Joshua,

Thank you for replying, though I note you still avoid identifying who you are. However, having drawn my own conclusions which you have not refuted, I am prepared to let that pass, since it is not a requirement of this forum, only a custom.

My thoughts about where you were theologically relate to your statement re homosexuality - you will note that I tied my identification of liberal views to this specific issue.

You say,

Secondly, I thought I had made it quite clear that another of my problems concerned the attempt by some Sydney Anglican clerics and scholars to undermine orthodoxy concerning the Trinity

This of course is assertion, not proof.

Whilst I can’t speak for Sydney Anglicanism in the persons of its Bishops and College teaching staff, I don’t think they would have difficulty in refuting your assertion.

As I remember, some years ago there was a thread on this issue that went on forever.

Have I missed something.  Why does Joshua have to identify himself?  I don’t think I did when I first contributed.
Donna

David Palmer - 13 October 2008 05:04 PM

My thoughts about where you were theologically relate to your statement re homosexuality - you will note that I tied my identification of liberal views to this specific issue.

And therein lies my confusion. I don’t recall coming out in favour of homosexuality at any point in time. I merely highlighted the hypocrisy involved in claiming to fight for orthodoxy concerning sexuality, while at the same time undermining orthodoxy concerning the Trinity, a foundational doctrine in Christianity and one which sets Christianity apart as unique.

David Palmer - 13 October 2008 05:04 PM

Whilst I can’t speak for Sydney Anglicanism in the persons of its Bishops and College teaching staff, I don’t think they would have difficulty in refuting your assertion.

So subordination within the Trinity is orthodox belief now?

Donna Green - 13 October 2008 05:27 PM

Have I missed something.  Why does Joshua have to identify himself?  I don’t think I did when I first contributed.
Donna

Oh no Donna,

You obviously didn’t read the fine print. Now you’ll have to go back and cancel all your posts - re-register, correctly identify yourself - and THEN re-type in all your posts again. It’s a bother, I know, but ‘rules are rules’ !

Cheers, Kevin

ps BTW - just pulling your leg ;)

Kevin says bring back Bible believers like Carey...promoter of the ordiantion of women, encouraged Prince Charles to marry his Mistresa and blessed the second marriages of his divorced childen....with a Bible believer like that ,there is not much difference with Rowan

“Bible Believers” is an extraordinary term because it is so qualified that it has become meaningless.  I am a Bible Believer, but most of you would regard me as a Liberal - not that I think I am a Liberal.  The difference is a matter of interpretation.  We each derive different meanings from the same text when we look at it. 

So, R i W and Kevin, when you say Bible Believer do you really mean someone who derives the same meaning from the texts as you do?

Joshua Aldersley - 13 October 2008 05:35 PM

David Palmer - 13 October 2008 05:04 PM

Whilst I can’t speak for Sydney Anglicanism in the persons of its Bishops and College teaching staff, I don’t think they would have difficulty in refuting your assertion.

So subordination within the Trinity is orthodox belief now?

There is no point in trying to engage me on this issue, though to repeat my point, assertion does not equal proof.

And therein lies my confusion. I don’t recall coming out in favour of homosexuality at any point in time.

Well if I’m confused about your position, the wording of your post #39 was what led to the confusion.

Hi Donna,

I don’t think any of us had any doubts on where you were coming from, from the momenty of reading your first post. The difference between you and Joshua is that Joshua attacks Sydney Diocese whilst you defend Roman Catholicism. For some reason or other I appreciate and prefer your approach.

Kevin Goddard - 13 October 2008 05:35 PM

Donna Green - 13 October 2008 05:27 PM

Have I missed something.  Why does Joshua have to identify himself?  I don’t think I did when I first contributed.
Donna

Oh no Donna,

You obviously didn’t read the fine print. Now you’ll have to go back and cancel all your posts - re-register, correctly identify yourself - and THEN re-type in all your posts again. It’s a bother, I know, but ‘rules are rules’ !

Cheers, Kevin

ps BTW - just pulling your leg ;)

Hi Kevin
I probably could handle doing ‘it all over again’, however, I think you guys would regret it :)
Donna

Have I missed something.  Why does Joshua have to identify himself?  I don’t think I did when I first contributed.
Donna

I have a theory, Donna is really Tony Abbott. (Has anyone ever seen the two of them in the same room?)

No, Ken, I haven’t.

But I haven’t seen you and Donna in the same room, either!

Are YOU two the same person? ;)

Cheers,
Andrew

David Palmer - 13 October 2008 06:51 PM

There is no point in trying to engage me on this issue,

Suffice to say, this is becoming increasingly evident.

David Palmer - 13 October 2008 06:51 PM

though to repeat my point, assertion does not equal proof.

Which particular assertion do you accuse me of making?

Andrew Kroiter - 13 October 2008 07:52 PM

No, Ken, I haven’t.

But I haven’t seen you and Donna in the same room, either!

Are YOU two the same person? ;)

Cheers,
Andrew

I can see Ken cringing Andrew.  Take it easy on him :)

Yes, that was the Donna side of me - the truth is all out now - lol

Ken Austin - 13 October 2008 08:22 PM

Yes, that was the Donna side of me - the truth is all out now - lol

You’ve finally seen the light! :)

I’m just glad I am not your poor husband lol