What is in Kelvin's Head?

Revised Commenting Policy

04/08/2012
I’ve posted something like this before but have had to add the final bullet point today. (And have today decided not to allow any further comments from the offender who caused me to add this last point. It seems to me that he has been warned enough).

The following types of comments will be deleted without question.
- Comments which appear to be legitimate but whose posters’ details point to porn sites.
- Comments which contain homophobic epithets. I’m open to intelligent discussion but I’m not running a site which allows people to get away with silly name calling.
- Comments which claim to prove something by quoting a single verse taken out of context from the Bible. Scripture is too precious to me to allow that. This is a place where the Bible is loved and honoured and treasured. Comments which use it as a weapon are unwelcome.
- Comments promoting one Bible translation because all the rest are flawed. Like quite a few people who comment here, my Greek and Hebrew are a bit rusty. However, it was worth learning them as I can now make up my own mind about such matters. Go thou and study likewise.
- Comments promoting or trying to raise money for particular missionary societies.
- Comments disparaging women and in particular comments which undermine my female colleagues. I learn about God from them.
- Comments trying to explain Penal Substution as a theory of Atonement. I know what it means. I know how it works. We’ve already established that like most Christian people I don’t believe in it. It gets boring if you try to explain it to me again.
- Comments in which those of us who are gay are likened to murderers either in the eyes of the commenter or in the eyes of God. To be honest, when it becomes that offensive, I don’t think we are talking enough of the same language for me to want to bother carrying on listening. I’m also not in the business of providing space for that kind of rhetoric. Those who want to make such comments can do so on their own blogs but not on mine.
As I’ve repeatedly said before, I like an intelligent argument and tend to adopt this policy as much for the sake of those others who like a sane corner of the web as for myself.

[Most] Comments welcome.

5 responses to “The Anglican Covenant and Communion Motions”

Tim

30/05/2012

A is for Anglican is for Affirming things and for Adopting things even when they’re mutually contradictory?

Reply
kelvin

30/05/2012

It will be entirely up to the synod to decide whether to adopt either of these motions. My hunch is that it will adopt one of them resoundingly.

Reply
Brother David

31/05/2012

I hope the Synod votes against the first motion and approves the second motion.

BTW, we in Mexico thank you for the consecration of Bishop Seabury because of our TEC heritage.

Reply
kennedy fraser

31/05/2012

For those who aren’t able to be present for the debate (or for any part of Synod’s business) a live audio stream will be available from the Provincial website when Synod is sitting.

Kennedy

Reply
Tom Wilson

31/05/2012

It is interesting to ponder that if an “Anglican Covenant” had existed in the 18th century, that it is distinctly possible that the SEC might have been “excluded” from the Anglican Communion for consecrating Bp Samuel Seabury, the first American Bishop, as the Church of England Bishops had refused to do so.

Reply