Christianity QA

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mycroft wrote (in reference to Bp Spong) [snip] M: I never said I had no problem with him. I just don’t want him silenced, that’s all. Controversy and a variety of opinions are good for the church. The Diocese of Newark lost almost half of its communicants in the first seventeen years of Spong’s episcopate (figures cited by Bp Allison from the _Episcopal Church Annual_). [snip] The strength of the anglican tradition is that it is not afraid to allow this kind of debate. Anglicanism has always cherished the idea of comprehensiveness, which can hold in tension, or in synthesis, contrasting opinions.  That is true. But there is a limit to that comprehensiveness: it is called the Nicene Creed, and we recite it every Sunday.  So does Bp Spong.  How he can do it, I don’t know; it is hypocrisy. Spong thrice vowed (at his ordination as deacon, then at his ordination as priest, then again at his consecration as bishop), in the presence of God, to uphold the doctrine and discipline of this Church.  The priestly vow, as an example, contains the following (using the 1928 BCP, which was in use when Spong was ordained): "(Bishop) Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word…?  (Answer) I will, the Lord being my helper."  That Spong thrice made similar vows, and has flagrantly broken them, is beyond denial. The question, then, is why the Church allowed him to preside as chief priest and pastor of a diocese when he was so in contempt of his ordination vows. The answer, I am afraid, is that no one cares.  It just doesn’t _matter_ enough to the bishops of our Church to maintain it in the Faith once delivered to the saints.  This is a serious problem, and one which demands both our prayer and our repentance.  It is unfortunate that this wound has been allowed to fester so long, and that it must now be dealt with at a time in our history when the ability to repent seems to be at an all-time low. If Spong’s ideas are wrong, the ultimate victory of Christ will void them. Christ incarnate in the world, as represented by His church, cannot be harmed be the errors of men. Naturally, I agree with your inspiring words about the ultimate victory of Christ.  But in the meantime, the errors of men can lead others astray from the Truth.  Those the Church entrusts with the episcopal office have grave responsibility not to do this.  I refer you to Luke 17:1-2:  "And [Jesus] said to his disciples, ‘Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!  It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.’" (RSV)

Amen brother. Let’s hear Christ’s words, and hide them in our hearts. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… I do not claim to be perfect, but I have a right to judge. So long as I accept the responsibility of applying that same judgement to myself FIRST. Christ advised not to judge, lest I be judged. With the measure I use, so shall it be measured unto me. Psanctimonious pscrewball Pfalager seems to believe his toxic traditions aren’t interpretations. Time to get the nice men in the white coats with the net! Anyone with pretensions to judge _me_ might decided that I should die by way of that judgement. I think  we should shoot him in self-defense.  People like Pflager used the same excuse for the Crusades, the Inquisition,  and the witch-burnings.

I should not have to judge you, because God is your ultimate judge as concerns matters of salvation. In any case, so you know where I’m coming from here are a couple of key quotations that define not only my right to judge others, but my duty to judge, and how I should judge. 2 Tim 4:1 – "When Christ Jesus comes as king, he will be the judge of everyone, whether they are living or dead. So with God and Christ as witnesses, I command you to preach God’s message. Do it willingly, even if it isn’t the popular thing to do.You must correct people and point out their sins. But also cheer them up, and when you instruct them, always be patient." Holy Scripture continues… "The time is coming when people won’t listen to good teaching. Instead, they will look for teachers who will please them by telling them only what they are itching to hear. They will turn from the truth and eagerly isten to senseless tories. But you must stay calm and be willing to suffer. You must work hard to tell the goos news and to do your job well". Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

M: Well, you have your opinion and I have mine. Even a quick glance at the history of the Christian faith seems to boil down to that.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mycroft wrote (in reference to Bp Spong) [snip] M: I never said I had no problem with him. I just don’t want him silenced, that’s all. Controversy and a variety of opinions are good for the church. The Diocese of Newark lost almost half of its communicants in the first seventeen years of Spong’s episcopate (figures cited by Bp Allison from the _Episcopal Church Annual_). [snip] The strength of the anglican tradition is that it is not afraid to allow this kind of debate. Anglicanism has always cherished the idea of comprehensiveness, which can hold in tension, or in synthesis, contrasting opinions.  That is true. But there is a limit to that comprehensiveness: it is called the Nicene Creed, and we recite it every Sunday.  So does Bp Spong.  How he can do it, I don’t know; it is hypocrisy. Spong thrice vowed (at his ordination as deacon, then at his ordination as priest, then again at his consecration as bishop), in the presence of God, to uphold the doctrine and discipline of this Church.  The priestly vow, as an example, contains the following (using the 1928 BCP, which was in use when Spong was ordained): "(Bishop) Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word…?  (Answer) I will, the Lord being my helper."  That Spong thrice made similar vows, and has flagrantly broken them, is beyond denial. The question, then, is why the Church allowed him to preside as chief priest and pastor of a diocese when he was so in contempt of his ordination vows. The answer, I am afraid, is that no one cares.  It just doesn’t _matter_ enough to the bishops of our Church to maintain it in the Faith once delivered to the saints.  This is a serious problem, and one which demands both our prayer and our repentance.  It is unfortunate that this wound has been allowed to fester so long, and that it must now be dealt with at a time in our history when the ability to repent seems to be at an all-time low. If Spong’s ideas are wrong, the ultimate victory of Christ will void them. Christ incarnate in the world, as represented by His church, cannot be harmed be the errors of men. Naturally, I agree with your inspiring words about the ultimate victory of Christ.  But in the meantime, the errors of men can lead others astray from the Truth.  Those the Church entrusts with the episcopal office have grave responsibility not to do this.  I refer you to Luke 17:1-2:  "And [Jesus] said to his disciples, ‘Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!  It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.’" (RSV) — John Edwards

Response:

Mycroft observed: << There are other ways besides the Bible to know and love God. Daniel Pflager responded in message <<Of course, but there is none better than Scripture. Words on a page are "better" than the active presence of the Holy Spirit?

Without the Holy Spirit, the God’s Word Written is likely to be misinterpretted. "Better" than a direct, loving relationship with God?

To love Him is to worship, adore, and obey him. To obey God’s Word is to know his Holy Scripture. How did Paul know Jesus?  Not from Scripture.

Paul saw Jesus loud and clear in a divine encounter of the third kind. Clearly Paul saw Jesus in the Old Testament too. That’s pretty clear from his letters. It’s also pretty clear that Paul thought scripture was essential to the life of the believer. How did Jesus know God?  Not from Scripture.

Absolutely not true! Christ’s gives us a pure and divine picture of how Scripture is to be used, and he used it to understand his own role. Part of what gave Jesus his authority was his knowledge of Holy Scripture. He quoted Holy Scripture often to show who he was, and what his role was. And he taught that to the Apostles after him, and apparently to Paul as well. Check out Christ’s use of Scripture and the Apostle’s use of Scripture. It’s absolutely foremost in their understanding of God, and the life of the Church. Article XX of the 39 Articles says Holy Scripture is "God’s Word written", and nothing the Church or individual believers do can contradict it. Are the commandments better when they are read from a page or when they are absorbed into one’s conscience?

Now these are not mutually exclusive. Clearly it is desirable that we commit Scripture both to memory and to heart. As in 2 Timothy 3:15 [15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Note the last verse: That the man of God may be perfect … Which is better:  the letter of the law or the spirit of the law?

Obviously the Spirit of the Law. What’s that got to do with it? Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… I do not claim to be perfect, but I have a right to judge. So long as I accept the responsibility of applying that same judgement to myself FIRST. Christ advised not to judge, lest I be judged. With the measure I use, so shall it be measured unto me. Psanctimonious pscrewball Pfalager seems to believe his toxic traditions aren’t interpretations. Time to get the nice men in the white coats with the net!   Anyone with pretensions to judge _me_ might decided that I should die by way of that judgement. I think  we should shoot him in self-defense.  People like Pflager used the same excuse for the Crusades, the Inquisition,  and the witch-burnings.

snip/insert "Christians have been the most intolerant of all men." -Francois Marie Arouet  - "The man who says to me, ‘Believe as I do, or God will damm you,’ will presently say, ‘Believe as I do, or I shall assassinate you.’ "Voltaire" (1694-1778) "Fanaticism is just one step away from barbarism" "The Christian religion teaches us to imitate a God that is cruel, insidious, jealous, and implacable in his wrath." –Denis Diderot (1713-1784) "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) "Fanatic fools, that in those twilight times With wild religion cloaked the worst of crimes!" -John Langhorne (1735-1779) English poet — Chuck Sommers – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —    Aaron I. Spielman   | Atheist #1467 | "The good die young – because they   www.rockethouse.net  | BAAWA Knight! | got to be good."    Official Lunatic Biker of the EAC   | —John Barrymore

Response:

Having spent too much time over in the eastern orthodoxy group, I return to say: compared to them, we hardly have a problem with Pharisaism in the Episcopal Church. It seems obvious to me that our chief problems are these fights about theology and the fact tghat we are so political and hateful about it. C. Wingate

Response:

Mycroft observed: << There are other ways besides the Bible to know and love God. Daniel Pflager responded in message <<Of course, but there is none better than Scripture. Words on a page are "better" than the active presence of the Holy Spirit? "Better" than a direct, loving relationship with God? How did Paul know Jesus?  Not from Scripture. How did Jesus know God?  Not from Scripture. Are the commandments better when they are read from a page or when they are absorbed into one’s conscience? Which is better:  the letter of the law or the spirit of the law?

Response:

Mycroft wrote (in reference to Bp Spong) [snip] M: I never said I had no problem with him. I just don’t want him silenced, that’s all. Controversy and a variety of opinions are good for the church.

The Diocese of Newark lost almost half of its communicants in the first seventeen years of Spong’s episcopate (figures cited by Bp Allison from the _Episcopal Church Annual_). [snip] The strength of the anglican tradition is that it is not afraid to allow this kind of debate.

Anglicanism has always cherished the idea of comprehensiveness, which can hold in tension, or in synthesis, contrasting opinions.  That is true.  But there is a limit to that comprehensiveness: it is called the Nicene Creed, and we recite it every Sunday.  So does Bp Spong.  How he can do it, I don’t know; it is hypocrisy. Spong thrice vowed (at his ordination as deacon, then at his ordination as priest, then again at his consecration as bishop), in the presence of God, to uphold the doctrine and discipline of this Church.  The priestly vow, as an example, contains the following (using the 1928 BCP, which was in use when Spong was ordained): "(Bishop) Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word…?  (Answer) I will, the Lord being my helper."  That Spong thrice made similar vows, and has flagrantly broken them, is beyond denial. The question, then, is why the Church allowed him to preside as chief priest and pastor of a diocese when he was so in contempt of his ordination vows. The answer, I am afraid, is that no one cares.  It just doesn’t _matter_ enough to the bishops of our Church to maintain it in the Faith once delivered to the saints.  This is a serious problem, and one which demands both our prayer and our repentance.  It is unfortunate that this wound has been allowed to fester so long, and that it must now be dealt with at a time in our history when the ability to repent seems to be at an all-time low. If Spong’s ideas are wrong, the ultimate victory of Christ will void them. Christ incarnate in the world, as represented by His church, cannot be harmed be the errors of men.

Naturally, I agree with your inspiring words about the ultimate victory of Christ.  But in the meantime, the errors of men can lead others astray from the Truth.  Those the Church entrusts with the episcopal office have grave responsibility not to do this.  I refer you to Luke 17:1-2:  "And [Jesus] said to his disciples, ‘Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!  It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.’" (RSV) — John Edwards

Response:

says… I do not claim to be perfect, but I have a right to judge. So long as I accept the responsibility of applying that same judgement to myself FIRST. Christ advised not to judge, lest I be judged. With the measure I use, so shall it be measured unto me. Psanctimonious pscrewball Pfalager seems to believe his toxic traditions aren’t interpretations. Time to get the nice men in the white coats with the net!  

Anyone with pretensions to judge _me_ might decided that I should die by way of that judgement. I think  we should shoot him in self-defense.  People like Pflager used the same excuse for the Crusades, the Inquisition,  and the witch-burnings. —    Aaron I. Spielman   | Atheist #1467 | "The good die young – because they   www.rockethouse.net  | BAAWA Knight! | got to be good."    Official Lunatic Biker of the EAC   | —John Barrymore

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Remove XXX to contact …snip… Do you disagree with the Gospel as I wrote it? …snip… Did somebody say, ‘hubris"? M: I think it was me. Is it hubris to quote scripture?

<Swooooossssssshhhhhhhh <the sound of a point going right over poor Danny’s head ROTFL! — Landis D. Ragon Chief – EAC Database Operations Homo sapiens is, in it’s purest essence, a 35 foot long intestine with a talent for self-flattery.  

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Remove XXX to contact …snip… Do you disagree with the Gospel as I wrote it? …snip… Did somebody say, ‘hubris"? M: I think it was me.

Is it hubris to quote scripture? Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Remove XXX to contact Remove XXX to contact Do you disagree with the Gospel as I wrote it? " Turn back to God and subordinate your will to his and you will receive eternal salvation and an abundant life." M: I have no problem with this at all. But you also have no problem with a Bishop who refuses to subordinate himself to Christ’s will, and the love of His Church? M: I never said I had no problem with him. I just don’t want him silenced, that’s all. Controversy and a variety of opinions are good for the church. I don’t want ~you~ silenced, after all. The strength of the anglican tradition is that it is not afraid to allow this kind of debate. If Spong’s ideas are wrong, the ultimate victory of Christ will void them. Christ incarnate in the world, as represented by His church, cannot be harmed be the errors of men.

I guess you make a reasonable point here, Mycroft. I also believe that Christ will prevail, but I think you are wrong about the Body of Christ being harmed by the errors of men. Why else should we be wary of false prophets? Why was Paul so concerned about the heresies of his time, why was Peter or John? I think it is because we know that free will is part of God’s ordained reality. He will very likely not interfere with us supernaturally if we don’t choose to ask him. It’s a question of free will. Don’t you agree? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – . M: Your problem is that you are mistaking ~your~ opinion, ~your~ prejudices, and ~your~ self-righteousness for God’s. It’s just your interpretation after all. You are NOT God. You aren’t even the Pope. And the fact that you need to pump yourself up by laying down the law to all us "sinners" illustrates your pharisaism. Everything that I have said more than equally applies to me. Phariseeism was not characterized by adherence to the Law. It was characterized by pretending adherence while doing the opposite. And hardly anything I’ve said are my own words, but come from scripture. What have I said is not scriptural? M: It’s you interpretation of scripture that I argue with, not scripture itself. Why can’t you understand this point??

Because if I quote scripture, you take it as my words, and accuse me of "interpretation". Now, interpretation can only be problematic if I am interpretting incorrectly. If I am interpretting correctly, you don’t have a problem with it right? So why do you say you have a problem with every one of my "interpretations"? I really want to know, Mycroft. Maybe we can start with one that particularly bothers you. Where have I erred? If you can show me my error, I will gladly accept it as a correction from God himself, and change my approach. Tell me what I should do to be true to God’s Word, Mycroft. M: Hardly my place. More humility? Less judgmentalism. Less absolute certainty that your opinion is God’s?

I am ASKING you in good faith, as my brother in Christ (which I assume you are), to help me? Will you refuse? I do not claim to be perfect, but I have a right to judge. So long as I accept the responsibility of applying that same judgement to myself FIRST. Christ advised not to judge, lest I be judged. With the measure I use, so shall it be measured unto me. M: "Judge not lest you be judged." Do you want the same measure of misunderstanding and mercilessness applied to you?

If I sin, I should be prepared to accept the consequences. If I sin, I should repent, ask God’s forgiveness and turn away from that sin. That is what God wants. That’s what I want to do. I don’t consider that merciless at all. If only it worked that way on earth. You of all people should know what I mean. Having confidence in righteousness, and having triumphed thanks to Christ’s power, I feel impelled to both praise God and share what I have experienced. M: There it is: the formula for the self-righteous zealot.

If I am righteous, it is because I carry Christ in my heart. If I carry Christ in my heart, I am Christ-righteous, not self-righteous. If I carry myself in my heart, I am self-righteous. And I’m not shy about the Gospel. Why should I be? Should I be ashamed? Do I need to couch it in intellectualism? Do I need to buffer it with scientific method? M: Stupid, irrelevant jibes.

Why? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip lengthy sermon. Pride is lack of submission to God, and in attacking the authority of his Word, you put yourself above God. M: Once again you set yourself up as God’s mouth. The pharisees didn’t pretend to be righteous, they actually thought they were. They kept the law to the letter while violating the spirit; they excluded the outcasts and the impure, and cheated the poor and needy. They couldn’t see the forest for the trees. Or, as with you, they strained at gnats and swallowed camels. Exactly what spirit am I violating here, Mycroft? What outcasts am I excluding? And in what way am I excluding them? And where did God’s Word say that I should put sinners in charge of his Church? What impure am I excluding? And in what way am I excluding them? What poor and need am I cheating? M: You certaily love lists of rhetorical questions.

They’re only rhetorical if you refuse to answer them. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Beware the yeast of the Pharisees, MyCroft. M:Yeah, yeah: it’s always "beware" with you isn’t it? Always someone else, never yourself. Oh make no mistake, I am more than aware of my own faults. The fact that I have so many is what gives me the right to speak as I do. I have been so incredibly blessed in Christ’s salvation, and I recognize you Mycroft. You and I are very much alike, although you might not realize it. M: We are alike in that we are sinners in need of God’s absolute love and acceptance.

We already had his absolute love and acceptance, what we need is his forgiveness and knowledge of his Word. Don’t you agree? One question: why aren’t you in some bible-thumping, fundie cult? You sure don’t sound like anyone in the ECUSA I’ve ever met or read. I am a Bible-believing Anglican. Imagine that. M: since you are a "Bible-believer" do you think gays should by executed?

No, no, no – a thousand times no. We are free from the strictures of Judaic Law, thanks to Christ. In any case, unless you are a Jew, even the Jews wouldn’t have held you accountable under their law. As a gentile you were already free. According to the Jews, you’d have been accountable under the Talmudic law of Noah (the seven commandments for gentiles), of course. In any case, didn’t Christ die for your sins and mine? Didn’t he accept our punishment for us, so that you and I don’t have to (provided we believe in him, ask forgiveness and turn from our sin)? In any case, I would not be the first to throw a stone. That brings up an interesting question, by the way. Remember the prostitute who was to be stoned? The one that Jesus saved? The penalty is there in black and white. Please don’t interpret it away. The abominable must be punished.

You and I both have done things worthy of death. I guarantee it. Thankfully, God does not require our lives of us, because of Christ. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What I don’t understand is why so few Episcopalians are comfortable with God’s sacred Word? Is it arrogance? Is it shyness? Is it lack of confidence? What? I’ve met more on-fire Catholics than I’ve met on-fire Anglicans. I’ve met more Anglican snobs too. The certainty of the Gospel is so profound, it demands to be preached. With thumping! Why not? Because it’s not intellectual? Because it’s crass, and Episcopalians like to think themselves sophisticated and cultured? Give it up, Episcopalians. Make yourself a fool for Christ. M: Since it’s obvious that you hate Episcopalians so much, why don’t you leave.

I don’t hate Episcopalians at all, Mycroft! Haven’t you heard the saying "The king spoils his bastards, and chastises his heirs?". Maybe you’ve heard that "Whom the Lord loves, he chastises." Snake-handlers are more on-fire than we are, too. Does that make them better? The level of emotion one exhibits is no measure of one’s relationship with God.

Not always, but it can. Actions speak louder than words, don’t they. I am suspicious of anyone claiming to be a follower of the Way, who is afraid of confessing Jesus as Lord. There are other ways besides the Bible to know and love God.

Of course, but there is none better than Scripture. You err because you do not know the Scripture. In fact, you seem to fear it. You seem to mistrust it. M: I do not make a golden calf out of it.

Oh don’t worry, you won’t see me worshipping my Bible, expecting it to perform miracles for me. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As an anglican, I find the incarnated Christ in the church and its sacramental life. I also follow the "three-legged stool" of scripture, reason and tradition (with the armrest of experience!). They all work together. Scripture without the rest is legalism. Tradition without the rest is idolatry. Reason alone leads to pride. And all three without

… read more »

Response:

…that he can’t even use the standard Usenet format to separate his comments from those he quotes.

  Too bad your so far out SON O GOD – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – that you can only retort with silliness. FTT

Response:

says… I do not claim to be perfect, but I have a right to judge. So long as I accept the responsibility of applying that same judgement to myself FIRST. Christ advised not to judge, lest I be judged. With the measure I use, so shall it be measured unto me. Psanctimonious pscrewball Pfalager seems to believe his toxic traditions aren’t interpretations. Time to get the nice men in the white coats with the net!  

Daniel Pflager’s curious interpretation   –In the unlikely event that John Spong has written this interpretationt,  Daniel would be whining it was heresy–  of this teaching encourages all sorts of double standards: If Daniel doesn’t have any desire for affection from other men, he judges gay men should not be allowed to have their need for affection met.  He  allows a marriage blessing from the church for himself, because it’s with a person of the oposite sex. Yet since he would never want to be married to another man, he can dismiss blessing same sex unions as a sin.     This same sophist’s interpretation "I use teh same standard of judgemnt for myself" was once applied, with whatever biblical quotes racists in the US used, to support the separation of black and white people in marriage.   Using Daniel Pflager’s right to judge, someone just like him once insisted  anyone asking for the church’s approval in these mixed marriages was asking the church to endorse sim. Bans on mixed race marriages existed in Episcopal churches until nearly 1970. Folsk liek daniel  used this same rationale.   Pne thing that is important to note: somehow using Daniel Pflager’s interpretation, it’s always the other person who is labeled a sinner and denied equality.  Of course all this time, in his tiny addled brain, the sanctimonious little creep is judging others by the same standard he applies to himself, and blaming it all on Jesus.

Response:

says… I do not claim to be perfect, but I have a right to judge. So long as I accept the responsibility of applying that same judgement to myself FIRST. Christ advised not to judge, lest I be judged. With the measure I use, so shall it be measured unto me.

Psanctimonious pscrewball Pfalager seems to believe his toxic traditions aren’t interpretations. Time to get the nice men in the white coats with the net!  

Response:

– Remove XXX to contact

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Remove XXX to contact Do you disagree with the Gospel as I wrote it? " Turn back to God and subordinate your will to his and you will receive eternal salvation and an abundant life." M: I have no problem with this at all. But you also have no problem with a Bishop who refuses to subordinate himself to Christ’s will, and the love of His Church?

M: I never said I had no problem with him. I just don’t want him silenced, that’s all. Controversy and a variety of opinions are good for the church. I don’t want ~you~ silenced, after all. The strength of the anglican tradition is that it is not afraid to allow this kind of debate. If Spong’s ideas are wrong, the ultimate victory of Christ will void them. Christ incarnate in the world, as represented by His church, cannot be harmed be the errors of men. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -. M: Your problem is that you are mistaking ~your~ opinion, ~your~ prejudices, and ~your~ self-righteousness for God’s. It’s just your interpretation after all. You are NOT God. You aren’t even the Pope. And the fact that you need to pump yourself up by laying down the law to all us "sinners" illustrates your pharisaism. Everything that I have said more than equally applies to me. Phariseeism was not characterized by adherence to the Law. It was characterized by pretending adherence while doing the opposite. And hardly anything I’ve said are my own words, but come from scripture. What have I said is not scriptural?

M: It’s you interpretation of scripture that I argue with, not scripture itself. Why can’t you understand this point?? Where have I erred? If you can show me my error, I will gladly accept it as a correction from God himself, and change my approach. Tell me what I should do to be true to God’s Word, Mycroft.

M: Hardly my place. More humility? Less judgmentalism. Less absolute certainty that your opinion is God’s? I do not claim to be perfect, but I have a right to judge. So long as I accept the responsibility of applying that same judgement to myself FIRST. Christ advised not to judge, lest I be judged. With the measure I use, so shall it be measured unto me.

M: "Judge not lest you be judged." Do you want the same measure of misunderstanding and mercilessness applied to you? Having confidence in righteousness, and having triumphed thanks to Christ’s power, I feel impelled to both praise God and share what I have

experienced. M: There it is: the formula for the self-righteous zealot. And I’m not shy about the Gospel. Why should I be? Should I be ashamed? Do I need to couch it in intellectualism? Do I need to buffer it with scientific method?

M: Stupid, irrelevant jibes. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip lengthy sermon. Pride is lack of submission to God, and in attacking the authority of his Word, you put yourself above God. M: Once again you set yourself up as God’s mouth. The pharisees didn’t pretend to be righteous, they actually thought they were. They kept the law to the letter while violating the spirit; they excluded the outcasts and the impure, and cheated the poor and needy. They couldn’t see the forest for the trees. Or, as with you, they strained at gnats and swallowed camels. Exactly what spirit am I violating here, Mycroft? What outcasts am I excluding? And in what way am I excluding them? And where did God’s Word say that I should put sinners in charge of his Church? What impure am I excluding? And in what way am I excluding them? What poor and need am I cheating?

M: You certaily love lists of rhetorical questions. Beware the yeast of the Pharisees, MyCroft. M:Yeah, yeah: it’s always "beware" with you isn’t it? Always someone else, never yourself. Oh make no mistake, I am more than aware of my own faults. The fact that I have so many is what gives me the right to speak as I do. I have been so incredibly blessed in Christ’s salvation, and I recognize you Mycroft. You and I are very much alike, although you might not realize it.

M: We are alike in that we are sinners in need of God’s absolute love and acceptance. One question: why aren’t you in some bible-thumping, fundie cult? You sure don’t sound like anyone in the ECUSA I’ve ever met or read. I am a Bible-believing Anglican. Imagine that.

M: since you are a "Bible-believer" do you think gays should by executed? The penalty is there in black and white. Please don’t interpret it away. The abominable must be punished. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What I don’t understand is why so few Episcopalians are comfortable with God’s sacred Word? Is it arrogance? Is it shyness? Is it lack of confidence? What? I’ve met more on-fire Catholics than I’ve met on-fire Anglicans. I’ve met more Anglican snobs too. The certainty of the Gospel is so profound, it demands to be preached. With thumping! Why not? Because it’s not intellectual? Because it’s crass, and Episcopalians like to think themselves sophisticated and cultured? Give it up, Episcopalians. Make yourself a fool for Christ.

M: Since it’s obvious that you hate Episcopalians so much, why don’t you leave. Snake-handlers are more on-fire than we are, too. Does that make them better? The level of emotion one exhibits is no measure of one’s relationship with God. There are other ways besides the Bible to know and love God. You err because you do not know the Scripture. In fact, you seem to fear it. You seem to mistrust it.

M: I do not make a golden calf out of it. As an anglican, I find the incarnated Christ in the church and its sacramental life. I also follow the "three-legged stool" of scripture, reason and tradition (with the armrest of experience!). They all work together. Scripture without the rest is legalism. Tradition without the rest is idolatry. Reason alone leads to pride. And all three without direct experience are meaningless. This is a balance. You are out of balance. Why? How about answering all my questions instead of just snipping them – you who are so quick to judge the killfile. I think the Pharisees would snip instead of using the killfile just so they could say they don’t use the killfile.

M: Lame. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

– Remove XXX to contact

Do you disagree with the Gospel as I wrote it? " Turn back to God and subordinate your will to his and you will receive eternal salvation and an abundant life."

M: I have no problem with this at all. What makes you think that it is Phariseeism? Is everything Phariseeism that reminds you of your duty and service to God? Perhaps you just hate anyone reminding you of your duty. Or perhaps it’s just me. Or have you taken Christ’s place to stand judgement over me, and the rest of the faithful, who believe that Holy Scripture IS the Word of God, and our duty and service as Christians is to obey it.

M: Your problem is that you are mistaking ~your~ opinion, ~your~ prejudices, and ~your~ self-righteousness for God’s. It’s just your interpretation after all. You are NOT God. You aren’t even the Pope. And the fact that you need to pump yourself up by laying down the law to all us "sinners" illustrates your pharisaism. <snip lengthy sermon. Pride is lack of submission to God, and in attacking the authority of his Word, you put yourself above God.

M: Once again you set yourself up as God’s mouth. The pharisees didn’t pretend to be righteous, they actually thought they were. They kept the law to the letter while violating the spirit; they excluded the outcasts and the impure, and cheated the poor and needy. They couldn’t see the forest for the trees. Or, as with you, they strained at gnats and swallowed camels. Beware the yeast of the Pharisees, MyCroft.

M:Yeah, yeah: it’s always "beware" with you isn’t it? Always someone else, never yourself. One question: why aren’t you in some bible-thumping, fundie cult? You sure don’t sound like anyone in the ECUSA I’ve ever met or read. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Obedientia et Mars, Daniel Pflager

Response:

…snip… Do you disagree with the Gospel as I wrote it?

…snip… Did somebody say, ‘hubris"?

Response:

…that he can’t even use the standard Usenet format to separate his comments from those he quotes. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… The key to the problems in the Episcopal Church is disobedience. Gay activists wishing to eliminate sin to escape their conscience. There he goes again, putting his own motive in the mouths of homosexuals. Projection is so obvious Daniel, especially when a wind-bag like you does it Spongers putting their own teachings ahead of those of Christ. And such was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Excess, pleasure, idleness. The message of the gospel is simple. Turn back to God and subordinate your will to his and you will receive eternal salvation and an abundant life. I thank God for the opportunity that open discussion of issues affords to the Gospel, despite the harm done it by adversaries of Christ. It’s part of His plan. Those who disagree with his sanctimonious orthodoxy are now "adversaries of christ". Bring on the faggots for a fire! Daniel’ll be burning  heretics before night fall if his mommy doesn’t take his matches away first. I would hate to be one of those responsible for misleading many, though. SON O GOD once again has his "golden shovel" in hand flinging around his bias bull. In seminary we called that golden shovel escapade "bullsgaschict" FTT . snip the rest of his bull ….

Response:

It seems that the primary sins for puritans and legalists such as Mr. Pflager are " excess , pleasure, idleness." These, of course, are venial sins. He carefully ignores the most serious sin of all: pride (or, as the Greeks put it, hubris). He puffs himself up to such a height that we ordinary mortals seem puny by comparison. Of course, he and his ilk know what’s right for us all, and don’t hesitate to tell us. They put their interpretation of Christ’s gospel above the real Gospel ("Good News" remember?), and proceed to measure everyone around them by it, mercilessly judging and condemning those who don’t measure up (virtually everyone except themselves, of course). It seems, like the pharisees they are, that they actually have a perverse need to do so in order to make themselves the more righteous in their own eyes.

Do you disagree with the Gospel as I wrote it? " Turn back to God and subordinate your will to his and you will receive eternal salvation and an abundant life." What makes you think that it is Phariseeism? Is everything Phariseeism that reminds you of your duty and service to God? Perhaps you just hate anyone reminding you of your duty. Or perhaps it’s just me. Or have you taken Christ’s place to stand judgement over me, and the rest of the faithful, who believe that Holy Scripture IS the Word of God, and our duty and service as Christians is to obey it. Take the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. What does the Bible say about them?– [Ezekiel 16:49-50 NRSV 49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.] Pride is the first sin listed, and the excesses and "ease" are joined with their indifference to the poor and needy. Their haughtiness cut them off from the outcasts, the needy, the poor. These aren’t sins of the body, but of the spirit.

The words that I speak are my own, they are Christ’s, and as for pride, I have none to tout, except which I have in Christ. I wasn’t talking about sins of the body at all, in any case. I too was speaking about pride. The pride that lets some people put their selfish desires above the Word of God. The yeast of the Pharisees what that they PRETENDED to be pious, while they robbed widows and orphans and taught people not to support their parents financially. The yeast of the Pharisees was not righteousness. Righteousness, because it comes from God, convicts of sin, and unrepentant sinners hate to be reminded of their sin. Those who already know how sinful they are, simply turn once more to God’s mercy in repentance. Pflager dismisses those with the audacity to disagree with him as "adversaries of Christ," whom he pities for leading others astray. I submit that what is important is not how closely we hew to the ethical and moral codes he derives from the Bible, but how we comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. Christ’s central commandments are to love God with our whole being, and our neighbors as ourselves; He wants us to be servants, not judges.

Then serve him as a living sacrifice. Serve his Body by subordinating your individual desires to the righteousness and holiness of his calling. Refrain from sinning, because in so doing, even if what you do is not sin to God, you diminish Christ and bring shame on him.  He certainly had little regard for the proud and haughty, even among the orthodox.

Pride is lack of submission to God, and in attacking the authority of his Word, you put yourself above God. Beware the yeast of the Pharisees, MyCroft. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

It seems that the primary sins for puritans and legalists such as Mr. Pflager are " excess , pleasure, idleness." These, of course, are venial sins. He carefully ignores the most serious sin of all: pride (or, as the Greeks put it, hubris). He puffs himself up to such a height that we ordinary mortals seem puny by comparison. Of course, he and his ilk know what’s right for us all, and don’t hesitate to tell us. They put their interpretation of Christ’s gospel above the real Gospel ("Good News" remember?), and proceed to measure everyone around them by it, mercilessly judging and condemning those who don’t measure up (virtually everyone except themselves, of course). It seems, like the pharisees they are, that they actually have a perverse need to do so in order to make themselves the more righteous in their own eyes. Take the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. What does the Bible say about them?– [Ezekiel 16:49-50 NRSV 49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.] Pride is the first sin listed, and the excesses and "ease" are joined with their indifference to the poor and needy. Their haughtiness cut them off from the outcasts, the needy, the poor. These aren’t sins of the body, but of the spirit. Pflager dismisses those with the audacity to disagree with him as "adversaries of Christ," whom he pities for leading others astray. I submit that what is important is not how closely we hew to the ethical and moral codes he derives from the Bible, but how we comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. Christ’s central commandments are to love God with our whole being, and our neighbors as ourselves; He wants us to be servants, not judges.  He certainly had little regard for the proud and haughty, even among the orthodox. Mycroft — Remove XXX to contact

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The key to the problems in the Episcopal Church is disobedience. Gay activists wishing to eliminate sin to escape their conscience. Spongers putting their own teachings ahead of those of Christ. And such was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Excess, pleasure, idleness. The message of the gospel is simple. Turn back to God and subordinate your will to his and you will receive eternal salvation and an abundant life. I thank God for the opportunity that open discussion of issues affords to the Gospel, despite the harm done it by adversaries of Christ. It’s part of His plan. I would hate to be one of those responsible for misleading many, though. Obedientia et Pax Daniel Pflager

Response:

One more comment on little Daniel’s selective use of toxic traditions to support his personal prejudices. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… The key to the problems in the Episcopal Church is disobedience. Gay activists wishing to eliminate sin to escape their conscience. There he goes again, putting his own motive in the mouths of homosexuals. Projection is so obvious Daniel, especially when a wind-bag like you does it Spongers putting their own teachings ahead of those of Christ. And such was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Excess, pleasure, idleness.

Jews had 1800 years to think about Sodom and Gomorra, between the time of the cities’ destruction and the appearance of christianity.   Several legends show up in the Aggadah and Midrash.  The term "middat Sdom" -The way Sodom’s people think- also shows up in the Talmud.  This material mentions again and again that Sodom’s principal flaws were lack of charity and lack of hospitality.  For example, someone who says, "Don’t give money to beggars, it only encourages them," is specifically condemned as being of   "middat Sdom."   Ethics of the Fathers talks about the person who says "what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours," we see the quote that  "some say this is the middat Sdom."  Someone who would fail to give away something that would cost him nothing is guilty as well.  An example that comes to mind is that some people these days are unwilling to let educators in public schools talk about the ways of preventing AIDS.  Are these people guilty of "middat Sdom," sodomy?  Is it not sodomy, then, to deny gay men and women the right to safety, a job and a place to live, the freedom to marry and inclusion in all church sacraments? The term "sodomite" that shows up in the King James Version of the Old Testament is in every case  –I have looked them up–, a mistranslation of the Hebrew word qadesh, which means male temple prostitute.  The King James translation is so off the mark that the Revised Version removed the word.   Martin Luther’s German translation uses the word "huur" instead.

Response:

says… The key to the problems in the Episcopal Church is disobedience. Gay activists wishing to eliminate sin to escape their conscience.

There he goes again, putting his own motive in the mouths of homosexuals. Projection is so obvious Daniel, especially when a wind-bag like you does it Spongers putting their own teachings ahead of those of Christ. And such was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Excess, pleasure, idleness. The message of the gospel is simple. Turn back to God and subordinate your will to his and you will receive eternal salvation and an abundant life. I thank God for the opportunity that open discussion of issues affords to the Gospel, despite the harm done it by adversaries of Christ. It’s part of His plan.

Those who disagree with his sanctimonious orthodoxy are now "adversaries of christ". Bring on the faggots for a fire! Daniel’ll be burning  heretics before night fall if his mommy doesn’t take his matches away first. I would hate to be one of those responsible for misleading many, though.

I am amused by the veiled threat and the obviouis delight Daniel takes in making it. Tell us Daniel; Is your abusive daddy god going to fly down from the sky and attack those who diagree with you? Or will he leave that to the boy-on-a-stick-god? Do you imagine yourself in a kind of celestial front row watching as your attack god smites all who dared to disagree with your hateful orthodoxy? Obedientia et Pax

I am always amused by Daniel’s pretentious Latin sig file. I’ll add one of my own. Peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum SON O’ GOD – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Daniel Pflager

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… The key to the problems in the Episcopal Church is disobedience. Gay activists wishing to eliminate sin to escape their conscience. There he goes again, putting his own motive in the mouths of homosexuals. Projection is so obvious Daniel, especially when a wind-bag like you does it Spongers putting their own teachings ahead of those of Christ. And such was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Excess, pleasure, idleness. The message of the gospel is simple. Turn back to God and subordinate your will to his and you will receive eternal salvation and an abundant life. I thank God for the opportunity that open discussion of issues affords to the Gospel, despite the harm done it by adversaries of Christ. It’s part of His plan. Those who disagree with his sanctimonious orthodoxy are now "adversaries of christ". Bring on the faggots for a fire! Daniel’ll be burning  heretics before night fall if his mommy doesn’t take his matches away first. I would hate to be one of those responsible for misleading many, though. SON O GOD once again has his "golden shovel" in hand flinging around his bias bull. In seminary we called that golden shovel escapade "bullsgaschict" FTT . snip the rest of his bull ….

Response:

The key to the problems in the Episcopal Church is disobedience. Gay activists wishing to eliminate sin to escape their conscience. Spongers putting their own teachings ahead of those of Christ. And such was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Excess, pleasure, idleness. The message of the gospel is simple. Turn back to God and subordinate your will to his and you will receive eternal salvation and an abundant life. I thank God for the opportunity that open discussion of issues affords to the Gospel, despite the harm done it by adversaries of Christ. It’s part of His plan. I would hate to be one of those responsible for misleading many, though. Obedientia et Pax Daniel Pflager

Response:

Related Posts