More Anglicans support equal marriage than oppose it

[Shaker]

Yes, I like them 

Me too. Like some variants of Quakerism, like some variants of paganism, that strikes me as religion - if that's quite the word, and there's a whole big ol' can of worms in itself - at its best and a club worth joining.

I bet ad o doesn't see them as being part of his 2000 year old church speaking for Jesus.

Yes but he changes his one true faith and his absolute truth with the wind and he isn't the arbiter of anything.

[ad_orientem]

Yes, I like them 

But I bet not all the Christians on here do......... 🌹

I bet ad o doesn't see them as being part of his 2000 year church speaking for Jesus.

No I do not. I wouldn't consider them Christian. At best they're not even Trinitarian (historically, at least) and at worst many today are more-or-less semi-pagan.

[Shaker]

No I do not. I wouldn't consider them Christian. At best they're not even Trinitarian (historically, at least) and at worst many today are more-or-less semi-pagan.

And a vastly nicer bunch than you'll ever be because of it.

[ad_orientem]

And a vastly nicer bunch than you'll ever be because of it.

On the contrary. At worst they're deceivers and at best fools who unwittingly do the devil's work. Either way they lead people to hell.

[Shaker]

On the contrary. At worst they're deceivers and at best fools who unwittingly do the devil's work. Either way they lead people to hell.

Is this the same hell as the Catholic hell when Catholicism was according to you the one true faith and the final and absolute truth, or a different one this year?

[ad_orientem]

Oh, very droll! Hell, eternal damnation. However, when it comes to things spiritual you couldn't tell the difference between Liebfraumilch and a can of Tizer.

[Rhiannon]

Is this the same hell as the Catholic hell when Catholicism was according to you the one true faith and the final and absolute truth, or a different one this year?

That was when he was deceived by the devil too.

[Shaker]

Oh, very droll!

It wasn't meant to be droll, it was meant to be accurate. Which it was and is.

Hell, eternal damnation. However, when it comes to things spiritual you couldn't tell the difference between Liebfraumilch and a can of Tizer.

If it was a straight choice between Liebfraumilch and the Tizer, chances are I'd probably go for the Tizer and get more enjoyment from it.

More importantly for your constant stream of assertions and claims and fallacies, however, is that I know bullshit when I come across it.

[Shaker]

That was when he was deceived by the devil too.

Wouldn't be surprised.

No more surprised than I'll be when he moves on to his next authoritarian, dogmatic, do-your-thinking-for-you belief system and he's saying everything about Orthodoxy then as he says about Catholicism now. (Before your time, Rhi, but there's form, believe you me).

[ad_orientem]

That was when he was deceived by the devil too.

That might very well be true for he is the father of lies.

[Shaker]

That might very well be true for he is the father of lies.

No, that's Rupert Murdoch you're thinking of.

Easy mistake to make, I admit.

The obvious question then becomes: if you were deceived by the devil when an adherent of Catholicism, how can you be sure that you're not being deceived likewise now? Remember that while many here are not aware of your history of claiming one true thises and absolutely final thats, some of us have long memories

[ad_orientem]

Wouldn't be surprised.

No more surprised than I'll be when he moves on to his next authoritarian, dogmatic, do-your-thinking-for-you belief system and he's saying everything about Orthodoxy then as he says about Catholicism now.

Are you sure? You're committing some sort of logical fallacy by claiming there is a trend from a single event.

It seems that even unbelievers are prone to committing logical fallacies. I've already seen two on this thread. Who would have thought it?

[ad_orientem]

No, that's Rupert Murdoch you're thinking of.

Easy mistake to make, I admit.

The obvious question then becomes: if you were deceived by the devil when an adherent of Catholicism, how can you be sure that you're not being deceived likewise now? Remember that while many here are not aware of your history of claiming one true thises and absolutely final thats, some of us have long memories

See above.

[Bubbles]

That might very well be true for he is the father of lies.

How long have you been Orthodox ad o ?

Apart from Catholic have you belonged to any other religions/ denominations?

🌹

[Shaker]

Are you sure? You're committing some sort of logical fallacy by claiming there is a trend from a single event.

It seems that even unbelievers are prone to committing logical fallacies. I've already seen two on this thread. Who would have thought it?

It's not a logical fallacy as I'm not falsely drawing a mistaken conclusion from a premise, even a sound premise.

I'm simply commenting upon your past (recent) history and saying that I least of all would be surprised if you were to move on to some other rigid and authoritarian dogma that tells you what and how to think and what to believe, as that seems to be your bag, instead of doing the hard yards for yourself which is often confusing, frequently frustrating but never anythig less than exciting and exhilarating.

Which are the two logical fallacies according to you, by the way?

[ad_orientem]

It's not a logical fallacy as I'm not falsely drawing a mistaken conclusion from a premise, even a sound premise.

I'm simply commenting upon your past (recent) history and saying that I least of all would be surprised if you were to move on to some other rigid and authoritarian dogma that tells you what and how to think and what to believe, as that seems to be your bag, instead of doing the hard yards for yourself.

Which are the two logical fallacies according to you, by the way?

It's a logical fallacy to say there is a trend from a single event. But it seems even the oh so mighty Shaker willingly commits them when it suits him. Then he is the biggest hypocrite of them all. The second was an argument from silence.

[Bubbles]

Oh, very droll! Hell, eternal damnation. However, when it comes to things spiritual you couldn't tell the difference between Liebfraumilch and a can of Tizer.

If you have enough,  one of them makes you drunk 


Liebfraumilch seems to have some strange implications  (German for Beloved lady's milk, in reference to the Virgin Mary)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebfraumilch

 

[Shaker]

It's a logical fallacy to say there is a trend from a single event.

I didn't say there was any such "trend" - I said that there is a past history of skipping from one belief system and one religious denomination held to be the one true church and the repository of all, final, ultimate and absolute truth to another belief system and another religious denomination held to be the one true church and the repository of all, final, ultimate and absolute truth. (You can't have two of them, you know). Don't even bother trying to deny that because I have at my disposal an awful lot of posts to prove it, as you know very well, which I can easily and quickly pull up for all to see, which you also know.

What I did do was to ask you a question (in #85) which you signally failed to answer, surprise surprise.

[Rhiannon]

To be fair, Shaker, I don't think ad_o will jump ship. All other denominations gave up their antisemitism years ago.

[Shaker]

To be fair, Shaker, I don't think ad_o will jump ship. All other denominations gave up their antisemitism years ago.

He may or he may not. I make no comment on that. My comment was to state the simple fact that there's a precedent, so jumping ship would not be without such a precedent.

Churchill crossed the floor of the Commons from Conservative to Liberal and back again - or was it the other way round? "I not only ratted but re-ratted," he's said to have said.

[Rhiannon]

He may or he may not. I make no comment on that. My comment was to state the simple fact that there's a precedent.

I agree. Not sure where else he will find so appealing though, given his conspiracy theory anti Semitic rants elsewhere. Catholicism is becoming increasingly reconciled to Judaism, for example.

[ad_orientem]

I didn't say there was any such "trend" - I said that there is a past history of skipping from one belief system and one religious denomination held to be the one true church and the repository of all, final, ultimate and absolute truth to another belief system and another religious denomination held to be the one true church and the repository of all, final, ultimate and absolute truth. (You can't have two of them, you know). Don't even bother trying to deny that because I have at my disposal an awful lot of posts to prove it, as you know very well, which I can easily and quickly pull up for all to see, which you also know.

What I did do was to ask you a question (in #85) which you signally failed to answer, surprise surprise.

When have I ever denied that I was a Roman Catholic or that I once thought modern Rome was the one Church? Never. What I deny is your snide suggestions.

[Shaker]

When have I ever denied that I was a Roman Catholic or that I once thought modern Rome was the one Church? Never. What I deny is your snide suggestions.

I have never stated you have denied it at all, in any place at any time in any form whatever. Watch what you're doing with all that straw, it makes such a mess, especially when it gets wet.

It's a perfectly valid and legitimate point however that somebody who regards belief system/worldview A as the ultimate, final and absolute truth and then moves on and says exactly the same in every respect about belief system/worldview B would surprise no one when they move on again and wheel out all the same stuff about belief system/worldview C. Does that mean it's bound to happen? No. Does that mean it's possible? Hell yes, especially when you take into account the psychological reasons behind this sort of spiritual shopping.

[ad_orientem]

I have never stated you have denied it at all, in any place at any time in any form whatever. Watch what you're doing with all that straw, it makes such a mess, especially when it gets wet.

It's a perfectly valid and legitimate point however that somebody who regards belief system/worldview A as the ultimate, final and absolute truth and then moves on and says exactly the same in every respect about belief system/worldview B would surprise no one when they move on again and wheel out all the same stuff about belief system/worldview C. Does that mean it's bound to happen? No. Does that mean it's possible? Hell yes, especially when you take into account the psychological reasons behind this sort of spiritual shopping.

As I said. If I ever leave Orthodoxy the only option left is atheism or something thereabout.

[Hope]

Churchill crossed the floor of the Commons from Conservative to Liberal and back again - or was it the other way round? "I not only ratted but re-ratted," he's said to have said.

I've googled this comment in relation to Churchill and have received no matches.