| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1324
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Cov, the Archbishop was speaking to the Law Society I believe and so there's no reason why he shouldn't have spoken with the depth that he did. I understood him to have used the word "unavoidable" rather than "inevitable" but it's splitting hairs to argue over the exact single word he uttered. Unfortunately one cannot simply dismiss press misrepresentation since it is exactly that factor that led directly to the whole farrago in the first place. I would agree that Dr Williams was naive if he did not believe that his speech would be reproduced in assorted out of context soundbites so he ought to have clarified his position in layman's language even though that would have been a bit of a belt and braces job. A bullet point press release would have been helpful but the poor man should not be condemned for misunderstanding the ratpack mentality of the popular press. Apparently The Sun is running a Bash The Bish campaign calling for his removal from office. What a sad indictment of our so-called Christian country that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1448
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He did I believe put out a copy of the speech beforehand and one of his press advisors was asked on the radio why they did not advise any change in the wording in view of the possibility of misunderstanding. The indication was that he was unwilling to adjust the wording.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like to make my conclusions clear deductions from the evidence & arguments set out.
| ABC wrote: | | In conclusion, it seems that if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of ‘deconstruction’ of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment. But as I have hinted, I do not believe this can be done without some thinking also about the very nature of law. It is always easy to take refuge in some form of positivism; and what I have called legal universalism, when divorced from a serious theoretical (and, I would argue, religious) underpinning, can turn into a positivism as sterile as any other variety. If the paradoxical idea which I have sketched is true – that universal law and universal right are a way of recognising what is least fathomable and controllable in the human subject – theology still waits for us around the corner of these debates, however hard our culture may try to keep it out. And, as you can imagine, I am not going to complain about that. |
| JtheB wrote: | | He did I believe put out a copy of the speech beforehand and one of his press advisors was asked on the radio why they did not advise any change in the wording in view of the possibility of misunderstanding. The indication was that he was unwilling to adjust the wording. |
"... in view of the possibility of misunderstanding??????" I think he means "the impossibility of understanding 
I wonder if Williams himself understands what he writes ????? 
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddie c
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 685
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It would helpif he spoke in terms that the ordinary person understands. Hey it might help if he just preached the simple gospel.
Eddie
_________________
One thing i do know.I was blind but now i see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1324
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cov and Eddie,
The Archbishop was speaking to an audience of lawyers and legal experts who would be expected to be able to follow his thinking, reasoning and vocabulary. Why then should he be expected to 'dumb down' his words? Doubtless if he had wished to make similar points in a sermon it would not be some 7000 words long and would be simpler in tone and content. Sadly, much of the media furore ignored the context of his speech and reported it as if he had made his pronouncements from the pulpit.
What exactly do you mean by "the simple gospel" Eddie? I am guessing that what you have in mind is what is sometimes referred to as the ABC approach - Accept you're a sinner, Believe that Jesus died to save sinners and Confess Him as your Lord and Saviour. The problem is that the C of E does not consist entirely of evangelical Christians and Dr Williams is the spiritual head of liberal Christians as well as evangelical ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bobbyc wrote: | Cov and Eddie,
The Archbishop was speaking to an audience of lawyers and legal experts who would be expected to be able to follow his thinking, reasoning and vocabulary. Why then should he be expected to 'dumb down' his words? Doubtless if he had wished to make similar points in a sermon it would not be some 7000 words long and would be simpler in tone and content. Sadly, much of the media furore ignored the context of his speech and reported it as if he had made his pronouncements from the pulpit.
|
I heard him on Radio 4 - World at One. He should have clearly stated what he meant. I maintain he was foolish to mention Sharia law in the way he did. That was asking for trouble. Notably he doesn't blame the media for misunderstanding, rather he claims responsibility for that himself.
The Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday defended his remarks on sharia law, but took responsibility for any "misleading choice of words" which had helped to cause distress or misunderstanding among the wider public.
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1448
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Dr Williams is the spiritual head of liberal Christians |
Sad. Isn't it?
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddie c
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 685
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | bobbyc wrote: | Cov and Eddie,
The Archbishop was speaking to an audience of lawyers and legal experts who would be expected to be able to follow his thinking, reasoning and vocabulary. Why then should he be expected to 'dumb down' his words? Doubtless if he had wished to make similar points in a sermon it would not be some 7000 words long and would be simpler in tone and content. Sadly, much of the media furore ignored the context of his speech and reported it as if he had made his pronouncements from the pulpit. |
Who said anything about "dumbing down". From what i have seen practically no-one knows what he was on about.
| Quote: | | What exactly do you mean by "the simple gospel" Eddie? I am guessing that what you have in mind is what is sometimes referred to as the ABC approach - Accept you're a sinner, Believe that Jesus died to save sinners and Confess Him as your Lord and Saviour. The problem is that the C of E does not consist entirely of evangelical Christians and Dr Williams is the spiritual head of liberal Christians as well as evangelical ones. |
|
Bobby, that would do for starters. He is head of a church that has lost its way,in my opinion.
Eddie
_________________
One thing i do know.I was blind but now i see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1324
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jtheb wrote: | | Quote: | | Dr Williams is the spiritual head of liberal Christians |
Sad. Isn't it? |
No. Not at all.
Eddie, would you care to explain exactly how you think the CofE has lost its way? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1448
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We will just differ on that.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddie c
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 685
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Eddie, would you care to explain exactly how you think the CofE has lost its way? |
Hi Bobby,
Women priests.....homosexual and lesbian priests.. the links with the State. I aacept that there are many believers within the C of E,but it must get quite difficult to stay there.
Eddie
_________________
One thing i do know.I was blind but now i see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1324
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Eddie, other denominations have women ministers. Are you saying that they've lost their way as well? It may even be the case that those denominations (Methodists, URC etc) are also accepting of homosexual Christians within their ranks. That means the only difference left is that the CofE is the established church of this country. Have you any statistics for Anglicanism losing members, by the way?
Jtheb, are you advocating two Archbishops, one for liberals and one for evangelicals? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1448
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No! I suggest that we have a reliable leader of the CofE if we have to have a CofE.
And to have a nonevangelical leader of a church that is supposed to "Go into all the world and prech the gospel" is not satisfactory.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddie c
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 685
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | [quote="bobbyc"]Hello Eddie, other denominations have women ministers. Are you saying that they've lost their way as well? It may even be the case that those denominations (Methodists, URC etc) are also accepting of homosexual Christians within their ranks. That means the only difference left is that the CofE is the established church of this country. Have you any statistics for Anglicanism losing members, by the way? |
Bobby, yes i believe that they too are on the wrong track.
I belive that "eldership" should be male. In fact i dont see the need for "priests",be they male or female. Christians have one priest...Christ. I also dont see the need for an "established Church".
As for those who are leaving "Anglicanism". Here are a few million who this week are thinking of leaving...
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/18/africa/AF-REL-Uganda-Anglicans.php
Bobby i know many christians who worship within the CofE and many of them are concerned about the way the church is going. A church near me recently needed a new Vicar. They were concerned as to who they would get...would he be a christian.....would he bring his male partner with him. They assured me that they had a say in the matter,but to even have to consider such a situation tells me that something is terribly wrong within the CofE
That is what i mean when i say they have lost thier way.
Eddie
_________________
One thing i do know.I was blind but now i see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1448
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding "priests" you are quite correct.
There is no christian priests in the NT except all believers.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
