Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Rowan Williams: A blessing or Bane for the Church?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 36 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 16 Mar 2012 20:12:32 GMT
Spin says:
I think Rowan was one of the few among the Church trying to include, rather than exclude. The poor man found himself battling against the religion he represented and the secularism which claims, but does not adhere to, equality of belief.. In my view, Williams was more of a christian and democrat than those bishops, politicians and media-influenced couch-potatos opposing him.
Your reply to Spin's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

Posted on 16 Mar 2012 20:24:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Mar 2012 20:25:50 GMT
gille liath says:
Have you got the right forum?

I sympathise with him. Obviously a clever chap, but in a position which is rapidly becoming impossible. I thought his great weakness, as the most prominent religious functionary in Britain, is that he's a really poor communicator - someone who seems almost incapable of putting plain, straightforward thoughts into plain, straightforward language. And he's a very dull speaker too.

Having said that, I thought he was the only one in public life who struck the right note over the 'protest capitalism' movement (maybe because ambivalence happened on that occasion to be the appropriate response). He said something to the effect that, while we're all dissatisfied with the way things are, it's hard to say just how they should be done instead.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Mar 2012 20:30:16 GMT
Spin says:
Gille: Yes. It is Williams intrusion on olitics that caused debate. There is no need to question the church about its religious leaders (for one will get the expected response). It is the politics of the nation, its current battle with the church, that demands a political response, since only politics fails to justify its social ideology. In short, the churches intrusion in politics is not only a religious question, but also a political one, if you see what I mean. Given that Williams attempted to econcile religion with politics, I think my question is relevent, given the current state of battle between church and state.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Mar 2012 20:33:13 GMT
gille liath says:
Whaddya know? We agree for once. Well, part-way at least...

Posted on 17 Mar 2012 22:38:16 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2012 22:41:51 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 23:07:57 GMT
gille liath says:
What? They've lost RW, and now you too? No wonder the C of E is in crisis...

Something I meant to say yesterday: Williams, announcing his retirement, says the Archbish needs 'the hide of a rhinoceros and the constitution of an ox'; shouldn't he have taken the opportunity to speak out about the eyebrow requirements? Yeti?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2012 21:24:07 GMT
Spin says:
Roger: And what, exactly, is your definition of "A man of God"? Or indeed, your definition of "man" and "god"? You rely on the church to support your laws, but declare opposition when your morality is questioned. Secularism seeks to rid society of religion only because it can then do as it pleases without opposition. Hardly "democratic", "Just" or "Free".

Posted on 18 Mar 2012 21:53:56 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2012 22:06:23 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2012 22:15:25 GMT
Spin says:
Roger: I disagree. It should "go back" to the fact that a nation, state and power is the people, not any particular individual who happens to have money, education and influence.

Posted on 18 Mar 2012 22:44:30 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2012 22:45:28 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2012 23:24:32 GMT
gille liath says:
RED - re women clergy - far be it from me to meddle in matters pertaining to the Anglican church; but if you don't accept that the Bible has to be understood in context, as a whole, and in the light of tradition, you probably don't belong in it anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2012 23:37:12 GMT
Spin says:
Roger: Humanity requires nothing but humanity. Until you guys settle the question which haunts you (Mind vs body, Science vs religion, etc) you will be no more than animals. All species of this world are more intelligent than "Homo Sapiens".

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2012 23:38:25 GMT
user1951 says:
Lets get this straight. It is as easy for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to get through the eye of a needle. And the head of the church? Well only the richest woman in Europe who knows about as much about Christianity as my cat!

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2012 23:40:47 GMT
user1951 says:
Rowan excluded the poor. Rowan grovelled to the bankers and expelled the anti-capitalist protestors from the vicinity of St Pauls. Blessed are the rich was his philosophy. Jesus said otherwise.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2012 23:47:49 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2012 23:51:10 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2012 23:50:11 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 18 Mar 2012 23:54:04 GMT
Spin says:
Blessed are those in power.Yea, God lends an ear to those in power of the church and the nation., and those you follow God are hereby condemned to kiss his arse and revel in such slavery as God condemns.For the name of God is "Power" and the son of power is cash. It is easy to be Gods disciple when one has money and influence...

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2012 00:12:56 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Mar 2012 00:13:06 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2012 08:02:02 GMT
I am sure that "woe to the rich" also means something else. You are trying to have two bites at this cherry - are you a banker by any chance. Passing a rope through a gate in Jerusalem would be a fairly straightforward business.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2012 19:49:30 GMT
Spin says:
Roger: Its called "humour". Look it up. I'm sure Wiki has something to say about it.. =)

Posted on 19 Mar 2012 20:05:17 GMT
Spin says:
If a political ideology seeks to remove religious ideology from society, then it is politics, not religion, that must justify its stance. Thus this is a political question, not a religious one.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2012 23:13:40 GMT
user1951 says:
Weallly Woger? The word camel really means rope. The words "Woe to the rich" really mean "make as much money as you can." and the words "blessed are the poor" means "get a job you lazy scrounger". God bless you Roger Edward Deshon.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Mar 2012 02:52:32 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 21 Mar 2012 07:37:37 GMT
user1951 says:
Weasel words to justify toadying to the rich?

According to Wikipedia: "Cyril of Alexandria claimed that "camel" is a Greek misprint; that kamÍlos (camel) was a misprint of kamilos, meaning "rope" or "cable".[2][3] However evidence for such a Greek term is weak, there is little or no Greek manuscript support, and it goes against the standard principle of textual criticism that errors tend to happen towards the easier reading, not against it."

So if you don't mind I won't ask you to tie my camel up for me :)
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  9
Total posts:  36
Initial post:  16 Mar 2012
Latest post:  2 Apr 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions