tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post4071203181495441674..comments2024-03-29T08:52:01.745-04:00Comments on Not Another Episcopal Church Blog: On the History of AuthorityUndergroundpewsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post-9554027940264755942008-08-27T19:31:00.000-04:002008-08-27T19:31:00.000-04:00As to the comments regarding moral relativism, inc...As to the comments regarding moral relativism, including my own, one additional thing occurs to me: while the adult congregation might be capable of appropriate discernment, what about our young people? What about the middle schoolers, high schoolers and young adults who may very well see the rector as a monumental authority figure? Consider that our young people hear the rector telling them that there are no moral absolutes, that there is no right or wrong, that all human action is subject to human interpretation and that they can decide for themselves what is acceptable behaviour. What would be our response to the sixteen year old girl who ends up pregnant and whose justification is that the rector said that if it feels good, do it? What would be our advice to the young lad who was a more than willing participant based upon the same premise? Perhaps we should send the under 25year old crowd out during the sermon the same way that we do the youngsters. They really don't need to hear a sermon telling them that it's OK to make it up as you go along. The road to perdition, perhaps?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08890870828860228480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post-78888548952785215972008-08-27T14:07:00.000-04:002008-08-27T14:07:00.000-04:00"That ain't rite..."Are we discussing Rite I or Ri..."That ain't rite..."<BR/><BR/>Are we discussing Rite I or Rite II?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08890870828860228480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post-11866318833265919572008-08-27T09:53:00.000-04:002008-08-27T09:53:00.000-04:00"To where?" That ain't rite..."To where?" That ain't rite...Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post-13404394649385254992008-08-27T09:52:00.000-04:002008-08-27T09:52:00.000-04:00And to where should we look for a moral foundation...And to where should we look for a moral foundation? <BR/><BR/>From Psalm 119 from today's lectionary reading,<BR/><BR/>1 Happy are those whose way is blameless,<BR/> who walk in the law of the Lord. <BR/>2 Happy are those who keep his decrees,<BR/> who seek him with their whole heart, <BR/>3 who also do no wrong,<BR/> but walk in his ways. <BR/>4 You have commanded your precepts<BR/> to be kept diligently. <BR/>5 O that my ways may be steadfast<BR/> in keeping your statutes!Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post-23803185881721280502008-08-26T23:11:00.000-04:002008-08-26T23:11:00.000-04:00Further to moral relativism:You have rested your f...Further to moral relativism:<BR/><BR/>You have rested your faith on an empty falsehood! Can you possibly imagine that you can steal, murder, fornicate, bear false witness, make sacrifices to Baal, and follow strange gods, and then come before me in this house, which bears my name, and say, “We are safe!”—and all so that you can go right on doing all these abominations? <BR/><BR/>Jeremiah 7:8-10Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08890870828860228480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post-12346881329536012092008-08-25T15:12:00.000-04:002008-08-25T15:12:00.000-04:00Cato may be interested in reading Albert Mohler’s ...Cato may be interested in reading Albert Mohler’s discussion, <A HREF="http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1464" REL="nofollow"><BR/>New God or No God? The Peril of Making God Plausible</A>.<BR/><BR/>In this he reviews A Plausible God by Mitchell Silver and talks about the New Age God and I quote,<BR/><BR/><B>God is reduced to "deep feelings, fundamental values, basic attitudes, and humane hopes</B>." Many modern people, including both Jews and many who identify as Christians, have, as Rabbi Jonathan Gerard related, "merely lost faith in an older and unacceptable notion of God."<BR/>The new God is a philosophical concept that its proponents use to ground a potential for goodness in the world. When believers in the new God speak of God in personal terms, they do so metaphorically. One key insight in Silver's book is his argument that even secular people need to express gratitude in personal terms. As he explains, "God-talk may be the only language adequate for the expression of certain emotions." Speaking of a personal God in this sense is a "trope" or "just a manner of speaking."<BR/>The new God becomes "whatever there is in nature that makes good things possible." But, lest we over-read this statement, Silver adds: <B>"God has no will, intentions, or desires."</B> In no sense is the new God a personal God. This God is a principle, a concept; not a person.<BR/>The God of the Bible is dismissed as a rational impossibility. Supernaturalism is itself ruled out of bounds within the closed box of the materialist worldview. Many would go further and argue that the God of the Bible is immoral -- ethnocentric, violent, and oppressive. But all this goes away with the new God, who is not a person, does not need to "exist," has no will or intentions, does not intervene in history, and is thus not morally accountable at all. The new God is not an agent who acts, and thus cannot be an immoral agent.<BR/>The old God, the God of the Bible, the God described by Silver as the "God of our fathers," is simply not plausible. Thus, as Silver eloquently suggests, modern secular people turn "from the God of our fathers to the <B>God of our friends</B>."<BR/><BR/>h/t <A HREF="http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/15684/" REL="nofollow">T19</A>Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post-48202593704615999132008-08-25T11:56:00.000-04:002008-08-25T11:56:00.000-04:00Thanks to the UP for reprinting the Church of Engl...Thanks to the UP for reprinting the Church of England newspaper article. For those who may be unaware, the author, Andrew Carey, is an eminent journalist and son of Lord Carey of Clifton, the immediate past Archbishop of Canterbury.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09223872923349972693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post-24083854384916215362008-08-25T10:24:00.000-04:002008-08-25T10:24:00.000-04:00Dear r. sherman, Last night PBS aired "Battle for ...Dear r. sherman, <BR/>Last night PBS aired <A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_bible/index.html" REL="nofollow">"Battle for the Bible."</A> This was an interesting history of the English Bible, authority, etc, and I would consider good for use in Sunday school class. Indeed, the hard won freedom to read the Bible for oneself was won by the blood of marytrs. When we read, however, what happens when we read it not just for ourselves but <B>for</B> and with others?Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post-31798150457311045112008-08-25T09:16:00.000-04:002008-08-25T09:16:00.000-04:00It would seem to me that the Bible is the ultimate...It would seem to me that the Bible is the ultimate authority. Yes, there are human authorities over us, but our submission to them is contingent upon testing them in the crucible of biblical teaching. <BR/><BR/>I mean, that's why we're Protestants; so that we can read and study God's Word ourselves as individuals and ask Him to reveal to us His truth.<BR/><BR/>Or am I all wet?<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post-630141877038083922008-08-24T23:24:00.000-04:002008-08-24T23:24:00.000-04:00So what's new - the Fr is an ultra-liberal. At le...So what's new - the Fr is an ultra-liberal. At least he didn't come out and say G D America! Though I think a new nickname is in order for the Fr. How about Chicken Little...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post-34558875609060061172008-08-24T23:19:00.000-04:002008-08-24T23:19:00.000-04:00Where do I begin? Our illustrious leader presente...Where do I begin? Our illustrious leader presented so many points that require refutation in today's sermon that I am a bit awestruck.<BR/><BR/>However, let me begin with one of my old favorites: moral relativism. Charlie is of the opinion that there are no absolutes. No good and evil, no black and white, no right and wrong...only shades of gray. In his ethical confusion, he believes that we should tolerate all viewpoints and, presumably, all actions because they are all good in someone's eyes. However, to negate this ascendancy of individual conscience, it is necessary to have a solid grasp of objective (absolute)truth.<BR/><BR/>Apparently, some have trouble understanding this and see the human conscience is necessarily subjective. But John Henry Newman taught us that our conscience is to reflect and obey objective truth, so we must willingly submit our conscience to that Truth. A guilty conscience is important is helping us to do the "right" thing. And doing what is "right" implies a choice between good and evil which are absolutes. The tyranny of moral relativism becomes a threat to the conscience because it could be false. Adolph Hitler, whose conscience was supreme, thought he did what was right. But he wasn't right. Great evil came to the world because of his situational ethics. Good is not whatever we think it is. We believe in God (objective Good) as He has revealed Himself to us. And we accept the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit through Scripture and Tradition. These are the ways in which we find the Truth.<BR/><BR/>The fact is that all people are born with a conscience, and we all instinctively know when we have wronged someone or when we have been wronged. Even as little children, we knew the difference between fair and unfair, good and evil. It takes spectacularly bad philosophy to try and convince us that our instincts are wrong.<BR/><BR/>Moral relativism has steadily been accepted as the primary moral philosophy of modern society, a culture that was previously governed by a "Judeo-Christian" view of morality. While these "Judeo-Christian" standards continue to be the foundation for civil law, some people hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes, but can be determined by each individual. Moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is essentially without meaning. If the relativists are correct, what need have we of a church? For that matter, if anything goes, and it's all good because I believe it's good, then there is no possibility of "sin" because I believe (with Adolph) that I did nothing wrong. And if there is no sin, what need do we have for a Saviour to redeem us?<BR/><BR/>Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08890870828860228480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7107887.post-802828837779013072008-08-24T20:02:00.000-04:002008-08-24T20:02:00.000-04:00TEC has worked itself into an interesting conundru...TEC has worked itself into an interesting conundrum: Using one's authority to challenge the authority of others, while carefully protecting one's own authority. Angrily lashing out at any mentioned similarities between the authorities and empires they despise and their own empire and authority.<BR/><BR/>I'm also thinking that maybe they won't want to use that hymn again with its references to a "darksome prison house of sin" and a "Savior" who died to "ransom" them and the claim that anyone is "unfit to see his face".<BR/><BR/>Well, I guess they still like the part about "give of thy wealth".Perpetuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16632860530530786486noreply@blogger.com