavorted with such young women, however...and considering his reputation, i'm sure that if he did, we'd have known about it.

18056. Jimmy Page - 6/27/2002 11:13:20 AM

but if so, i suppose anyone in england or the US during the 19th century may have been a pedophile too...same with India.

Sure, not to mention several third world countries in the 20th Century where adulthood is defined very differently. The person I consider a child, someone else considers his wife and the mother of his three children....

18057. Rama - 6/27/2002 11:38:01 AM

"That's no baby, that's my wife!"

18058. KuligintheHooligan - 6/27/2002 2:56:50 PM

"If you're a Christian (or perhaps any kind of monotheist) and you see someone worship someone or something or many someone/somethings that are anathema to the tenets of your religion, then you're probably going to conclude that that other person is worshiping the devil, whether that other person knows it or not. So it's easy for a christian to dump many traditionally pagan/wiccan type religions into the catch-all category "satanic" or "satanism."

There would be "man made" religions as a category as well. Clearly Scripture considers some false doctrine as "doctrines of Satan" and such.

Personally, I find it very easy to lump together paganism with Satanism, just because there are so many similarities. However, technically speaking that isn't a correct thing to do.

18059. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 3:44:08 PM

KtheH:

wow. once again you surprise me. i agree...it's really not a "correct" thing to do. but i understand why christianity might lump them together.

i wish there was a better way to classify this. i know there are people who profess to be satanists and pretend to worship satan and trot around presenting themselves as dark and evil. universally, i have found these people to be morons of the worst kind. at least a christian moron has some doctrinal reason for it (and jesus wasn't a bad guy)...self-professed satanists are taking their cue from a cheap paperback written by a circus buffoon.

so many people in the pagan community want to be distanced from them, but it's hard to convince christianity that the difference is sufficient to add a different category besides 'satanist'.

i prefer "non-christian polytheist" or something like that...at least it doesn't imply that someone's about to sacrifice your children :)

18060. Jenerator - 6/28/2002 6:24:20 PM

Ivan,

I pretty much agree with you. Why I consider (loosely) Crowleyism and Satanism to be essentially the same thing is because they are both so similar. For starters, Satan is used as a metaphor, if used at all. Living life to its fullest, even if it includes moral licentiousness drug abuse, and promiscuity, is the primary goal. Ritual and order are desired and magick is performed to bring a "depth" to the ordinary and mundane. Christianity is the antithesis and should be destroyed because it is against the carnal man.

Btw, had I known you a year ago, I could have purchased two of Crowley's books (1st edition) for you.

18061. jexster - 6/28/2002 10:50:47 PM

Eucharistic Rite,1549 Book of Common Prayer

18062. jexster - 6/28/2002 10:53:37 PM

ALMIGHTIE and everlivyng GOD, whiche by thy holy Apostle haste taught us to make prayers and supplicacions, and to geve thankes for al menne: We humbly beseche thee moste mercyfully to receive these our praiers, which we offre unto thy divine Majestie, beseching thee to inspire continually the universal churche with the spirite of trueth, unitie, and concorde: And graunt that al they that do confesse thy holy name, maye agree in the trueth of thy holye worde, and live in unitie and godly love. Speciallye we beseche thee to save and defende thy servaunt Edwarde our Kyng, that under hym we maye be Godly and quietly governed. And graunt unto his whole counsaile, and to all that he put in auctoritie under hym, that they maye truely and indifferently minister justice, to the punishemente of wickednesse and vice, and to the maintenaunce of Goddes true religion and vertue. Geve grace (O henvenly father) to all Bishoppes, Pastors, and Curates, that thei maie bothe by their life and doctrine set furthe thy true and lively worde, and rightely and duely administer thy holy Sacramentes: and to al thy people geve thy heavenly grace, that with meke heart and due reverence they may heare and receive thy holy worde, truely servyng thee in holynes and righteousnes all the dayes of their life:... Graunt this, O father, for Jesus Christes sake, our onely mediatour and advocate.

18063. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 11:54:41 PM

I seek refuge in the great Lord, Vinayaka, who is higher than the highest, who is everlasting, who is ferocious to others than those that bow to Him, who is resplendent as the newly rising sun, worshipped by both demons and Gods, the savior of those that bow to Him from all their miseries, the lord of all the Gods, the lord of all wealth, the elephant God, and Ganesvara, the lord of the ganas.

I bow to the resplendent one who bestows peace to all the worlds, who conquered the elephant demon, who has not a small belly, the excellent one who has a beautiful elephant face, who is eternal, who is kind, who is forgiving, who gives happiness, who bestows fame and who satisfies every wish of those that bow to Him.

I worship the ancient elephant God, who shares the misery of the poor, the fit receptacle of all the ancient prayers, the first son of the enemy of the three cities, Siva, the shatterer of the pride of the demons, the fierce destroyer of the worlds, decorated by fire and other elements, and whose elephant cheeks are flowing with must.

I constantly think of Him alone, the single-tusked one, witha lovingly brillian tusk, the son of the destroyer of the sacrifice, Siva, with a form that cannot be comprehended, with no end, who tears assunder all doubts and who is verily like spring to the yogis who hold Him in their hearts all the time.

18064. jexster - 6/29/2002 10:26:24 AM

A Hypertext Book of Hours

18065. robertjayb - 6/29/2002 5:55:13 PM

Thy will be done! And quickly, please!

V A T I C A N C I T Y, June 29 — The Vatican specialist who collaborated with Pope John Paul II on the best-selling book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" says the pontiff has firmly decided not to retire.

In a front-page article Saturday in the Milan daily Corriere della Sera, Vittorio Messori quoted what he said he had deduced from the pope's thoughts on the subject:

"The force to continue is not my problem but that of Christ, who wanted to call me, though unworthy, to be his vicar on Earth. In His mysterious design, He has brought me here. And it will be He who decides my fate."

18066. wonkers2 - 7/8/2002 7:08:52 AM

From Justice Scalia, A Chilling Vision of Religion's Authority in America

18067. bubbaette - 7/9/2002 10:33:22 PM

Preacher beats the devil out of 11-year-old

18068. KuligintheHooligan - 7/12/2002 3:33:47 AM

> BreakPoint with Charles Colson
> Commentary #020711 - 07/11/2002
> Vindicating the Scouts: Leadership and the Lives of Boys
>
> Last month in Dallas, Catholic bishops adopted a set of policies to address the scandal of sexual abuse by priests. The policy "permanently [removes] from ministry" any priest or deacon who has ever sexually abused a minor.
>
> While it remains to be seen whether this policy or any other measure will restore confidence in the church, there's one unjustly maligned group whose policies have been vindicated by these scandals: the Boy Scouts.
>
> In addition to what is being called a "zero tolerance" policy toward wayward priests, the bishops took steps to prevent future abuse. These
include the adoption of strict standards of conduct for anyone, lay or clergy, working with children.
>
> If the Bishops are looking for an example of such standards, they need look no further than in the basements of many of their churches. That's because the organization meeting there, the Boy Scouts, has a policy that now looks very good in the wake of the travails of the Catholic church. [cont]

18069. KuligintheHooligan - 7/12/2002 3:42:18 AM

> To understand why, it's important to acknowledge the nature of the problems confronting the Catholic church. The scandal cannot be understood or worked out without taking the homosexuality of the accused priests into account. Note that the overwhelming majority of abuse cases in the Catholic church involve men and boys. The best way to avoid these problems in the future is to keep sexually active homosexual men away from vulnerable boys.
>
> And that's exactly what the Scouts have been doing. They prohibit homosexual men from acting as scoutmasters. While this policy isn't a complete guarantee against sexual abuse, it greatly reduces the risk and has so far spared Scouting from what has happened in the Catholic
church. [cont]

18070. KuligintheHooligan - 7/12/2002 3:42:42 AM

> And for acting on what most people would regard as common sense, particularly in light of the Catholic church experience, the Scouts have been vilified and even sued. Their right, as a private
organization, to determine the qualifications for leadership was barely upheld by the Supreme Court three years ago.
>
> Having won in court, the Scouts are still the object of harassment and boycotts. City governments have banned them from public facilities, and major corporations have withdrawn funding. For many of our elites, the Scouts' policy on gay scoutmasters is the embodiment of bigotry.
>
> This is why you won't see many people in the mainstream media drawing the connection between what's going on in the Catholic church and the Scouts. Their worldview, which tells them that any disapproval of homosexual behavior is mere prejudice, won't allow them to see the connection.
>
> As Leslie Carbone recently pointed out in NATIONAL REVIEW, elites who condemn the Catholic church for putting young boys in danger of sexual
abuse are the same ones who condemned the Scouts for refusing to do so. And so they are in the hypocritical position of opposing homosexual priests while demanding homosexual scout leaders.
>
> If our neighbors are going to appreciate how events of the past few months have vindicated the Scouts, they'll have to hear it from us. And let's be fair here: What the media thinks is now good for the Catholic church -- "zero tolerance," no abuse tolerated -- is surely good for the Scouts. Come on, folks -- let's stop harassing the Scouts. They've been right all along.
[END]

18071. wonkers2 - 7/19/2002 4:06:28 PM

The Colson/Leslie Carbone article is pure bullshit!

18072. jexster - 7/23/2002 2:36:09 PM

A friend of our parish rector...

LoNDON –– Welsh archbishop Rowan Williams, a renowned theologian and outspoken opponent of U.S. policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, was chosen Tuesday to be the 104th archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the world's 70 million Anglicans.

Williams, 52, has been praised in some church quarters as an orthodox Christian and a deep thinker. Desmond Tutu, the former archbishop of Cape Town, describes Williams as "the leading theologian in our communion." But some conservatives have been alarmed that he admitted ordaining a priest whom he suspected of living in a homosexual relationship.

Williams, who was in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11 as terrorist strikes brought down the World Trade Center, has criticized the U.S.-led war on terrorism, and has condemned sanctions against Iraq and the American threats of military action against Saddam Hussein.

Writing recently about the war on terrorism, Williams said, "It is just possible to deplore civilian casualties and retain moral credibility when an action is clearly focused and its goals are on the way to evident achievement.

"It is not possible when the strategy appears confused and political leaders talk about a war that may last for years."

18073. wonkers2 - 7/24/2002 5:23:20 PM

Good pick. Williams is a heavy duty theologian and intellectual who is willing to speak out on a variety of issues, according to NPR. He's written seven books including poetry and theology and speaks five languages. The American Episcopal Church is handicapped by not having a leader, comparable to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury.

18074. Rama - 7/26/2002 12:22:40 PM

Woo-hoo! Tony Blair picks a liberal hypocrite to head the establishedChurch of England. What an amazing surprise.

A much more interesting development is the democratic selection of Fahed Abu-Akel as Moderator by the Presbyterian Church in the US.

18075. Rama - 7/26/2002 12:34:38 PM

BTW, Williams is a hypocrite because he claims to be a disestablishmentarian while heading an established church.

18076. jexster - 7/28/2002 7:55:16 PM

He claims nothing of the sort! You, however, can lay claim to an abundance of igorance.

18077. jexster - 7/28/2002 8:00:57 PM

And of course and as if Rama would let facts get in the way of his prejudices, Tony Blair merely confirmed the first of two elected choices of the COE...

18078. jexster - 7/28/2002 8:02:26 PM

And of course and as if Rama would let facts get in the way of his prejudices, Tony Blair merely confirmed the first of two elected choices of the COE...

18079. jexster - 7/28/2002 8:17:33 PM

Biographical Information

Rowan Douglas Williams was born in Swansea on 14 June 1950. He was educated at Dynevor Secondary School, then at Christ's College, Cambridge, where he read Theology. After research in Oxford (on Christianity in Russia), he spent two years as a lecturer at Mirfield Theological College near Leeds. From 1977, he spent nine years in academic and parochial work in Cambridge. From 1986-1992, Dr Williams was Professor of Theology at Oxford. He was enthroned as Bishop of Monmouth in 1992 and Archbishop of Wales in 2000.

Dr Williams has written a number of books on the history of theology and spirituality and published collections of articles and sermons – as well as two books of poetry. He has been involved in various commissions on theology and theological education. He was a member of the Church Schools Review Group led by Lord Dearing and chaired the group that produced the report ‘Wales: a Moral Society?’

Dr Williams is a Fellow of the British Academy. His interests include music, fiction and languages.

Since 1981, Dr Williams has been married to Jane Paul, a lecturer in theology, whom he met while living and working in Cambridge. They have a son and a daughter.

Details:

Christ's College, Cambridge, B.A. 1971. M.A. 1975
Wadham College, Oxford, D.Phil 1975
College of the Resurrection, Mirfield, 1975
Deacon 1977. Priest 1978
Tutor, Westcott House, Cambridge, 1977-1980
Honorary Curate, Chesterton St George, Ely 1980-1983
Lecturer in Divinity, Cambridge, 1980-1986
Dean and Chaplain, Clare College, Cambridge, 1984-1986
Canon Theologian, Leicester Cathedral, 1981-1982
Canon Residentiary, Christ Church, Oxford 1986-1992
Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford 1986-1992
Enthroned as Bishop of Monmouth on 14 May 1992
Enthroned as Archbishop of Wales on 26 February 2000

18080. jexster - 7/28/2002 8:20:24 PM

The main roles of the Archbishop of Canterbury

Diocesan Bishop of Canterbury
Since 597, the Archbishop’s See has been at Canterbury. The next Archbishop will be the 104th. His diocese in East Kent has a population of 825,000 people and comprises 270 parishes in an area of nearly 1,000 square miles.

Metropolitan for the Southern Province of the Church of England

The Archbishop of Canterbury has what is known as metropolitical authority (that is, a supervisory authority for defined purposes) in relation to all bishops and clergy in the 30 dioceses in southern England. The Archbishop of York has the same authority in relation to the 14 dioceses in northern England.

Primate of All England
The Archbishop has this title in recognition of his lead ecclesiastical role in England. The Church of England has 13,000 parishes and 13,000 full-time parochial and other clergy. He is regarded as the nation’s senior Christian and spiritual voice.

Leader of the Anglican Communion
The Anglican Communion includes all 38 provinces in communion with the See of Canterbury, a total of about 70 million members throughout the world.

Ecumenical role
The Archbishop of Canterbury takes the lead in respect of Anglican relationships with other Christian churches in the United Kingdom and abroad.

Inter faith role
Similarly, the Archbishop of Canterbury leads in respect of Anglican relationships with other faiths.

18081. jexster - 7/28/2002 8:34:34 PM

Visit nurtures relationship between Episcopal Church and Russian Orthodox

The linked article mentions a 1999 visit by PB/Primate William Griswold. During that visit, the Metropolitan of Moscow told Griswold how, in 1906, upon receiving word that the Church of the Advent (SF) had been destroyed in the earthquake, Archbishop Tikon, his predecessor and now a Saint in the Russian Orthodox Church, sent a chalice and ciborium to the parish.

That's my parish. And the sacred vessels are used to this very day on Major Feasts.

TIKHON, SAINT, ENLIGHTENER OF AMERICA
AND PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW

18082. Rama - 7/29/2002 11:23:19 AM

He claims nothing of the sort! You, however, can lay claim to an abundance of igorance.

Jexter, I knew you don't understand politics or history, but I had the impression you knew something about the branch of organized religion you are affiliated with. But it turns out you don't know anything about anything at all. Williams has spoken about disestablishment on many occasions.

18083. Rama - 7/29/2002 11:27:18 AM

And of course and as if Rama would let facts get in the way of his prejudices, Tony Blair merely confirmed the first of two elected choices of the COE...

Jexter, I don't believe even you are that ignorant, so I must believe you are lying on purpose. Blair picked from the offered list. He didn't pick the "first". He picked the politically safest.

18084. jexster - 7/29/2002 12:13:04 PM

He picked the first choice of HM committee on appointments...wanna cite

and I would like your evidence in return....

bring it on...you are challenged.

18085. jexster - 7/29/2002 12:14:52 PM

And as to your point about Blair picking the "politically safest" define your terms...for in fact Blair was subject to intense lobbying from inside and outside England by social conservatives who object to Williams' endorsement of gay ordinations.....


Bring it on....we'll see who's the Moron here just as we have on other threads...

18086. jexster - 7/29/2002 12:18:38 PM

Be mindful, be warned, be careful,not only do I know a good deal from media sources about the new Centaur, my parish rector, as I have said, knows him personally, from when he was at Oxford and from his friendship with the Archbishop of York.

18087. jexster - 7/29/2002 1:14:13 PM

Yo Rama...try this...

Engage brain before typing any more posts!

A master mariner meets the storm
David Edwards


Rowan Williams will preside over a Church of England that is being pulled in different directions and uncertain of its role. How will he respond to these challenges? The former Provost of Southwark Cathedral outlines what can be expected of the new Archbishop of Canterbury – and what cannot.

Do you enjoy being publically humiliated?

18088. jexster - 7/29/2002 1:17:37 PM

The convulsions of our English Church itself, grievous as they are, seem to be as nothing beside the danger of its calm and unobtrusive alienation in thought and spirit from the great silent multitude of Englishmen, and again of alienation from fact and love of fact.”

Rama are you one of that silent multitude?

18089. jexster - 7/29/2002 1:19:28 PM

Rowan Williams thus comes to his throne in Canterbury Cathedral at a time of challenges greater than those which in 1942 confronted William Temple, the greatest of the twentieth century’s Anglican archbishops. The hour then was dark because the war was grim, but the Churches were then comparatively popular, and it was a time of hopes about post-war reconstruction. Archbishop Williams, however, is called to Canterbury at a time of disillusion about all politicians, of moral anarchy in key areas, and of profound uncertainty about the UK and about its role in the world – should it be in the European Union or the junior partner of the United States?

But Williams is better equipped for this job, or more gifted for this ministry, than his greatest recent predecessor – and this is also true about the next greatest, Michael Ramsey

18090. jexster - 7/29/2002 1:54:46 PM

Theologically, +Williams, Centaur is a fellow traveler of the PB of the Episcopal Church, Frank Griswold...

to wit...

Affirming Catholicism: The New Catholic Movement in the Anglican/Episcopal Church

Affirming Catholicism, founded by +Frank Griswold...

Affirming Catholicism began with a conference on Saturday 9 June, 1990, at St. Alban's church, Holborn -just outside the City of London. The clarion call from Rowan Williams, now Archbishop of Wales, was for Anglo-Catholics to affirm tradition 'in its proper and fullest sense', not as a 'lifeboat in which to escape the present' but as 'a crucible in which the experiment of Christian life is constantly tested'.

18091. Rama - 7/29/2002 2:13:21 PM

He picked the first choice of HM committee on appointments...wanna cite

and I would like your evidence in return....



OK, I was wrong.

You are that stupid.

The order of election is no more binding to the PM than the alphabetic order. Blair doesn't get elected by conservatives.

18092. Rama - 7/29/2002 2:20:36 PM

Be mindful, be warned, be careful,not only do I know a good deal from media sources about the new Centaur, my parish rector, as I have said, knows him personally, from when he was at Oxford and
from his friendship with the Archbishop of York.

Be mindful, be warned, be careful, I was in the UK the last three weeks, so I am quite aware of reality, not your delusions.

Also, watch out, because I can read. The link you posted supported what I said, not your disagreement: Williams is a liberal, like the P.M. who selected him, and has claimed to be a disestablishmentarian.

18093. Rama - 7/29/2002 2:24:35 PM

Rama are you one of that silent multitude?

Nope. I'm a noisy American Calvinist.

18094. jexster - 7/29/2002 2:41:27 PM

I know.

I know nothing of the Presbytrs....lots about Catholic denominations...little of the Prots... :)

18095. jexster - 7/29/2002 2:43:26 PM

and I am still waiting for your evidence that Williams is anything but Orthodox unless of course your definition of same involves issues of who sleeps with whom...

The fact that you have offered nothing, means to me at least, you have nothing to offer on the subject

18096. jexster - 7/29/2002 2:55:39 PM

A Statement on the appointment
of Rowan Williams as the next Archbishop of Canterbury



July 15, 2002

I am very pleased with the appointment of Rowan Williams to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. He is well known and highly respected across the Anglican Communion, in ecumenical circles, and here in the United States.

The combination of a keen mind and a contemplative heart, together with an ability to relate classical Christian tradition to the needs and struggles of our world, make him eminently qualified to take up this important and challenging ministry of service.

The Most Reverend Frank T. Griswold
XXV Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA

18097. jexster - 7/29/2002 3:15:54 PM

The choices BTW FYI one and two are preferential but you are right Blair was no more obliged to take the first than he was the second and in fact had the power to choose neither and send the Commission back..

in this regard his power is no more nor less than that of the Queen...

But its been a while since any of this mattered and even longer since you have demonstrated much intelligence on this subject

18098. jexster - 7/29/2002 3:16:06 PM

The choices BTW FYI one and two are preferential but you are right Blair was no more obliged to take the first than he was the second and in fact had the power to choose neither and send the Commission back..

in this regard his power is no more nor less than that of the Queen...

But its been a while since any of this mattered and even longer since you have demonstrated much intelligence on this subject

18099. jexster - 7/29/2002 3:22:59 PM

I guess Rama wasn't "in england" in late June...

Or else he can't read..

Daily Telegraph..

The Archbishop of Wales, the Most Rev Dr Rowan Williams, is "virtually certain" to succeed George Carey at the Archbishop of Canterbury, it was claimed last night.

Church sources, including a close friend of one of the 13 voting members of the Crown Appointments Commission that met secretly last week to select the names of two candidates to present to Tony Blair, said it was "highly unlikely" the Prime Minister would commend the other, unnamed, candidate for approval by the Queen. The CAC will have presented the names to Downing Street in order of preference and the sources said Dr Williams was in first place"

what an idiot

18100. Rama - 7/29/2002 3:44:28 PM

and I am still waiting for your evidence that Williams is anything but Orthodox

Good grief! I haven't said anything about orthodoxy! Establishmentarianism is a matter of politics, not theology. Of course, he isn't Orthodox, or he wouldn't be Anglican. But as far as I am aware, he is orthodox, though quite liberal.

18102. Rama - 7/29/2002 4:21:32 PM

I guess Rama wasn't "in england" in late June...

No, as I said, I was in the UK the last three weeks. That would be July.

what an idiot

Indeed, you must be, having already admitted I was correct that Blair could pick who he wanted, to continue to embarrass yourself about this issue.

18103. jexster - 7/29/2002 7:56:40 PM

Oh my God.

Disestablishmentarianism, ie the removal of Crown Authority over the affairs of the COE, has EVERYTHING to do with Catholic Orthodoxy!

It has been so since Henry VIII.

What an idiot.

18104. jexster - 7/29/2002 7:58:51 PM

And I never said that Blair couldn't pick whom he wanted. So could the Queen.

I did say that the PM was given two choices in order of preference; that Williams was the first choice, and as far as politically "safe" goes, in point of fact, Williams was a highly risky choice both for his Catholic Orthodoxy and for his liberal social views.

18105. jexster - 7/29/2002 7:59:54 PM

In fact, Blair was under rather heavy lobbying pressure from conservatives to choose the second pick or none at all, which, would have been a disastrous move.

18106. jexster - 7/29/2002 8:00:50 PM

You stick to telling us about Presbyterians and you won't wind up looking so foolish










Maybe

18107. jexster - 7/29/2002 8:01:45 PM

Advice for next round....

Don't let your prejudice against Tony Blair interfere with fact

18108. Rama - 7/30/2002 10:28:20 AM

Disestablishmentarianism, ie the removal of Crown Authority over the affairs of the COE, has EVERYTHING to do with Catholic Orthodoxy!

It is amazing to me that someone who parrots religious texts so often has no idea what orthodoxy is. I doubt it is possible to underestimate your lack of understanding.

There can be no orthodox position on establishment, since there is no orthodox support for the diversity of congregations that gives that concept meaning.

It has been so since Henry VIII.

What nonsense. The Anglican reformation had nothing to do with establishmentarianism, since it merely replaced one established church with another.

What an idiot.

You do not need to keep signing your posts.

18109. Rama - 7/30/2002 10:30:23 AM

In fact, Blair was under rather heavy lobbying pressure from conservatives to choose the second pick or none at all, which, would have been a disastrous move.

Since the conservative provide virtually no support for Blair, their ability to pressure him is also nil.

18110. Rama - 7/30/2002 10:31:21 AM

You stick to telling us about Presbyterians and you won't wind up looking so foolish

I'm afraid the only advice I can give you for not looking foolish is to stop typing.

18111. jexster - 7/30/2002 10:33:00 AM

There can be no orthodox position on establishment, since there is no orthodox support for the diversity of congregations that gives that concept meaning

Perhaps you can tell us what this means!

What nonsense. The Anglican reformation had nothing to do with establishmentarianism, since it merely replaced one established church with another.

Bullshit...the issue of crown control over the Church was at the heart of it...

What a moron

18112. Rama - 7/30/2002 10:33:54 AM

Don't let your prejudice against Tony Blair interfere with fact

What a fantasy world you live in. I quite like Tony Blair, as European politicians go. I posted nothing that isn't a demonstrated fact, and you have posted links that support all of my points.

18113. jexster - 7/30/2002 10:35:57 AM

Characteristics
from the writings of John Henry Newman
Edited by William Samuel Lilly

18114. jexster - 7/30/2002 10:37:16 AM

As Cardinal Newman and others have pointed out over the centuries, state control over the COE is an affront to Catholic Orthodoxy.

Tell us about the Non-Jurors.

Do you know what the term means?

18115. Rama - 7/30/2002 10:41:37 AM

Perhaps you can tell us what this means!

Goodness, I knew Anglicans were weak on theology, but this is ridiculous.

The orthodox position of Christianity is that there is only one catholic, holy and apostolic Church. The orthodox position is that everybody should be a Christian and everybody (including the state) should be supportive of the Church's actions, because she is us, and we are her.

The notion of an established church is only meaningful if there are other churches that are not established. As the existence of other churches is not orthodox, there can be no orthodox position on establishment.

The Anglican reformation replaced the Pope's Church with the King's Church. Both were established.

What a moron

Ah, you have changed your signature block!

18116. Rama - 7/30/2002 10:45:36 AM

Do you know what the term means?

As the descendant of ardent Orangemen, I am quite familiar with the term. Your bringing it up is quite odd. You are mixing Assholes and Oranges.

18117. jexster - 7/30/2002 10:58:42 AM

So tell us...

And while you're at it, tell us how exactly the state controlled the COE prior to Henry VIII's split with Rome.

Other than Napoleon's imposition of state control over the Church, there has never been an instance of "establishmentarianism" save Scotland but the establishment of the heretical Presbyterian Church doesn't count because Calvinists aren't catholic

If you are any indication, not very bright either

18118. jexster - 7/30/2002 10:59:37 AM

St. Tikon forgive me, I forgot the Russian Orthodox

18119. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:16:36 AM

Since Rama has offered nothing, we can only assume that he has nothing to offer.

Cardinal Newman has offered a great deal on the question of the National Establishment and how it stands opposed to Catholic Orthodoxy. Again, this question, dispute is neither novel nor radical. Its been extant for 500 years.

WE must not indulge our imagination in the view we take of the National Establishment. If, indeed, we dress it up in an ideal form, as if it were something real, with an independent and a continuous existence, and a proper history, as if it were in deed and not only in name a {255} Church, then indeed we may feel interest in it, and reverence towards it, and affection for it, as men have fallen in love with pictures, or knights in romance do battle for high dames whom they have never seen. Thus it is that students of the Fathers, antiquaries, and poets, begin by assuming that the body to which they belong is that of which they read in times past, and then proceed to decorate it with that majesty and beauty of which history tells, or which their genius creates. Nor is it by an easy process or a light effort that their minds are disabused of this error. It is an error for many reasons too dear to them to be readily relinquished. But at length, either the force of circumstances or some unexpected accident dissipates it; and, as in fairy tales, the magic castle vanishes when the spell is broken, and nothing is seen but the wild heath, the barren rock, and the forlorn sheep-walk, so is it with us as regards the Church of England, when we look in amazement on that we thought so unearthly, and find so commonplace or worthless.

18120. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:17:03 AM

Then we perceive, that aforetime we have not been guided by reason, but biassed by education and swayed by affection. We see in the English Church, I will not merely say no descent from the first ages, and no relationship to the Church in other lands, but we see no body politic of any kind; we see nothing more or less than an Establishment, a department of Government, or a function or operation of the State,—without a substance,—a mere collection of officials, depending on and living in the supreme civil power.

18121. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:17:28 AM

Its unity and personality are gone, and with them its power of exciting feelings of any kind. It is easier to love or hate an abstraction, than so commonplace a framework or mechanism. We regard it neither with anger, nor with aversion, nor with contempt, any more than with respect or interest. It is but one aspect of the State, or mode of civil governance; {256} it is responsible for nothing; it can appropriate neither praise nor blame; but, whatever feeling it raises is to be referred on, by the nature of the case, to the Supreme Power whom it represents, and whose will is its breath. And hence it has no real identity of existence in distinct periods, unless the present Legislature or the present Court can affect to be the offspring and disciple of its predecessor. Nor can it in consequence be said to have any antecedents, or any future; or to live, except in the passing moment. As a thing without a soul, it does not contemplate itself, define its intrinsic constitution, or ascertain its position. It has no traditions; it cannot be said to think; it does not know what it holds, and what it does not [Note 2]; it is not even conscious of its own existence. It has no love for its members, or what are sometimes called its children, nor any instinct whatever, unless attachment to its master, or love of its place, may be so called. Its fruits, as far as they are good, are to be made much of, as long as they last, for they are transient, and without succession; its former champions of orthodoxy are no earnest of orthodoxy now; they died, and there was no reason why they should be reproduced. Bishop is not like bishop, more than king is like king, or ministry like ministry; its Prayer-Book is {257} an Act of Parliament of two centuries ago, and its cathedrals and its chapter-houses are the spoils of Catholicism.

18122. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:18:08 AM

So much for the blithering Calvanist.

RIP Rama

18123. Rama - 7/30/2002 11:19:55 AM

Other than Napoleon's imposition of state control over the Church, there has never been an instance of "establishmentarianism" save
Scotland but the establishment of the heretical Presbyterian Church doesn't count because Calvinists aren't catholic

This is totally nuts. You obviousely don't know what establishmentarianism is.

Establishment is the support of an official church by the state. Sweden had one, Denmark has one, England has two (COE, COS), the U.S. is prohibited from having one. This is a political action, not a religious one. It is a political action for which there is no orthodox theological direction.

State control of religion is a different matter, and is not what is meant by establishment, nor what is supported by establishmentarians, disputed by disestablishmentarians, or argued about by antidisestablishmentarians.

18124. Rama - 7/30/2002 11:23:17 AM

The Roman Church, by the way, has been quite happy with establishment as a practical matter, when it is the established church, but again, that is as a political organization, not as a theological one.

18125. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:27:38 AM

"I have said all this, my brethren, not in declamation, but to bring out clearly why I cannot feel interest of any kind in the National Church, nor put any trust in it at all from its past history, as if it were, in however narrow a sense, a guardian of orthodoxy. It is as little bound by what it said or did formerly, as this morning's newspaper by its former numbers, except as it is bound by the Law; and while it is upheld by the Law, it will not be weakened by the subtraction of individuals, nor fortified by their continuance. Its life is an Act of Parliament. It will not be able to resist the Arian, Sabellian, or Unitarian heresies now, because Bull or Waterland resisted them a century or two before; nor, on the other hand, would it be unable to resist them, though its more orthodox theologians were presently to leave it. It will be able to resist them while the State gives the word; it would be unable, when the State forbids it. Elizabeth boasted that she "tuned her pulpits;" Charles forbade discussions on predestination; George on the Holy Trinity; Victoria allows differences on Holy Baptism [Note 3]. While the nation wishes an Establishment, it will remain, whatever individuals are for it or against it; and that which determines its existence will determine its voice. Of course the presence or departure of individuals will be one out of various disturbing causes, which may delay or accelerate by a certain number of years a change in its teaching: but, after all, the change {258} itself depends on events broader and deeper than these; it depends on changes in the nation. As the nation changes its political, so may it change its religious views; the causes which carried the Reform Bill and Free Trade may make short work with orthodoxy."

(Newman, Anglican Difficulties, p. 4.)

You offer nothing because you do not know what you are talking about

18126. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:29:43 AM

In a nutshell that is what "establishmentarianism" means today and has meant for 500 years in the COE

18127. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:37:24 AM

and also the relation of "disestablishmentarianism" to Catholic Orthodoxy.

The Oxford Divines clearly understood this. +Williams, centaur, clearly understands this. The "evangelical" (in the US "protestant") wing of the COE has always understood this and has always supported state control of the COE as a defense against "the Papists". That is why the COE's "official" and unused Book of Common Prayer dates from 1662. That is why the current liturgy and hymnal are not official.

Its a long dispute. Too much for you to digest unless you wish to convert in which case, you now have vastly greater knowledge than you did 24 hours ago!

18128. jexster - 7/30/2002 1:42:00 PM

The Issue of National Establishment in the United States...


A crucial date for members of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America is the consecration of the first Bishop of the Anglican Communion in the United States. During the colonial era, there had been no Anglican bishops in the New World; and persons seeking to be ordained as clergy had had to travel to England for the purpose. After the achievement of American independence, it was important for the Church in the United States to have its own bishops, and an assembly of Connecticut clergy chose Samuel Seabury to go to England and there seek to be consecrated as a bishop.

However, the English bishops were forbidden by law to consecrate anyone who would not take an oath of allegiance to the British Crown. He accordingly turned to the Episcopal Church of Scotland


Consecration of Samuel Seabury, bishop
(Bestowal of the American Episcopate)
14 November 1784 (from the Anglican Calendar)

18129. jexster - 7/30/2002 1:47:47 PM

34156. bubbaette - 7/30/02 5:00:37 PM

"Conversing" with Rama is like hitting oneself with a hammer -- it's painful, pointless, and it feels so ood when you stop.


When the Roman Catholic king James II was deposed in 1688, some of the Anglican clergy (including some who had been imprisoned by James for defying him on religious issues) said that, having sworn allegiance to James as King, they could not during his lifetime swear allegiance to the new monarchs William and Mary. Those who took this position were known as non-Jurors (non-swearers), and they included almost all the bishops and clergy of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. Accordingly, the monarchs and Parliament declared that thenceforth the official church in Scotland should be the Presbyterian Church. The Episcopal Church of Scotland thereafter had no recognition by the government, and for some time operated under serious legal disablities. However, since it had no connection with the government, it was free to consecrate Seabury without government permission, and it did. This is why you see a Cross of St. Andrew on the Episcopal Church flag.

18130. Rama - 7/30/2002 6:01:45 PM

In a nutshell that is what "establishmentarianism" means today and has
meant for 500 years in the COE

Nonsense. That is, in fact, a discussion of the Roman position regarding the schismatic Anglican Communion. The problems it describes are in reality the problems of all churches where the overseers rule, be they princes or bishops.

18131. Rama - 7/30/2002 6:04:40 PM

has always supported state control of the COE as a defense against "the Papists".

Clearly demonstrating that this is a political issue, not a matter of orthodoxy.

It is truly amazing the lengths you will go to in order to aviod admission of error.

18132. jexster - 7/30/2002 6:05:25 PM

Redefining your terms to save your sorry ass.

That is in fact a discussion of what has been happening in the COE since Henry VIII. Which side of the Tiber those facts bring a person is an entirely different question.

Manifestly from Newman to Bp Seabury to Elizabeth to the Non-jurors the National Establishment means the establishment of the COE as national church subject to Parliament enactments.

18133. jexster - 7/30/2002 6:12:19 PM

To Anglicans and indeed to the First Presbyterians, the term "national establishment" and its relation to Catholic Orthodoxy have always been clearly understood as any number of cites above indicate.

What happened to Rama?

I think Bubbs suggests the answer...

He got hit in the head once too often, twice too hard

18134. jexster - 7/30/2002 6:13:17 PM

oath of allegiance to the Crown = national establishment.

18135. Rama - 7/30/2002 6:43:29 PM

Redefining your terms to save your sorry ass.

Nonsense. I have only used the terms in their actual meaning:

establishment

disestablishmentarian

objective review of modern history of Christianity

18136. Rama - 7/30/2002 6:44:01 PM

oath of allegiance to the Crown = national establishment.

Rubbish.

18137. jexster - 7/30/2002 7:48:26 PM

An opponent of an established order, especially one who opposes state support of an established church

• the English bishops were forbidden by law to consecrate anyone who would not take an oath of allegiance to the British Crown
  
• When the Roman Catholic king James II was deposed in 1688, some of the Anglican clergy (including some who had been imprisoned by James for defying him on religious issues) said that, having sworn allegiance to James as King, they could not during his lifetime swear allegiance to the new monarchs William and Mary. Those who took this position were known as non-Jurors (non-swearers), and they included almost all the bishops and clergy of the Episcopal Church in Scotland
  
• WE must not indulge our imagination in the view we take of the National Establishment
  
• Elizabeth boasted that she "tuned her pulpits;" Charles forbade discussions on predestination; George on the Holy Trinity; Victoria allows differences on Holy Baptism [Note 3]. While the nation wishes an Establishment, it will remain, whatever individuals are for it or against it;
  
  
  

18138. jexster - 7/30/2002 7:51:21 PM

And THAT is and always has been the question of Establishment in the Church of England.

Now this whole discussion began as a discussion of precisely the dispute over Establishment currently and in the past in the COE.

That is where you have now by your own definition ended it.

18139. jexster - 7/30/2002 8:01:09 PM

As if more hammering was really needed..

Canon Law in the Anglican Communion
nisi quod lex tua delectatio mea forte perissem in pressura mea
First Act of Uniformity 1549 (2 & 3 Edward VI, c. 1)

18140. jexster - 7/30/2002 8:18:54 PM

COE - The National Establishment

Henry VIII died on January 28, 1547, and was succeeded by the boy king, Edward VI., who was completely in the hands of the party of reform; and now changes came in rapid succession. The Royal Injunctions, issued in the first year of the new reign, ordered among other things that for the future the Epistle and Gospel at High Mass should be read in English; Compline was sung in the Royal Chapel in English; and the First Book of the Homilies was published. In the following year a step even more significant than any of these was taken by the abolition of one of the abuses which was attracting most attention, viz., the denial of the cup to the laity at the administration of the Holy Communion This reform was ordered by an Act of Parliament for receiving in both kinds (1 Edw. VI. c. i.), and for the purpose of carrying out the Act an "Order of the Communion" was prepared and issued by a Royal Proclamation dated March 1548.

18141. wonkers2 - 7/30/2002 9:13:48 PM

Jex, you're wasting your time.

18142. jexster - 7/30/2002 9:30:17 PM

I will continue to serve Rama's need to be humiliated until it is fully sated.

18143. jexster - 7/30/2002 9:30:42 PM

Your Servant of the Servants of God ;)

18144. wonkers2 - 7/30/2002 9:54:24 PM

Don't hold your breath.

18145. wonkers2 - 7/30/2002 9:55:06 PM

He's stepped on his dick so many times he can no longer feel it.

18146. Rama - 7/31/2002 9:14:21 AM

I realize it must be highly embarrassing to you to have made such a gross error on a topic that is clearly important to you. But posting a series of non sequitor statements will not change that.

The Anglican Church is the established Church in England. It is supported by the government. The government discriminates against other churches. This is, as is most state sanctioned discrimination, a bad thing for both the Anglicans and the other churches. Williams has spoken out against establishment on several occations, and is thus a disestablishmentarian. But now he has accepted being appointed by the Prime Minister as the head of that established Church, which is an odd thing for a disestablishmentarian to do.

Random cut and past on English history won't change any of that, or change what the words mean.

Though I doubt that will cause you to stop.

18147. Rama - 7/31/2002 9:15:51 AM

Jex, you're wasting your time.

Wonkers, your cowardice astounds me.

18148. jexster - 7/31/2002 10:03:54 AM

No it won't Rama for the following reasons:

- Every lay person, clergyman I know who belongs to the COE, and I know more than a few, voice their wish that somehow the COE could be relieved of the BURDEN of Parliamentary control

- Though opposition still remains from "evangelicals" who fear that the "Papists" (like +Williams Cantaur) will wind up running the Church back to Rome if that happens most are concerned about things like PM's controlling ecclesial appointments, the Parliament having to approve liturgical changes etc. (COE hasn't had an approved BCP since 1662 etc)

- +Williams is not some sort of disestablishment radical and is not on record as calling for the imminent divorce of Crown and Church...his views on the subject are no more radical than the views of most Churchmen on this point

- To the extent that you "heard" carping about his disestablishmentarian "views" you have failed and refused to produce any evidence whatsoever on this point

- To the extent that you heard such criticism, I strongly suspect that it came from "evangelicals" and was a disguised criticism of his Catholic Orthodoxy and liberal social views

- I have asked you to produce, and you have failed to produce any evidence..your arguments reveal a profound ignorance of COE ecclesiology and some sort of bias against Tony Blair, who was, in reality, a non-issue in the selection.

18149. jexster - 7/31/2002 10:06:05 AM

I have "cut and pasted" large portions of authoritative texts, linked hundreds of pages and linked in fact the very Act of Parliament that is at the root of a debate that has gone on in the COE for 500 years.

All you have to do is read. And you've a great deal of that to do.

18150. Rama - 7/31/2002 5:21:49 PM

- Every lay person, . . .

Which has absolutely nothing to due with the hypocracy of disparaging establishment and then accepting the job of being boss of the established organization.

- Though opposition still remains

Which has absolutely nothing to due with the hypocracy of disparaging establishment and then accepting the job of being boss of the established organization.

Williams is not some sort of disestablishment radical and is not on record as calling for the imminent divorce of Crown and Church.


Which only speaks to the degree of hypocracy, not the type.

To the extent that you "heard" carping about his disestablishmentarian "views" you have failed and refused to produce any evidence whatsoever on this point

18151. Rama - 7/31/2002 5:23:19 PM

I have "heard" anything. I have read items like:

" He has advocated "disestablishment" - ending the church's privileged position as England's legally established church, whose supreme governor is the monarch." From http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-07-23-archbishop-canterbury_x.htm

"Williams, too, has publicly supported breaking ties with the state." From http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0724/p08s01-woeu.html

"A recent Guardian/ICM poll showed that 48% of British voters now believe that the Church of England should be disestablished and that the Prime Minister should have no role in selecting the next Archbishop of Canterbury. Only 36% of voters want to keep the status quo. This is the first time a poll has shown a majority for disestablishment, which is also supported by Archbishop of York David Hope and Archbishop of the Church in Wales Rowan Williams. Supporters of the established church say that breaking the link with the state would suggest that religion no longer matters and point out that the Church of England's special status is generally welcomed by the Roman Catholic, Muslim and Jewish communities. (Alan Travis The Guardian 23 January 2002)" from http://www.kbr30.dial.pipex.com/x00100.shtml

"The poll result also mirrors a change of mind among some leading members of the church itself, including the Archbishop of York, David Hope, and the Archbishop of the Church in Wales and a contender for the top job, Rowan Williams, who have both supported disestablishment." From http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/story/0,11030,637927,00.html

18152. Rama - 7/31/2002 5:23:40 PM

"Likewise with disestablishment. True, Dr Williams has previously said "The notion of the monarch as supreme governor has outlived its usefulness", and would like the Queen to have the same relation to the Church of England as she does to the Church of Scotland. But privately he has told friends that disentangling ties between church and state would be a long and delicate business which would take place not by one great act but "by a thousand cuts" -one of which might be replacing the role of the Prime Minister in senior clerical appointments with an electoral college." From http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=316598

To the extent that you heard such criticism,

Nonsense. What I have read is reflected above. The person with obvious bias here is you.

- I have asked you to produce,

Bullshit. That he is in favor of disestablishment is a widely reported fact. That he has accepted the job of head of the established church is a widely reported fact. That this is hypocracy is an interpretation of those too facts.

some sort of bias against Tony Blair, who was, in reality, a non-issue in the selection.

Typical PC error of physchologizing. Tony Blair is a liberal. He chose the most liberal of the candidates. I am not surprised. No animus toward Blair or Williams is required.

18153. jexster - 7/31/2002 5:43:18 PM

Your quote is nothing - meaningless. It is as I have repeatedly said a rather standard gripe of COE churchmen. The Crown control accounts for the fact that there has been no liturgical change since the 1662 prayerbook precisely because of the anachronism of Crown control. Williams was chosen, as cited above, "cope and mitre above" all other choices, probably the best choice for Cantaur since William Temple.


Tony Blair chose the first candidate, the first preference, a fact you disputed, until, as with everything else, proved grossly wrong.

I am psychologizing nothing. Your luddite views are well known and your reading meaning where none exists, is blatant for all to see.

18154. jexster - 7/31/2002 5:52:30 PM

FYI, the COE uses something entitled Forms for Common Worship which "are used alongside" the 1662 BCP.

This oddball situation arises directly from the Establishment of the COE under Crown authority, a matter of dispute since before the enactment of the Act of Uniformity in 1549. Churchmen in my sister church (mine mind you not yours) object broadly to this state of affairs where an Act of Parliament is required to change liturgical texts, where the PM is asked questions during Question Hour about whether it is right and proper for the words
"grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit
these gifts of bread and wine
may be to us his body and his blood;"

Should precede the words of consecration as they do in the Roman Rites or follow as they do in the Episcopal Church (USA).

And most galling of all, your shameless pretense and ad hominem claim that I know nothing of Anglican theology or ecclesiology.

You are a dunce.

18155. jexster - 7/31/2002 5:55:51 PM

Still waiting for backup to your claims that "williams has written extensively on disestablishment" or that same "has nothing to do with orthodoxy"

BTW, the Abp of York, who by your quote shares Williams views on this subject with most churchmen and Englishmen, is a close friend of my parish rector as well.

18156. Rama - 7/31/2002 6:01:55 PM

Your quote is nothing - meaningless. It is as I have repeatedly said a rather standard gripe of COE churchmen.

Your participation becomes more and more feable. When presented with facts you post unrelated history and now merely claim that clearly known fact are meaningless. I suspect you will soon be reduced to mumbling at the computer screen.

Tony Blair chose the first candidate, the first preference, a fact you disputed, until, as with everything else, proved grossly wrong.

It is a shame, however, that the Anglicans are represented here by such a liar. And a poor one at that. It is just plain stupid to post lies about what another person has posted when the posts are here to be read by anyone. I don't understand why you do it.

I am psychologizing nothing. Your luddite views are well known and your reading meaning where none exists, is blatant for all to see.

It appears that you don't understand the term physhologizing any more than you do disestablishmentarian.

18157. Rama - 7/31/2002 6:03:48 PM

And most galling of all, your shameless pretense and ad hominem claim that I know nothing of Anglican theology or ecclesiology.

It is neither pretense nor ad hominem; it is merely pointing out the case demonstrated by your posts. It is a fact I have found most surprising.

18158. jexster - 7/31/2002 6:41:17 PM

No its something you launched into rather immediately and is it turns out from your end, most hummiliating for you for as has been amply demonstrated

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You don't know Rowan Williams from the fucking Easter Bunny; the Act of Uniformity from your mother's vagina; Cardinal Newman from the Easter Bunny; Samuel Seabury from Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer; the Scottish Presbyterian Church from the Hari KRishnas, your ass from a hole in the ground

18159. jexster - 7/31/2002 6:44:32 PM

Tony Blair chose the first candidate, the first preference, a fact you disputed, until, as with everything else, proved grossly wrong.

It is a shame, however, that the Anglicans are represented here by such a liar. And a poor one at that. It is just plain stupid to post lies about what another person has posted when the posts are here to be read by anyone. I don't understand why you do it.

Church sources, including a close friend of one of the 13 voting members of the Crown Appointments Commission that met secretly last week to select the names of two candidates to present to Tony Blair, said it was "highly unlikely" the Prime Minister would commend the other, unnamed, candidate for approval by the Queen. The CAC will have presented the names to Downing Street in order of preference and the sources said Dr Williams was in first place"

Or a lie from the truth.

You pathetic pile of shit and poseur.

Piss off pissant

18160. jexster - 7/31/2002 6:45:48 PM

or keep coming with your crap and I will keep shoving back up your fat ass until comes out of your mouth.

Your choice asshole

18161. jexster - 7/31/2002 6:46:49 PM

can you feel your dick NOW Rama? Can you find it?

18162. Rama - 7/31/2002 8:03:44 PM

I was wrong. Instead of mumbling incoherantly at your computer screen, you are posting incoherantly on this thread.

Putting random words in a different font color doesn't make them begin to make sense.

Church sources, including a close friend of one of the 13 voting members of the Crown Appointments Commission that met secretly last week to select the names of two candidates to present to Tony Blair, said it was "highly unlikely" the Prime Minister would commend the other, unnamed, candidate for approval by the Queen. The CAC will have presented the names to Downing Street in order of preference and the sources said Dr Williams was in first place"

You have already admitted on this thread that the order of the recommendations is in no way binding on the Prime Minister. Why you would bring up errors you have already admitted to is quite beyond me.

18163. jexster - 7/31/2002 8:12:42 PM

I never said otherwise..


I said against your repeated claim that Blair was somehow a factor that in fact he was not, was never...

As against your claim that Williams was not the first choice of the duly constituted COE nominating process, I said that you were wrong and you were

As against your claim that disestablishmentarianism had nothing to do with Catholic Orthodoxy I proved you wrong with sources dating back four centuries

As against your claim that Williams was some sort of disestablishmentarian radical picked to head an Establishment Church, I painstakingly pointed out your folly, with sources dating back centuries

As against your claim to any expertise or knowledge whatever, I offer each and every inane comment you have made for the past days...

You are a dunce....you are a masochist clown who apparently enjoys public humiliation....

I am only too happy to indulge you

18164. wonkers2 - 7/31/2002 8:39:07 PM

Rama, why don't you tell us about the Pentagon leaks on Iraq or whether Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, instead of sharing your ignorance on other topics?

18165. jexster - 7/31/2002 9:08:02 PM

Bubs is right...the guy is mental

18166. Rama - 7/31/2002 10:26:18 PM

I said against your repeated claim that Blair was somehow a factor that in fact he was not, was never...

Goodness, you do want it both ways, don’t you. Having the PM appoint the primate is bad, except that it is not a factor. With cognitive dissonance like that, you posting patterns are easily explained.

As against your claim that Williams was not the first choice of the duly constituted COE nominating process, I said that you were wrong and you were

Goodness, I must have erased the post where I said that. Otherwise you could scroll back and find it.

As against your claim that disestablishmentarianism had nothing to do with Catholic Orthodoxy I proved you wrong with sources dating back four centuries

You have done nothing of the sort. You have posted links that indicated the Roman Catholics don't like the Anglican church being established, but that is hardly a matter of orthodoxy. On the other hand, you seem to not grasp what orthodoxy is.

As against your claim that Williams was some sort of disestablishmentarian radical picked to head an Establishment Church, I painstakingly pointed out your folly, with sources dating back centuries

My, you have lost it haven't you. Sources going back centuries regarding Williams? Claims that Williams is some sort of radical? Or are you claiming to have links that show he hasn't been picked to head the Established Church? And is the sky plaid where you live?

As against your claim to any expertise or knowledge whatever, I offer each and every inane comment you have made for the past days...

Against my claim to have read the papers, you have posted gibberish that even embarrasses wonkers.

18167. Rama - 7/31/2002 10:27:57 PM

Rama, why don't you tell us about the Pentagon leaks on Iraq or whether Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, instead of sharing your ignorance on other topics?

You are a sad sack wonkers. To live in a world where maintaining your enemies list is more important than anything else must be a truly desperate life.

18168. wonkers2 - 7/31/2002 10:34:08 PM

I just figure you must actually know something about something. It's just a matter of figuring out what it is. Why not try an update on the repairs to the Pentagon?

18169. Rama - 7/31/2002 10:40:17 PM

I just figure you must actually know something about something. It's just a matter of figuring out what it is. Why not try an update on the repairs to the Pentagon?

What's got you so desperate?

18170. jexster - 7/31/2002 11:28:49 PM

You sorry sack of shit.

is pathetic in the extreme. You pitiful fuck you almost make me feel sorry for you.

-> Goodness, you do want it both ways, don’t you. Having the PM appoint the primate is bad, except that it is not a factor. With cognitive dissonance like that, you posting patterns are easily explained.

It doesn't follow from the premise. In fact, nothing you say makes sense. I can have it both ways - the National Establishment of the COE has interfered in any number of ways over the past 500 years lately liturgics properly cited for you to read. The fact that Blair is an issue is your problem for he wasn't an issue for anyone at anytime in this process. That the PM possibly could BECOME an issue is an argument the COE scholars have made for centuries.



->You have done nothing of the sort. You have posted links that indicated the Roman Catholics don't like the Anglican church being established, but that is hardly a matter of orthodoxy. On the other hand, you seem to not grasp what orthodoxy is.

This is a fabrication. I have quoted former anglican Cardinal Newman, I have summarized for you several hundred years of this dispute. I have succinctly stated why Catholic Orthodoxy is consistent with removal of Parliamentary control and I do not need a fucking delusional Presbyterian telling me anything about Anglicanism or Catholicism for that matter

18171. jexster - 7/31/2002 11:36:19 PM

->The Anglican reformation had nothing to do with establishmentarianism, since it merely replaced one established church with another.

See Uniformity Act 1549...Rama you fuckin moron

->The order of election is no more binding to the PM than the alphabetic order. Blair doesn't get elected by conservatives.

Again, Blair was presented a list in order of preference and selected in that order. This was as expected at the time the Crown Appointments commission made a preferential not an alphabetical choice. Power de jure is not power de facto...that is part of the argument for a change (not Disestablishment BTW) a change in the relationship of the Crown to more resemble that of the Church in Scotland.

You are as mental as you are ignorant.

18172. Rama - 7/31/2002 11:48:01 PM

It doesn't follow from the premise.

Ironically true. It does, however, follow from your statements.

I have quoted former anglican Cardinal Newman,

Who was speaking to a different point.

I have summarized for you several hundred years of this dispute.

None of which had anything to do with the topic.

I have succinctly stated why Catholic Orthodoxy is consistent with removal of Parliamentary control

Which is not the same thing as establishment

and I do not need a fucking delusional Presbyterian telling me anything about Anglicanism or Catholicism for that matter

Well, you need somebody to tell you, because you clearly don't have a clue. You don't understand what the words orthodoxy, disestablishmentarian or liberal mean, and you don't read the newspapers. You disagree with yourself as to whether the Prime Minister had to pick Williams. And you appear to believe the color red provides some rhetorical advantage.

18173. jexster - 7/31/2002 11:54:41 PM

I have succinctly stated why Catholic Orthodoxy is consistent with removal of Parliamentary control

Which is not the same thing as establishment

In the Church of England it is and it has been so since 1549 but you don't know anything about the COE.

Well, you need somebody to tell you, because you clearly don't have a clue. You don't understand what the words orthodoxy, disestablishmentarian or liberal mean, and you don't read the newspapers.

Put or shut up. Enough of this airy fairy crap.

I have already explained what disestablishmentarianism means. I have used your defintion to do it. I have already told you how and why the Church of England's subjection to the Crown by the Act of Uniformity is contrary to Catholic Orthodoxy as understood by Anglicans.

You disagree with yourself as to whether the Prime Minister had to pick Williams. And you appear to believe the color red provides some rhetorical advantage.


No it was hoped that colors might be more what you are used to. I did not contradict myself. I never, ever ever claimed that the PM was required to pick the first choice as a matter of law but rather that practically, as a matter of reality, that is in fact so.

18174. jexster - 7/31/2002 11:55:04 PM

so put up or shut up dipshit

18175. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:00:12 AM

"The poll result also mirrors a change of mind among some leading members of the church itself, including the Archbishop of York, David Hope, and the Archbishop of the Church in Wales and a contender for the top job, Rowan Williams, who have both supported disestablishment"

Again, this controversy involves Parliamentary/Crown control over liturgics and canonical matters including appointments and has been raging for centuries. It is hardly "hypocritical" for a member of the Church to support what is widely understood to be a desireable change in the way the Church relates to the secular authority!

18176. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:02:54 AM

oath of allegiance to the Crown = national establishment.

Rubbish

Some statements are so obviously ludicrous that they can speak for themselves.

18177. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:06:57 AM

State control of religion is a different matter, and is not what is meant by establishment, nor what is supported by establishmentarians, disputed by disestablishmentarians, or argued about by antidisestablishmentarians.


Uniformity Act of 1549
Refusal of English Bishops to consecrate Samuel Seabury
Spectre of Liturgical interference by parliament, BCP 1662,,

The list is lengthy and ignored repeatedly.

18178. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:10:01 AM

ad hominem = Jexter, I don't believe even you are that ignorant, so I must believe you are lying on purpose. Blair picked from the offered list. He didn't pick the "first". He picked the politically safest

18179. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:13:04 AM

As against your claim that Williams was not the first choice of the duly constituted COE nominating process, I said that you were wrong and you were

Goodness, I must have erased the post where I said that. Otherwise you could scroll back and find it.

Message # 18083

You are welcome

18180. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:15:25 AM

Sure color doesn't make it easier?

18181. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:18:19 AM

has always supported state control of the COE as a defense against "the Papists".

Clearly demonstrating that this is a political issue, not a matter of orthodoxy.

Huh?

Let's see the question of whether the COE should be more Catholic or less catholic, say more presbyterian, is a political issue? And if it is a political issue haven't you then conceded the meaning of National Establishment as I have described it?

I don't want you to claim you forgot you said this. Maybe color would help?

Want red or blue...what do they use in your kiddie bible school?

18182. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:20:42 AM

Every lay person, . . .

Which has absolutely nothing to due with the hypocracy of disparaging establishment and then accepting the job of being boss of the established organization.

Come again?

The sensus fidellium has everything to do with your fatuous claim of "hypocrisy".

Chase your tail for us...like a dog in heat...

18183. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:20:47 AM

Every lay person, . . .

Which has absolutely nothing to due with the hypocracy of disparaging establishment and then accepting the job of being boss of the established organization.

Come again?

The sensus fidellium has everything to do with your fatuous claim of "hypocrisy".

Chase your tail for us...like a dog in heat...

18184. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:22:49 AM

You can't be a member or a prelate in the Church of England who does not believe that secular goverment should have anything whatever to say about liturgics of your Church without being a hypocrite?

What are you drinking?

18185. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:24:13 AM

Typical PC error of physchologizing. Tony Blair is a liberal. He chose the most liberal of the candidates. I am not surprised. No animus toward Blair or Williams is required

What does this drivel mean?

PC? Psychologizing? Are you daft? (THAT IS MY "PSYCHOLOGIZING)

18186. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:24:36 AM

Maybe hot pink?

18187. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:50:40 AM

The orthodox position is that everybody (including the state) should be supportive of the Church's actions, because she is us, and we are he

Crimminy!

18188. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:55:57 AM

"The anglican reformation replaced the pope's church with the king's church, both were established"

Says who? Based on what? The National Establishment upon which you level your silly charge against Abp Williams WAS ESTABLISHED AS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND precisely by the Anglican Reformation begun by Henry the VIII. Until that time no Catholic Church, other than arguably the Russsian Orthodox was subject to State control in any and all of its affairs.

Since that time only Napoleon I and the Jacobins in France ever did similar to any Catholic Church,, save the Orthodox under Peter the Great.

18189. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:57:52 AM

Even the Period of the Avignon papacy was not a National Establishment of a Catholic Church.

18190. jexster - 8/1/2002 1:03:16 AM

Sheesh Rama I thought it was just me but it appears that to paraphrase the Psalmist

You are the talk of those who sit in the gate,
and the drunkards make songs about you.

18191. Rama - 8/1/2002 8:50:57 AM

See Uniformity Act 1549.

The same uniformity was required previousely, but it was Roman Catholic uniformity. Tell me about all the Celtic tonsures or Orthodox congregants you saw in 1548.

Again, Blair was presented a list in order of preference and selected in that order.

Quite naturally, just as Thatcher selected a conservative. As I said, big surprise!

Power de jure is not power de facto...that is part of the argument for a change (not Disestablishment BTW) a change in the relationship of the Crown to more resemble that of the Church in Scotland.

It is actually the opposite of the argument, but I am glad you are reading the articles I posted.

18192. Rama - 8/1/2002 8:58:32 AM

In the Church of England it is and it has been so since 1549 but you don't know anything about the COE.

That is simply not true. But I think I understand what is going on. The only place you had ever heard reference to establishment was in discussions of the pernitious effect it has had on Anglican praxis, so you misunderstood cause and effect. Happens all the time. And now you are to embarrassed to admit it. Shame on you.

I have already explained what disestablishmentarianism means.

You have, but you got it wrong.

I have used your defintion to do it.

I wish.

I have already told you how and why the Church of England's subjection to the Crown by the Act of Uniformity is contrary to Catholic Orthodoxy as understood by Anglicans.

Do you really not understand what a crazy statement that is? Catholic Orthodoxy as understood by Anglicans? Do you really have no idea what orthodoxy means?

I never, ever ever claimed that the PM was required to pick the first choice as a matter of law but rather that practically, as a matter of reality, that is in fact so.

When it clearly is not a fact that the PM must pick the first choice. If the PM picked either of the two choices, there would be no more about it.

18193. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:01:07 AM

Again, this controversy involves Parliamentary/Crown control over liturgics and canonical matters including appointments and has been raging for centuries. It is hardly "hypocritical" for a member of the Church to support what is widely understood to be a desireable change in the way the Church relates to the secular authority!

Williams was a member of a non-established Anglican Church. He declaims establishment, but accepts being the head of an established Anglican Church. The non-hypocritical response would be to turn down the job because it would be contrary to his stated principles.

18194. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:03:29 AM

Some statements are so obviously ludicrous that they can speak for themselves.

That is so true. Your equating "oath of allegiance to the Crown" to "national establishment" is one such. Since the established churches in Denmark and Russia do not require an oath of allegiance to the Crown, such an equation is clearly rubbish.

18195. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:09:57 AM

Jexter, I don't believe even you are that ignorant, so I must believe you are lying on purpose. Blair picked from the offered list. He didn't pick the "first". He picked the politically safest.

I new you were ignorant and confused, but I didn't know you can't read. Those words don't "claim that Williams was not the first choice of the duly constituted COE nominating process". No wonder you misunderstand disestablishmentariasm, when you can't read a simple statement regarding Blair's choosing the candidate least likely to cause him problems without interpreting it as a comment on an administrative process which you know isn't binding on him.

There is little need to cast dispersions on your intellect, as you do it yourself.

18196. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:14:19 AM

Let's see the question of whether the COE should be more Catholic or less catholic, say more presbyterian, is a political issue?

Yes, it is a political issue. How not?

And if it is a political issue haven't you then conceded the meaning of National Establishment as I have described it?

No, it is a matter that you have disputed. You claimed it somehow reflected on the orthodoxy of Williams beliefs. I always said this was a political decision (a liberal picking a liberal).

You really need to make up your mind what you are pretending your objection is.

18197. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:17:19 AM

The sensus fidellium has everything to do with your fatuous claim of "hypocrisy".

That’s a snappy rejoinder. You post nonsense, I point out it is nonsense, you repeat the nonsense without defense. It must be true because jexter posted it? Or is it supposed to be magic? You say the ritual words and abra cadabra others will agree with you?

18198. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:19:00 AM

You can't be a member or a prelate in the Church of England who does not believe that secular goverment should have anything whatever to say about liturgics of your Church without being a hypocrite?

I'm sure you could be. That isn't what happened here. But I think you are beginning to actually understand the issue. There may be hope for you yet.

18199. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:25:17 AM

What does this drivel mean?

I don't know what part you don't understand. Psychologizing is an error where one projects a particular motive or mental state on a disputant, rather than addressing the issue at hand. It is one of the most common behaviors of a class of chatterers who use a particular pattern of rhetoric that is commonly called Politically Correct, and abbreviated as PC. Tony Blair is the head of government of a small country in Europe. He is politically a liberal. He selected, as head of the government sponsored church, another liberal. Appointed government officials with similar political positions is a common practice, not in any way limited to liberals.

Are there other words you don't understand?

18200. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:31:06 AM

Says who? Based on what?

Says the definition of the word, as you claim to be using it. Establishment is the support of a particular church by the government. Of course, that which the state supports it also controls. That is why the Roman Catholic Church has had to withdraw to the tiny Vatican State.

Until that time no Catholic Church, other than arguably the Russsian Orthodox was subject to State control in any and all of its affairs.

That demonstrated a complete lack of awareness of European history.

Since that time only Napoleon I and the Jacobins in France ever did similar to any Catholic Church,, save the Orthodox under Peter the Great.

That list is only the beginning. You are being absurd and I believe you may be beginning to realize it.

18201. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:36:03 AM

You are the talk of those who sit in the gate,
and the drunkards make songs about you.

The drunkards being you and the PC chorus. How apt scripture can be, even when quoted by the self-intoxicated.

18202. jexster - 8/1/2002 11:13:43 AM

There you go again with that PC Chorus drivel...

I should be flattered or I should I be insulted?

If it were intelligible, I could decide which.

18203. jexster - 8/1/2002 11:17:40 AM

Look idiot...I have beat your sorry head with this sledgehammer quite enough. I have even tried using colors for Calvin's sake.

I have explained what the issue of National Establishment was in the Church of England at the Break and over the 500 years since. You think all of that's irrelevant and I suppose it is - to you.

And that's all one needs to know isn't it? That you have conjured some fantasy about Orthodox Catholic Theology; declare the history of the COE irrelevant; grossly overstate the role of the current PM in the selection based on NO EVIDENCE whatever, and continue to rant on about PC Choirs is surely enough to confirm that you are fuckin nuts

Pardon my french

18204. jexster - 8/1/2002 11:42:26 AM

I've had a strange feeling Rama...beginning to feel sorry for you...

You think its my fine AngloCatholic upbringing beginning to kick in?

Calvinist perspectives always welcome...

18205. Indiana Jones - 8/1/2002 1:02:48 PM

The Kiss

18206. Rama - 8/1/2002 3:14:47 PM

I have explained what the issue of National Establishment was in the Church of England at the Break and over the 500 years since.

You have discussed on aspect of the results of having an established church, as it is viewed from on political position.

You think all of that's irrelevant and I suppose it is - to you.

No, it is irrelevant to what I posted, that you irrationally objected to.

And that's all one needs to know isn't it?

No, one actually needs to know what the words mean, and how the world really works.

That you have conjured some fantasy about Orthodox Catholic Theology;

What an odd projection: I haven't used the term Orthodox Catholic Theology at all.

declare the history of the COE irrelevant;

To the selection of a liberal by a liberal? To the hypocracy of taking a job one claimed shouldn't exist? Of course the history of the COE is irrelevant to those things.

Not at all: grossly overstate the role of the current PM in the selection based on NO EVIDENCE whatever,

I stated nothing but the object truth.

and continue to rant on about PC Choirs is surely enough to confirm that you are fuckin nuts

You brought them up. Or who were you referring to with your scriptural citiation?

18207. Rama - 8/1/2002 3:15:25 PM

You think its my fine AngloCatholic upbringing beginning to kick in?

More likely your medications.

18208. jexster - 8/3/2002 8:24:25 PM

You have discussed on aspect of the results of having an established church, as it is viewed from on political position.

Quite the contrary, I have given a 10 cent tour of National Establishment as it relates to ecclesial issues - the Uniformity Act of 1549, the inability of bishops of the COE to consecrate Samuel Seabury even though he went to England and secured the agreement of three bishops to do it; how Elizabeth I referred to the pulpits as "her pulpits"(!!!); how Parliamentary control has prevented the COE from reforming its liturgy since 1662...etc etc etc.

Rather YOU are the one who tried in vain to turn this discussion to political matters with your specious claim that the appointment of one of the most emminently qualified and robust theological minds in Anglicanism was political on no other evidence than "Blair is liberal and Williams is liberal"

Its no wonder you prevaricate and distort for you must lest you be forced to admit that your charge that the new Abp is a "hypocrite" is fatuous, insulting, and fundamentally dishonest.

You must wallow in your ignorance in order to maintain the conceit of your deceit.

You are pathetic not only or even chiefly because you are stupid or even because you are such a manifest dullard. You are a sad sack because you wallow like a pig in your shit. You are not worthy intellectually much less morally to accuse a man of Rowan William's stature of dishonesty when you roll in it like some fat sow.

You are a sad, sad fool.

18209. jexster - 8/3/2002 8:34:51 PM

Says the definition of the word, as you claim to be using it. Establishment is the support of a particular church by the government. Of course, that which the state supports it also controls. That is why the Roman Catholic Church has had to withdraw to the tiny Vatican State.

Boy you and history...two ships passing in the night!

The Roman Catholic Church lost the Papal States. Vatican City is a vestige of that. Never, ever outside of Jacobin France and a brief spat with NIII has any Western Catholic Church been subject to National Establishment such as the COE since Edward. Russian Orthodoxy suffered a similar fate beginning with Peter and then under the USSR with a vengeance that almost wiped it out.

That is a matter of fact, not opinion and for a Catholic, such state control is an abomination. Williams is most decidedly an orthodox catholic and in urging that Presbyterians and Wiccans in Parliament no longer be allowed to vote on matters that touch and concern the Catholic Faith is neither "political" nor does it have a thing to do with your woeful and willful ignorance of history.

You are a sad, sad pig's fool

18210. jexster - 8/3/2002 8:48:07 PM

Williams was a member of a non-established Anglican Church. He declaims establishment, but accepts being the head of an established Anglican Church. The non-hypocritical response would be to turn down the job because it would be contrary to his stated principles.


What a runny runny shit!

By such reasoning, most of the COE would have to leave! Hypocrisy in your febrile imaginings! By such reasoning, no prime minister could ever advocate any change in the monarchy, by such reasoning the Magna Carta is a farce and fraud. Inasmuch as the COE's established status is at best irrelevant and anachronsitic and at worst pernicious, demonstrably so, I submit that it would be hypocrisy most rank NOT to take the job.

I would not expect a simple shit Calvinist to understand but the establishment of the COE is by no means a principle of the One Holy Catholic and Apo Church of which the Anglican Communion is a part. Whatever benefits the scheme of 1549 had back then for the Church, at no time was Establishment ever remotely a matter of principle but rather more clearly an obstacle.

let me clue you. You are the farce. You are the fraud.

18211. jexster - 8/3/2002 9:04:47 PM

Finally, nowhere is your dishonesty more rank than in your fallacious reasoning Blair liberal, Williams liberal - decision political based on liberal affinities(fallacy of assuming the consequent).

The fallacy is lit in neon. That's gross enough but more so is the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claims. Indeed the evidence is to the contrary without exception.

Apart from the fact that the PM's approval in recent times is purely a ministerial formality, and that no PM has rejected a choice in recent times, how in the name of Crazy Calvin do you know that the politics of the second choice weren't liberal as well?

Fact is you don't because no one knows who that person was except the Crown Commish and the PM.

This is a fair warning....if you ever, ever again address to any matter of interest or concern to me, no matter how slight, it may be, I will slice and dice your sorry ass.

I will fuck you up
I guarantee it.

18212. jexster - 8/3/2002 9:05:53 PM

get it...got it...good

18213. jexster - 8/3/2002 9:23:14 PM

Fallacy of assuming the consequent

All Commies are atheists. Cal is an athiest. Cal is a communist.

If it's raining then the streets are wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore, it's raining.

Blair is a liberal. Williams is a liberal. Blair "chose" Williams. Therefore, Williams is Abp of Canterbury for liberal, political reasons.


After a week the only proposition that can be sustained here is that Rama hates Blair, Rama hates liberals, Rama doesn't like the Church of England, Rama doesn't know what he is talking about and doesn't care that he doesn't.

18214. Indiana Jones - 8/4/2002 10:44:08 AM

jex and Rama: Enough.

jex: Post 18210 is threatening. Stop.

18220. jexster - 8/4/2002 10:16:50 PM

For a genuinely Christian approach to the issue of war without end, the kind you won't find at Liberty U..

Moral clarity anyone?

The Christian Just War Doctrine and Bush's Adventure in Iraq - The use of force to remove Saddam Hussein is not a moral option - +Richard Harries, Bp of Oxford

18225. Indiana Jones - 8/5/2002 8:48:27 PM

18214-18218 and 18220-18223 moved to the Inferno.

18226. Indiana Jones - 8/5/2002 9:03:57 PM

If we are told, moreover, that after death we go to another world that the same architect designed, our best bet--thinking scientifically, of course--will be that this other creation of the same designer will be much like this one. If the just suffer and the unjust flourish in this world, that is probably how it will always be. Suffering worlds are what this architect does, judging from the one sample of his work that lies in view. Naturally enough, Hume concludes that so "wild and unsettled" a system of theology is in no way preferable to none at all. Or as Wittgenstein was later to say, nothing will do as well as something about which nothing can be said.

An Unbeautiful Mind

18227. vonKreedon - 8/6/2002 12:57:15 PM

Indy - Very interesting statement, and one to which I would certainly agree.

A couple of other interesting quotes from the review:

In other words, although Polkinghorne is officially using history as evidence for theology, he is actually using theology to determine how to read the history. This is always so.

Indeed, if one starts from the position that God must exist and can be seen "scientifically" then one quickly moves to perverting the scientific method.
Self-deception, in short, is the human lot. And one wonders if Polkinghorne the scientist would take the hesitation and the uncertainty and the lack of agreement that attended certain laboratory observations to be confirmations of their accuracy. It is true that there are occasions when agreement is suspiciously perfect, and many frauds have been detected because of it; but this does not turn a confusion of witnesses into a reliable indicator of anything.

There is also the innocent tactic of taking the very improbability of a historical narrative as a reason for placing confidence in it. What could possibly explain the peoples' acceptance of such wild stories as those of the biblical miracles except that they are true? Polkinghorne refers patronizingly to Hume, but he never refers to Hume's quotation from the Cardinal de Retz that there are many things in which the world wishes to be deceived.

This I think is the clue to the belief in the perfect diety; this "Vale of Tears" is at times so unfair that we humans, or at least many of us, have a need to deceive ourselves that their is a reason for our suffering and an eventual reward for our good behavior.

18228. Ms. No - 8/6/2002 1:20:25 PM

What could possibly explain the peoples' acceptance of such wild stories as those of the biblical miracles except that they are true?

The same perversity of human nature that lets people believe that some guy rode an office door down the hot air currents in the stairwell from the 88th floor of the WTC safely to the ground. We want to believe that even when doom is certain we might be saved.

18229. judithathome - 8/6/2002 1:31:57 PM

What could possibly explain the peoples' acceptance of such wild stories as those of the biblical miracles except that they are true?

I can think of many reasons...people believe what they want to believe. Why do you think so many go on diets that promise weight loss while they sleep?

18230. jexster - 8/6/2002 4:34:08 PM

When Jexster saw Rama then Indy, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.

18231. jexster - 8/6/2002 4:36:54 PM

Say Indy tell me, you wouldn't happen to be of a catholic basher? One of those Indiana Kluxsters eh? GranPappy Jones wuz Grand Cyclops of Kokomo?

Or are you just a garden variety PuritanProt?

18232. vonKreedon - 8/6/2002 4:45:02 PM

Jex - Shut the fuck up, pretty please.

Thank you for your cooperation.

18233. vonKreedon - 8/6/2002 4:46:09 PM

I mean, please shut the fuck up unless you have something to say other than gratuitous and stupid personal attacks.

18234. Cellar Door - 8/6/2002 7:51:16 PM

Transcript of Law's deposition to be released to the public

18235. Indiana Jones - 8/7/2002 9:40:57 AM

vonK: Of course I don't agree with most of what the article says, but I've been reading a lot lately about the struggle between believers who are trying to link science and religion, and (mostly) nonbelievers who will have none of that. So I thought the article was worthwhile as a volley from the "other" side.

[T]his "Vale of Tears" is at times so unfair that we humans, or at least many of us, have a need to deceive ourselves that their is a reason for our suffering and an eventual reward for our good behavior.

Well, there a lot of unanswered questions in that statement. Why do we have such a sense of unfairness? It's a chicken and egg thing: unless we have the idea of justice--which you're saying our Vale of Tears experience doesn't demonstrate--then we can't sense injustice, right? Moreover, I don't think the same concept of justice is universal to all religions, or the idea that good will be rewarded and evil punished in the afterlife. The concept of "God as a super-powerful or all-powerful being" would appear to come before the concept of "God as all good," especially since the two together create the complexity of needing to explain why evil exists. The first alone doesn't.