The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The 2016 census: whence the church? > Comments

The 2016 census: whence the church? : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 4/7/2017

It is about time that the Church realises that the end of the Church as we knew it has arrived and that we cannot go on as before.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
How have I shuffled the cards, diver dan?

<<Now you shuffle cards!>>

I had been talking about the Christian Church, specifically, the whole time.

<<I'm discussing the political influence of Christian evangelicals. There are multiple spheres of influence.>>

Then you needed to make that clearer. That quote again:

“Historically [evangelicals] rise from the bottom, and usually against liberalism and corruption in its Christian ranks!” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19136#340456)

In light of your clarification, I can only assume, therefore, that by “in its Christian ranks”, you actually meant to say, “by the Christian evangelicals in their ranks” (with “their” being, say, a political party).

<<Interestingly, Scott Morrison is an evangelical Christian.>>

Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me at all.

<<Question in his case is; is he one of the minority left wing evangelicals.>>

No, I think it’s pretty obvious that Morrison is a member of the Christian Right.

<<I have no idea what his view on gay marriage is, I'd be interested to know, …>>

He’s opposed to it:

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/whereyourmpstands/electorates/Cook

No surprises there.

<<… but gay marriage is not accepted by the majority [of] right wing[ers].>>

Correct. But why are we talking about gay marriage now?

This is all starting to feel very meandering and directionless. Get to a point, please. And quickly, too, we're off topic here.

<<[You’re] still in check!>>

Huh?

Just what exactly do you think you have me cornered on? You haven’t discredited anything I’ve said yet (we’ve even agreed on some points), and you have not yet justified your contempt for gay people.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 6 July 2017 6:39:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJP..

*, and you have not yet justified your contempt for gay people.*

I'm not contemptuous of gay people at all. I'm contemptuous of the gay rights movement as a radical political organisation, and because of that fact, it should be challenged aggressively and with no mercy!

*This is all starting to feel very meandering and directionless. *

Not at all off topic. The author decries the collapse of his liberal church, (ably assisted by its attachment to homosexuality as acceptable, (the catastrophe the Catholic Church is because of it)).

*Historically [evangelicals] rise from the bottom, and usually against liberalism and corruption in its Christian ranks!” *

Splitting hairs in your debates, diminishes its usefulness. The contested statement of mine above, assumes you have some knowledge of the history of the Christian church, which I believe you do!
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 7 July 2017 10:22:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJP..

PS. check mate.

I win because simply I debate the point; as opposed to yourself, who prefers to default to nit picking the physical construction of the debate.
A more positive input by you, would be more constructive towards the outcome of debate me thinks AJP.
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 7 July 2017 10:41:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay then, diver dan. Not gay people. Just the concept of homosexuality.

<<I'm not contemptuous of gay people at all.>>

“Homosexuality exists, agreed. I and others have a personal contempt towards it, …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19136#340456)

Which you have now narrowed down to the gay rights movement specifically:

<<I'm contemptuous of the gay rights movement as a radical political organisation, and because of that fact, it should be challenged aggressively and with no mercy!>>

So you don’t like the gay rights movement because you believe they are a radical political organisation?

Okay. So, in what ways are they radical, and why is the movement deserving of contempt and in need of challenging?

<<Splitting hairs in your debates, diminishes its usefulness.>>

Oh no, diver dan. I wasn’t splitting hairs at all. To split hairs means to argue about an inconsequential and trivial aspect of an issue, and your poor wording was obviously not inconsequential or trivial. It changed everything.

<<The contested statement of mine above, assumes you have some knowledge of the history of the Christian church, …>>

No, I think it was just sloppy wording. Having knowledge of the history of the Christian Church does not change the fact that there is a very big difference between ‘Christian ranks within the Christian Church’, and ‘Christians within the ranks of external organisations'.

<<I win because simply I debate the point ...>>

Which point was that? You’ve made a few, and they’re all still looking pretty dubious, at this point.

<<A more positive input by you, would be more constructive towards the outcome of debate me thinks AJP.>>

I think questioning dubious positions is a pretty damn positive undertaking. What do you consider to be positive, then?
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 7 July 2017 10:55:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJP

On track!

I have made my point, and have an 110% belief in truth, that the Liberal church of the author, has failed, primarily due to its embrace of the comforts of the world it should, by dent of belief in its own moral code, be opposed to. There are stark examples in Christian scriptures, of its need to be in the world but not of it.
The church has transformed itself effectively, into an NGO. it has lost credibility and is rightfully held in contempt by a broad section of our community: Hypnotised into the comfortable sleep of death.

If you need further example of its crumbling moral decline, look no further than an embrace of homosexuality, and a denialist view, the Catholic Church has been rocked to its core, not by homosexuals but by pedophilia. Simply, disgusting and immoral suffices!

discussion of the radical gay rights movement, and its sinister encroachment of our society, is not the point of this article. Maybe some other time for this one AJP.
Posted by diver dan, Saturday, 8 July 2017 9:45:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Motto of the Inquisitor was "hurts me more than it hurts you".
Hmmmm, I don't believe them!
Posted by Eric the Red-ish, Saturday, 8 July 2017 10:39:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy