This goes pretty far off-topic. I'm more than happy to address the OT
part of it elsewhere should you find an appropriate forum or care to
battle it out in e-mail.
Post by Ipse dixit<snip>
Post by usual suspectPost by Rat & Swanyour radical pagan views....
Just where do you get "radical pagan" from?
The concepts in AR have their roots in paganism, not Western Civ or
Judeo-Christian traditions -- both of which are very AW, as you surely
know, but not AR.
I thought you said AR is derived from AW. Make up your mind.
I said AR is a bastard stepchild of AW. My view hasn't changed a bit.
AR's other parent is rooted in paganism.
Post by Ipse dixitYou are wrong here.
Ipse dixit.
Post by Ipse dixitAs you know, the genuine rights position
(Regan/Francione, et. al.) derived its ideas from extending
18th-century rights theory to non-humans.
I don't "know" that because I don't accept your position that one
particular camp in AR is "genuine" and the others aren't. Such
distinctions are like radical Islamacists' claims that their version of
Islam is genuine and others are false. And before you question *my*
views of heterodoxy, I don't automatically dismiss liberal churches like
yours en masse from the church universal.
I also reject your claim that AR has any direct philosophical lineage to
18th century rights theories; it has only adopted those concepts and
applied them to animals even though animals are neither moral nor
capable of moral agency (patient-hood only begs the issue: see the post
which Dreck has REFUSED to respond). AR has its basis in the more
radical wing of the AW movement of the last two centuries.
Post by Ipse dixitThat has no relationship
to paganism whatever, and is strictly Western/Judeo-Christian
(or at least deist).
It is not strictly Judeo-Christian, particularly if it's Deist (Deism
isn't Christian at all; see John 8:19 and consider the doctrine of the
Trinity -- this was dealt with at Nicea). Nevertheless, the pagan roots
of AR are quite clear. AR elevates animals to the same level as man.
This certainly isn't the view of Judaism or Christianity, in which man
is created in the image and likeness of God and charged with stewardship
of animals. AR and paganism are eco-centric; Christianity is
theo-centric. Etc.
Post by Ipse dixitLinzey founds his concept of AR in Theos-rights,
which is a strictly Christian theory.
Heterodox, or heretical, Christian theory. Linzey explains his notion of
theos-rights as:
To put it at its most basic: animals have the right to be
animals. The natural life of a Spirit-filled creature is a gift
from God. When we take over the life of an animal to the extent
of distorting its natural life for no other purpose than our own
gain, we fall into sin. There is no clearer blasphemy before God
than the perversion of his creatures.
The Bible, though, says:
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast
of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the
earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your
hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I
have given you all things, even as the green herbs.
-- Genesis 9:2-3
Linzey denies that God has given us animals to work (see Leviticus) and
to eat (see Genesis, Leviticus, and the NT -- especially Colossians
2:16ff.), much less that they're for *our* benefit. Linzey sets up law
that goes beyond that which God has given, and beyond that which Christ
fulfilled. Consider Jesus' "seven woes" in St Matthew's Gospel (chapter 23).
This theos-rights concept is patently un-Christian.
Post by Ipse dixitPost by usual suspectPost by Rat & SwanI'm an Anglican Christian,
Yes, well we all have our crosses to bear. Pity the schismatics have
taken over your church and thrown it into crisis with the ordination
of the divorced and openly homosexual bishop.
I support Bishop Robinson.
I don't.
Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once,
temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not
a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping
his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man
does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take
care of the church of God?
-- 1 Tim 3
"Married only once" doesn't also mean "divorced only once so he can
shack up with his homosexual lover, with whom he'd carried on an illicit
affair before his divorce." Self-control is operative in that, as well.
His failure to maintain his marriage vows and "household well" also
disqualify him from leadership in the church. His membership isn't at
issue here -- just his leadership role.
Post by Ipse dixitPost by usual suspectPost by Rat & Swanand nothing in AR conflicts
with that (see Andrew Linzey).
No, and apparently neither does much else anymore. It does conflict
with *historic* Christianity.
So does wearing Polyester-cotton pants and eating pork -- those
prohibitions are based on the same Old Testament purity codes as the
prohibition against same-sex activity.
Very true. What you're leaving out, though, is that the Decalogue
forbids all adultery, including homosexuality.
Post by Ipse dixitJesus said nothing against homosexuality as we understand it today.
Irrelevant, and not necessarily true since we only have a limited view
of his life and sermons. The point remains that homosexuality is
mentioned throughout the NT as well as the OT, and never is it condoned.
Jesus' own brother (at least according to many scholars) *did* address
the issue, and it couldn't be more clear:
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like
manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after
strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the
vengeance of eternal fire.
-- Jude 7
The relevant part of that for this discussion isn't simply the
fornication in Sodom and Gomorrha, which is quite clear if you go back
and read about it (the men flatly rejected Lot's daughters when they
were offered by him, demanding instead to have sex with his male
visitors). It's the mention of "strange flesh," which is
(transliterated) in Greek PORNEIA. Porneia is graphic, illicit sex --
homosexuality (BOTH kinds), bestiality, incest, and adultery (as with a
divorced person -- like Dr Robinson), etc.
PORNEIA: illicit sexual intercourse
1. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse
with animals etc.
2. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
3. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4202
This is used also in the Septuagint, not just the NT. The use of Sodom
and Gomorrha as examples in this context are unmistakable. Those cities
were destroyed for their abominable sexual practices.
Post by Ipse dixitEven Paul said nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today
-- as an orientation.
This is sophistry and "orientation" is a red herring. Heterosexuals as
well as homosexual may be "oriented" to having affairs, but that doesn't
make affairs acceptable -- and St Paul didn't address such issues as
"orientation," either. He did in fact write very emphatically about the
issue. Churches have accepted that people have certain tendencies and
impulses. All sin starts with such "orientation" -- particularly in
light of the doctrine of original sin. Turning it into a lifestyle
doesn't alter or diminish its status as sin, and denying one's
sinfulness is denying the need for a savior.
This is at the heart of the tragedy of the Robinson crisis, and it
justly threatens schism in the Anglican See. A man who leaves his wife
for another man simply is unqualified for a leadership position in the
church. It's not a sign of strength and diversity, it's a sign of decay.
Post by Ipse dixitHop over to alt.religion.Christian.Episcopal (or Christian-Episcopal --
I don't remember) where a thorough discussion is raging even now on
the subject.
No thanks, I have better uses of my time than getting wrapped up in
internicene skirmishes.
Post by Ipse dixitThe Episcopal Church/Anglican church has been in the
forefront of movements for social justice.
Not to mention feminism, ordination of women, and rank paganism.
Consider Re-Imaging. The use of "Sophia" was completely out of
historical context. Sophia as knowledge isn't a metaphor for the target
of the following prayer from the 1993 conference co-sponsored by your
church:
"We are women in your image. With the nectar of our thighs, we
invited a lover... With our warm body fluids we remind the
world of its pleasures and sensations."
This is quite a departure from how Christ taught us to pray ("Our
Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name..."). Many ordained
women clergy from various liberal denominations took very serious issue
with this conference and movement which had leadership support. They
rightly noted at the time that it simply wasn't Christian.
Post by Ipse dixitIt was an Anglican clergyman who founded the SPCA;
Irrelevant. Many religious people take on hard issues related to various
issues, some of which neither of us would care to support. You left out
that Charles Darwin was an Anglican clergyman. That doesn't make
Anglicanism scientific.
Post by Ipse dixitthe Episcopal church has accepted African-Americans as full members,
Many denominations beat you to the punch, certainly with respect to
integrated congregations. Like many mainline churches, yours has a long
and sordid history of segregation and paternalism. See Shattuck:
http://gc2003.episcopalchurch.org/episcopal-life/BkRace.html
Post by Ipse dixitwomen as full members,
Again, other churches beat you to that. You've beaten others on the
radical and anti-Scriptural practice of female ordination. The role of
deaconess is open to women, but not bishop (or pastor). And before you
throw out Priscilla (cf Acts 18:24ff), she and Aquila took Apollos aside
IN PRIVATE. That was not in and of itself a leadership role in the
synagogue. Read the following passage, too, for context: "And when he
wanted to cross to Achaia, the *brothers* encouraged him and wrote to
the disciples there to welcome him."
Post by Ipse dixitand now gay people as full members.
You mean homosexual people. Gay means happy. Not all homosexuals are
happy. Need study citations on homosexuality and depression and suicide?
Post by Ipse dixitI think that's something to be proud of.
Pride is one the seven deadly sins. Instead, "...[Look] unto Jesus the
author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before
him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right
hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:2).