"Modern versions" in a Nutshell

I am getting more and more confused. I asked:

What is your source, I wonder, for this notion that 19th Century Anglican priests were all "murdering jerks" involved in some sell-out that favoured drug-dealing?
​

And you replied:

But Nazaroo, the Inquisition was not carried out by 19th century Anglican priests, was it?

So I need to ask you again: What is your source for your contention that all 19th century Anglican priests were "murdering jerks" involved in a sell-out favoring drug dealing?

 

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable, anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father." The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. V, p. 428


"To me the necessity being Divine does not appear sufficient reason for our not being able to apprehend its nature as I do not admit your axiom that man cannot know God as He is. It is of course true, that we can only know God through human forms but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Gen 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are Divine forms" - Ibid., p. 427

Both quotes are taken from Hort's letter to Westcott on August 14, 16, 1860. Hort repudiates substitutionary atonement and leans toward some kind of ransom theory but leans more to a ransom theory paid to Satan over being paid to the Father.

In His second quote, he struggles with the true nature of God. He does not believe it is above human comprehension but believes the Divine form is like human form in Genesis 1:27.

 

I think you have misunderstood me. When I asked for your source for your statement that "19th Century Anglican priests were all 'murdering jerks' involved in some sell-out that favoured drug-dealing," I wasn't asking for a line of reasoning; I meant the sort of source Dr Walter gives in his post 64 - something to indicate the correctness of what you are saying.

As it is, you have just given 10 more unsubstantiated statements. I am not saying those ten are all wrong (though in my view, several are), just that you need to provide some sort of evidence. To give just two examples: What evidence are you able to give to show that alcohol manufacture and sales was the "main industry" of the RC "church"? That in the late 1800s the universities Cambridge and Oxford were "completely overrun by homosexual alcoholics and other drug dealers, communists, witches, Romanists, etc."?

And where does your scenario leave godly 19th century Christians like William Wilberforce, J. C. Ryle (first bishop of Liverpool), Charles Simeon, the Sumner brothers, and thousands of others who most certainly were not h*mos*xuals, communists, drug dealers or witches?

 

Thank you for your comments. This thread has become altogether too nutty for me, so I shall leave you to it.

Steve

 

But unfortunately, you still haven't provided it. All you have done is to make yet more statements which you back up only by your own reasoning.

What about some figures to back that up? And who do you mean by "the criminals"? Your previous posts were about 19th century Anglican clergymen, so are you saying that they were all criminals? But no, that wouldn't fit, because you then say that "the criminals are still at large," and no 19th century Anglican clergyman is alive today! So how is this evidence to support your earlier satement that "19th Century Anglican priests were all 'murdering jerks' involved in some sell-out that favoured drug-dealing"?

Of course not all criminals are caught and punished, but what evidence do you have to be able to say that "that is more than evidence enough that the judicial systems on earth are incompetant and utterly corrupt."? Again, how is this evidence to support your earlier satement that "19th Century Anglican priests were all 'murdering jerks' involved in some sell-out that favoured drug-dealing"?

Yet again, I have to ask, how is this evidence to support your earlier satement that "19th Century Anglican priests were all 'murdering jerks' involved in some sell-out that favoured drug-dealing"?

But let me say again that I am not seeking "evidence against perpetrators that are still at large". I am asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim that "19th Century Anglican priests were all 'murdering jerks' involved in some sell-out that favoured drug-dealing".

I then asked you:

What evidence are you able to give to show that alcohol manufacture and sales was the "main industry" of the RC "church"? That in the late 1800s the universities Cambridge and Oxford were "completely overrun by homosexual alcoholics and other drug dealers, communists, witches, Romanists, etc."?
​

You answered:

What results are there that show that those two universities were "completely overrun" by people such as you describle?

I then asked about godly, evangelical Anglican clergymen from the 19th century. You responded:

Sorry, but your "scenario" didn't even allow for the possibility of there having been any Anglican clergymen in the 19th century who were godly. You said at first that all 19th century Anglicans were alcoholics. Then when Amy challenged you, you apologised, and said that you meant "all Anglican priests". In support of this, you quoted an article about a 21st century Roman Catholic priest in Eire.

...and I am still left asking the same question, because you have not answered it:

What is your source, I wonder, for the notion that 19th Century Anglican priests were all "murdering jerks" involved in some sell-out that favoured drug-dealing?
​

 

Dear Pastor David Lamb,

Have you watched Max Kaiser on Russia Today TV? He is on on Tuesdays and Thursday that I know of. He also can be seen or read on internet.

This bloke is worth watching if ever you needed proof. Well, I think so.

Best of luck with your quest against proof of wickedness in the world as well as in the Church, or rather, best of luck in your campaign for the innocence of the guilty ---- innocence which you are going to find, WHERE?

I think your chances are better to discover the fountain of righteousness and virtue in the hearts of (some) men.

 

It seems I owe you a sincere apology, as apparently something I posted has given you the completely false idea that I am involved in a "campaign for the innocence of the guilty".

In my first post in this thread, post 57, I asked Nazaroo:

What is your source, I wonder, for this notion that 19th Century Anglican priests were all "murdering jerks" involved in some sell-out that favoured drug-dealing?
​

I did not try to suggest that none were, and I certainly did not mean that any who were should be considered innocent.

The same is true for the rest of my posts in this thread. For instance, I challenged Nazaroo's assertion that Oxford and Cambridge univerities were "completely overrun by homos*xual alcoholics and other drug dealers, communists, witches, Romanists, etc." I did not claim that there were no people fitting those descriptions at Oxford or Cambridge.


I hope that makes my meaning clearer, and I apologise again that I didn't write sufficiently clearly before.

 

These are items that Naz does not want to address.

Naz is not going to come forward and offer any facts to document his absurd charges. I have asked him time and again but he simply refuses to back anything thing up with anything resembling reality.

As Steve was saying, this business Naz is spouting is rather nutty.

There will be no results forthcoming issuing from the keystrokes of Naz. Documentation of his outrageous charges will go unanswered.

 

Yes it was