Episcopalian (TEC, ECUSA) Lawsuits in the United States

Episcopalian (TEC, ECUSA) Lawsuits in the United States

Want to learn more about the lawsuits in the Episcopal church? This video offers a broad overview of the legal issues and focuses on a few (though hardly all…
Video Rating: 2 / 5

Be Sociable, Share!

12 Responses to “Episcopalian (TEC, ECUSA) Lawsuits in the United States”

  • Reformed Reinhardt says:

    So you have answered my question: you have not sought God because you don’t want to find him because you are quite comfortable and complacent in your conviction that he cannot exist. At least you are honest. Many of these issues you raise were settled back in the mid-20th century, and you are quite obviously behind the times. However, philosophers and scientists long ago agreed that very few things are ‘independently verifiable,’ and most of the things that are, like 2+2+4, provide no meaning.

  • Reformed Reinhardt says:

    The Living God may be a fantasy for you, but it is not for me. I have had experiences that have not only verified the existence of His son Jesus Christ to me, but these experiences have given me some insight into His character and personality, and his desires for me, my family, and the world. Why you haven’t had these experiences, I do not know. Only you honestly know how hard you have tried to seek the mind and face of God…but the absence of experience in your case ‘proves’ nothing in mine.

  • Reformed Reinhardt says:

    Your comment is asinine for so many reasons, but the main one, as Professor C.S. Lewis explains, is this: “A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.”

  • Reformed Reinhardt says:

    Huh? 

  • Reformed Reinhardt says:

    While I live in California now, Iker confirmed me years ago. Good man.

  • familyguygerald says:

    Is talks about my bishop, jack iker he is cool

  • Reformed Reinhardt says:

    “I am truly relieved I’m an atheist.” Correction: You are a truly self-deluded moron, and I pity you. I hope you will free yourself (as we all had to at one point) from your pride and own self-conceit. Peace of the Lord be always with you. 

  • Reformed Reinhardt says:

    “Wow-mainline protestantism is shrinking faster than the ice caps”…Then I guess we’re all okay. 🙂

  • Reformed Reinhardt says:

    @Tov0voT: Also, as parts of our checks and balances, Presidents have the right to refuse to enforce SCOTUS rulings if they deem them to be too radical, and Congress has the right to order judges (who make rulings that are so radical) to come before congress and explain their rulings. Judges are not the law, and there are checks in place in our constitution to watch them. The problem is that in the 20th century, we stopped using our checks and balances against the courts.

  • Reformed Reinhardt says:

    @Tov0voT: Look, I WANT ALL of these cases to go to the SCOTUS because I am certain that ‘neutral principles of law’ would favor the church congregations and not the NYC headquarters. I think CC is contemplating such an appeal. However, I have to disagree with a court’s interpretation as being ‘the law.’ Massachusetts State Court in 2004, for example, the court admitted the marriage law was written one way, but they said they thought it should have been written a different way.

  • Reformed Reinhardt says:

    @Tov0voT: If what that means is that the court is the final say on how the law is to be interpreted, then that is right. If that means that the courts get to decide WHAT THE LAW IS, then that is wrong: dead wrong. The western understanding of the law is ‘lex rex,’ meaning ‘the law is king.’ The law is what is supreme, not some random person’s interpretation of it. Furthermore, interpreting what is in the wording of the law says is different from READING INTO the law whatever you want.

  • Reformed Reinhardt says:

    UPDATE on Christ Church in Savannah, Georgia: Now the New York City fanatics, I mean ‘loyalists,’ are trying to get a judge to cite the priest of the evicted congregation in contempt because he has not opened the church bank account to let them steal whatever they want from the coffers. Stealing the building from a large congregation so they could turn it into a boarded up crack house was not enough to satisfy the vindictive appetite of the New York loyalists.

Leave a Reply


Search MikeAdkins.com:
Article Categories
Most Popular Articles
    .