|
|
Post by Uriel on Oct 21, 2009 16:38:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Uriel on Oct 21, 2009 16:41:37 GMT -5
Clarification: I add that, of course, it is the government, not the church, which will enact this; it is the silence of the church that is so typical; I await, but will not hold my breath, the opposing response of Orombi and company.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 26, 2009 6:14:00 GMT -5
Uriel, I am shocked that you would make these vicious personal comments about this black bishop. What kind of Christian are you that you make such racist statements?
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 26, 2009 6:16:23 GMT -5
Gandhi also said "Hate the sin, love the sinner"'
|
|
|
|
Post by angli_fan on Oct 27, 2009 9:43:09 GMT -5
Uriel, I am shocked that you would make these vicious personal comments about this black bishop. What kind of Christian are you that you make such racist statements? Christian- Please review the forum rules. In progressing from "vicious" to "racist" in your characterization of Uriel's comments, you have crossed the line into personal attack. In fact it is you, not she who has brought race into this thread. Flaming is not allowed here. angli_fan |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 27, 2009 22:24:15 GMT -5
Anglifan,
I doubt very much that Uriel is a racist, in fact I would place the likelihood of that at far less than 1%. I was very careful not to say that she was a racist, only that her comments were racist, and I only said that as a display of irrational emotional appeal. This emotionalism is what passes for debate for many left leaning TECians.
I am quite new to this form of argumentation. I much prefer reasoned debate, and I am quite open to, and sometimes have changed my mind as the result of a well reasoned argument, especially if it points out an oversight or fallacy in my position. In addition, if I do not know a great deal on a subject I will offer no comment on that subject.
This new form of argumentation, which is now acceptable in college debating clubs, seems to set out two boundaries, one for each side of the debate. And the object of the debate seems to be to cruise as close as you dare to your boundary and attempt to get your opponent to transgress his boundary. These boundaries seem to be set quite arbitrarily, and in fact often favor one side or the other in a very lopsided manner. The first to transgress his boundary not only looses but becomes an object of opprobrium. Thus it is that it is OK to doubt the Christianity of a very successful Bishop because he hasn't done something you wished him to do, but it is beyond the pale to describe that doubting as vicious or racist even satirically. Now I don't know about you, but I would rather be a vicious, racist Christian, rather than be not vicious, not racist, and not a Christian. Fortunately I am not a racist and I am a Christian, though Uriel may doubt it.
And I am from time to time vicious in support of my beloved church.
Several years ago I realized that the relationship of homosexual behavior to my beloved church was becoming increasingly important. Since I only had hunches and opinions on the subject, and precious few of my fellow Episcopalians seemed knowledgeable, I set out to inform myself. I have read tomes on the subject of homosexuality, I have read topical guides to scripture on the subject, I have read the Bible (RSV) from cover to cover with the thought in the back of my mind: "How does this apply to homosexual behavior." It is quite clear that God thinks of homosexual behavior as sinful, and no amount of clapping or ringing of bells (obscure reference to "Hook" and "It's a Wonderful Life") will change that. This is not my preference, I would much prefer the opposite, but it is our Lords preference, and in all things I defer to the Lord. This is a rather tedious way of saying that I have informed myself on the subject and I am ready to logically and rationally discuss it with anyone who is also informed. If you are uninformed perhaps you should just keep you opinions to yourself, or not even form opinions in the first place. Wait until you are at least informed concerning the rudiments of the topic. At least have some recognition that you know precious little about it and refrain from characterizing as not Christian anyone who disagrees with the hunch you picked out of the air.
And out of love for the church, love of my fellow man, and love of the truth I will even embrace this newfangled progressive way of debating. I thought one of the rules was that if you disagree with a black man then you are a racist, full of hate, and your comments are vicious. It is in that spirit that I offered my characterization of Uriel's remarks.
Is it not true that that calling someone unchristian is beyond the pale?
|
|
|
|
Post by angli_fan on Oct 28, 2009 10:48:43 GMT -5
Christian-
I am uninterested in justifications, or clever rhetorical constructions. We are not having a conversation about this.
No one was talking about race in this thread until you brought it up.
If someone were actually making racist statements on this board, you would have to get in line behind me to call them on it. Your accusation of racist language in this case was both a non sequitur, and unacceptable.
Don't do it again.
angli_fan
|
|
|
|
Post by Uriel on Nov 3, 2009 15:48:16 GMT -5
Has anyone heard anything about anyone in the Anglican world, in any province, in TEC or the dissident groups, denouncing, or even commenting on, this outrageous legislation? If so, I have missed it, and would be very glad to have it brought to my attention. But I suspect that nothing has been said publicly by anyone of any position anywhere.
Best, Uriel
|
|
|
|
Post by Canadian Phil on Nov 7, 2009 10:53:01 GMT -5
Since I'm never one to back away from a challenge. How 'bout this from Anglican Mainstream on November 6th? A statement from the Anglican Church in Uganda. By the way, I'm not endorsing the opinions in this piece, but I note article 3 www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=17395or, for that matter, Fulcrum (the leading Anglican evangelical organization in UK and a major voice for Anglican evangelical worldwide) has issued an extensive briefing about the law, the context in Uganda, why this is not acceptable to Anglican moral teaching and what we can do. It gives superb legal and cultural background and an excellent summary of the moral issues raised by this law. I strongly recommend reading it. www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=482I'm sure if I kept digging, I would find more, but I hope that is enough to satisfy your request. Peace, Phil |
|
|
|
Post by Uriel on Nov 8, 2009 17:23:01 GMT -5
Thanks, Phil. That is helpful.
Best, Uriel
|
|
mewg
Acolyte
Posts: 27
|
Post by mewg on Feb 12, 2010 8:37:03 GMT -5
AD hominem
An argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack. See also: tu quoque.
|
|
