Wednesday, July 30, 2008

They didn't leave the light on for ya ...

So, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was they weren't hospitable enough. Oh. Watch the Press Conference Q & A here or below. These are the authorities representing the Lambeth Conference on the Bible and they came before the press today.

5 comments:

Rachel said...

Very interesting indeed - thanks for this.
Rachel at Re vis.e Re form
http://hrht-revisingreform.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Maybe the people who were supposed to give this press conference were overpowered and are behind the screen, bound and gagged. I think I hear wimpering...

Raphael Samuel said...

Lord save us! Both these speakers are selling Rowan's beliefs and they represent Lambeth Conference's approach to Scriptures. The foundation is being laid to receive the homosexual hermeneutic as valid and legitimate. GAFCON seems to be the only authoritative centre of the communion. Lord save us!

Hening said...

And in the year 2008, the process of understanding at Lambeth gave us a Broke Back bible from New Zealand that is not self evident.

It's interesting that the homosexual lobby keeps screaming that the orthodox are making Lambeth all about gay lifestyle when in fact all the gay lifestyle supporters keep harping on is the legitimacy of their sinful lifestyle.

What a waste since instead of resolving this embarrassment to the Anglican church, Lambeth has become a showcase for bishops that lack basic theological knowledge and simply wish to use God's word as translated verbiage that must struggled with, squint really hard while reading and wriggle on the dance floor in order to see the hidden message that the gay and lesbian lifestyle as being just alright with the Creator.

Comparing their sexual agenda to the struggles in Africa should not be tolerated, and the idea of sexual liberation theology is laughable, of course unless that's all you think about.

Anonymous said...

That speaker who said he didn't have a clear position on Lambeth 1.10 - I didn't believe him. If he agreed, he could have said so. Since he didn't, it means he doesn't agree with 1.10. It's an either/or question.