Thursday, July 13, 2006

Emerging Christianophobia?

As the Church of England tears itself asunder over the ‘gay issue’, the Government is busy legislating away on the issue in such a way that all faith groups will have no choice but to comply, all in the name of ‘equality’. There is much brewing about the Sexual Orientation (Provision of Goods and Services) Regulations, which are due to be completed this autumn. These will render discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation illegal in the same way as it presently is for race or gender. Catholic adoption agencies, which refuse to place children with homosexual parents, may face closure, and Christian teachers who promote heterosexual marriage as the ‘norm’ may open their school to being sued. It seems that school assemblies, which are supposed to be ‘broadly Christian’, may also no longer include key Bible passages on marriage.

Cranmer is not being alarmist here. People have already been arrested for supposed ‘homophobic’ statements, or for carrying ‘homophobic’ placards at a protest. One if these simply stated that the practice was a sin, around which there was a minor altercation. Those involved in the brawl were not arrested, but the man carrying the placard was because he was the ‘cause’. It seems that people of faith are increasingly becoming intolerable to temples of relativist secularism sweeping the EU. Rocco Buttiglione, who was sacked as a Commissioner for his conservative views on abortion, the family, and sexual practice, led the way.

To outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is a threat to freedom of conscience and to freedom of religion. Christian landlords will no longer have control over what goes on under their roofs, and religious newspapers will no longer be permitted to reject advertising from homosexual organisations on grounds of conscience. How can the law force people of faith to approve and cooperate with values that they can never in conscience accept? What persecution awaits the dissenters?


Blogger phone cam foolery said...

Cranmer what if my conscience told me I didn't like black people?
What if I owned an hotel and dissapproved of a mixed race couple staying under my roof, surely that is a matter for my conscience?
I know you have been dead for a long time but surely you see my point?

13 July 2006 at 15:10  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Phone Cam Foolery,

Cranmer's deceased state has not, graciously, affected his mental faculties. 'Tis a mystery.

In answer to your direct question, the difference is that one's race is not a matter of choice; you are as God makes you. Therefore to discriminate on the grounds of black skin is as irrational and un-Christian as discriminating against blue eyes or blond hair. One does not choose one's genetic make-up. The essence of the gospel is that racial boundaries were eliminated; salvation is for all.

Sexual behaviour, however, has been considered a matter of moral choice for millennia, and some aspects of it considered to be immoral or 'against nature'. To puruse every whim of the flesh is to find 'sin', and Christian discipleship demands self-control. It is for the law to distinguish between expressed prejudices where one has no choice (race), and where one does (sexual behaviour). To fuse the two is to walk into the realms of complex politico-theology, and Cranmer can hear pleadings to a Law higher than the temporal.

13 July 2006 at 15:49  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

I see your argument, however, some would say that sexual proclivities are not a matter of choice, we are born with them, also I gather christ didnt utter a word on the subject of homosexuality.
Forgive me if you think I am trying to cause trouble, I am not, nor am I gay.
I find homosexuality distasteful, however, I don't find homosexuals distasteful and I cannot bring myself to think that what they get up to is the business of anybody but themselves and as they are causing no harm to others, what's the problem?
You will probably say they are harming themselves spiritually and physically, denying themselves the pleasure of a family, etc.
I just cannot see them as evil/sinful and deserving of exclusion.

13 July 2006 at 16:19  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

Ps enjoy your Euro bashing

Good to see a long dead man of the cloth with some common sense

13 July 2006 at 16:20  
Anonymous Kaila said...

Cranmer, how is homosexuals regarded in Christianity? With a touch of stupidity, aren't there churches who accept that because they have little choice or that numbers are increasing so rapidly that one has to question whether what was seen as sin has become a norm?

13 July 2006 at 17:31  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

There are gay Christians like there are gay Jews and gay Muslims and gay anything. Numbers aren't increasingly rapidly - it's not a disease. People are just more comfortable about 'coming out'. I think most Christians are chilled about homosexuality, as long as it isn't forced down their throat.

13 July 2006 at 17:36  
Anonymous RIck said...

The right to religious freedom is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, and in the European Convention on Human Rights, and in The European Charter.

The Government has no right to interfere n the rights of The Church and religious faith or indeed the Secular State loses legitimacy. The State is tolerated but it is not absolute and has no right to challenge the religious Faith - it will be torn apart if it continues and itself be eradicated.

The use of the legislature to introduce Thought Crimes and dictate what people are to Believe will be the undoing of the Secular State just as the attempt to isolate the Presbyterians led Charles I into Civil War

13 July 2006 at 19:10  
Anonymous Rick said...

seen as sin has become a norm?

It is nevertheless a Sin in Christian Theology, but Christianity is a religion based upon Sinners finding Redemption through Faith and Repentance.

13 July 2006 at 19:12  
Anonymous RIck said...

I see your argument, however, some would say that sexual proclivities are not a matter of choice, we are born with them

Sexual proclivities is a wide field covering child molesters, rapists, and a variety of individials who clog up the courts of the land and institutions like Rampton and Broadmoor...................being born with such aberrant personalities is you feel somehow an argument you wish to extend widely ? Are you sure ?

13 July 2006 at 19:15  
Anonymous Kaila said...

Ulster.........did I offend you? I was simply stating an observation. Some people think it is a disease, and that some indiviuals have a disposition and biologically are more prone- Just one of theories that are used to explain it.

P-rick, I see your into forgiving. Again, I was stating the obvious.

Personally I think its disgusting however I have met homosexuals and have not treated them any different. Simply because I do not have the right to judge nor discriminate them.

It's such a pity everyone cannot see the same point of view.

13 July 2006 at 20:21  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

kaila you really are an unpleasent piece arent you.
Rick I accept your point , however, the behaviour you refer to leads to the harm of others, which is why it should not be tolerated, a little like Socialism.

13 July 2006 at 21:32  
Anonymous Verity said...

PCF - I don't think homosexuality leads to the harm of others any more than does the sexuality of 95%of the human race. The hormones in the mother's blood when her baby is still an embryo are what feeds what lobes of the brain. The little thing lying in there has no choice as to what the blood that is nurturing it contains.

The gay men I know are conservative, and they vote in every election. They care about issues, just as do the rest of us. Property taxes, school taxes (in the US, they usually vote 'yes' to rises,although they don't have children. But they want intelligence to flourish in public services - yes, probably a forelorn hope - and they often vote for a woman mayor if they think she's effective. Just like you. They take their pets to the vet. They stop by the side of the road when they see a car in trouble. They're in the 'creative businesses' but they're also police, firefighters, in the armed services, ambulance personnel, nurses, doctors. I may have been lucky, but I've never had a gay friend who was driven by an agenda other than furthering his career.

Rick said: "The right to religious freedom is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, and in the European Convention on Human Rights, and in The European Charter."

The Charter of the United Nations? Hello? Is this the same United Nations - I may be mistaken - that made Libya head of their Human Rights Commission? And whose Secretary General Kofi Anan knew his son was siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars? That UN? And whose peacekeepers and aid workers raped hundreds of children - both sexes - in Africa? That UN?

The European Charter? Hello? I didn't vote for it. I never had an opportunity. Unless I voted on it, it doesn't count. My law is still British Common Law, shared throughout the Anglosphere. No one can sign away my rights to my birthright.

14 July 2006 at 03:54  
Anonymous Rick said...

Yes Verity it is the UN Charter as signed in San Francisco and imposed on the world by the Anglo-Americans..............tell me which part of the UN charter you disagree with please.

As for English Common Law it was of no use to people who were deported at Tolpuddle, it did nothing to prevent Crichel Down, it did little to give married women property rights, it did nothing about voting rights - it took Statute on every occasion.

Having myself seen at first hand the wonders of a judge in fancy dress perverting a trial and forced to resort to Strasbourg I can tell you that your faith in English Judges shows great naivety - I hope you never have to suffer the consequences of thiat naivety.

14 July 2006 at 09:13  
Anonymous Rick said...

My law is still British Common Law,

Oh and you did vote on that ?

BTW which of the Amendments in the US Bill of Rights did you vote for ? Did you vote for Roe v Wade ?

Did you vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act ?

14 July 2006 at 09:14  
Anonymous person said...

Kaila that because they have little choice or that numbers are increasing so rapidly that one has to question whether what was seen as sin has become a norm?
Kaila I completely agree with you. So this is the society we live in today... where morals fluctuate. at one point HS is a sin but suddenly it somhow becomes legitimate! what a laugh... tomorrow murer will be the norm of this society because we have FREEDOM, YEYYYY! you, who have this secular approach towards islam, render it as immoral... well speak for yourselves, you don't have any morals!

14 July 2006 at 10:44  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

Verity I wasn't gay bashing
and we seem to have a few nasty islamics here
go away!
your prophet was a child molestor.

14 July 2006 at 13:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to have a few nasty islamics here

You mean they are aberrant ?

14 July 2006 at 13:30  
Anonymous Kaila said...

I maybe be unpleasant but phoney you are an obnoxious and repulisve animal on the planet. I cannot believe you made such absurd comment. Cranmer, I cannot belive you have not taken action towrds phoney. When i offend others, its action staright away but others can say what they damn unfair.

The comment you made phoney hun was below the belt. But why am I surprise. Most things for your lot are below the belt.

I won't be going anyway. I will remain here until I feel like it.

'few nasty islamics here'- you cannot offend us any other way. You must really be pulling your hair knowing the fact that muslims are turning your life upside down. How does it feel being on the receiving end?

14 July 2006 at 13:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

are turning your life upside down. How does it feel being on the receiving end?

Be sure to let us know when it comes your way

14 July 2006 at 13:58  
Blogger Croydonian said...

PCF is referring to the account of Mohammed marrying a six year old.

Sahih Bukhari:

Narrated Hisham's father:

Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old. (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)

'Consumed' is reckoned to mean 'consummated'.

14 July 2006 at 14:45  
Anonymous Alfred of Wessex said...

Kaila, 5:31 PM.

The Bible, which all truly believing Christians hold to be the Word of God, teaches that all sex outside a heterosexual marriage is sinful. There is no disagreement between Old and New Testaments on this. Indeed, my understanding is that all major religions of the world regard homosexual ACTS as inherently wrong. The Apostle Paul states in 1 Corinthians Chapter 6, verses 9-11: "9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

This verse stresses both the sinfulness of such acts, but the possibility of each of us being cleansed from our sin by repentence toward God, putting one's trust in Christ who died for our sins on the Cross to pay the penalty on our behalf, and to allow His Holy Spirit to come in to give us the power to live transformed lives.

The New Testament is also clear that for one's profession of faith in Christ to be genuine, it MUST be marked by a CHANGE IN BEHAVIOUR. In 2 Timothy 2:19 Paul states: "Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."

When anyone claims to be a Christian, but continues in a practice that is completely contrary to what the Bible teaches, an observer is entitled to seriously question whether such a person ever truly became a real Christian.

The simple truth is that anyone who claims they can be a Christian and continues to be a practising homosexual or lesbian, indulge in premarital sex or commit adultery is self-deceived. As Dietrich Boheffer, who was martyred by the Nazi's in 1945, put it "only those who believe obey, and only those who obey believe."

No one is born a Christian, nor does undergoing certain rites make you one. When people talk of England being a 'Christian country', it does not mean that all or even a majority of the people in it are (or ever have been) true Christians. It means that until the 1960s the laws of this land ware based on and underpinned by the Ten Commandments, and the liberties of individual human beings and their responsibilities to one another and to the State derived from the teachings of Christ and His Church.

Sadly, the 'UK' of today is dominated by the secular humanism which had its inception in the French Revolution, reached its extreme in the atheistic idolatries of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia and Mao Zhedong's China, and has now taken over Western society in the form of Cultural Marxism (better known as political correctness).

With the exception of the small minority of committed Christians who truly seek to follow Christ, this country, its people and laws are no longer Christian in belief, let alone in conduct. This country, having abandoned the Reformed Faith of our forefathers, has reverted to paganism, and instead of enjoying God's grace now finds itself under God's righteous judgment.

14 July 2006 at 15:26  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Alfred of Wessex,

You have the award for theological erudition of the week. Cranmer is honoured.

A few more like this should dissuade the moronic amoeba from superficiality and discourage the intellectually inept from residing on Cranmer's august blog.

14 July 2006 at 16:04  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Indeed, a solid piece of exegesis by Alfred of Wessex.

Whereas Islam and Judaism are religions of black letter law, Christianity is infinitely more open to interpretation and re-interpretation by successive generations because of the distinctly non-legalistic pronouncements of Christ.

These allow the likes of John Spong, former Episcopalian Bishop of Newark, to claim that in ordaining homosexuals the Church is fulfilling Christ's commandment to love our neighbours. I paraphrase, and from memory, but I trust his point has been conveyed.

14 July 2006 at 16:35  
Anonymous Rick said...

Christianity is infinitely more open to interpretation and re-interpretation by successive generations because of the distinctly non-legalistic pronouncements of Christ.

Save that Christ came to uphold The Torah - it is only the stripping of Jewish symbolism from Christ's parables and his words that confusion has entered. Jesus was a Jew in the School of Hillel and his words are those of the rabbinical as are his used of midrash and the fact that he observed all Jewish festivals - even his crucifixion took place before Pesach which is when the angel marked the doors in Egypt in blood - Jesus needed to make no legalistic pronouncements because they were there in Torah and rabbinical oral tradition..............

14 July 2006 at 16:45  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Does not one yearn for Muslims who can engage at this level of historical and theological understanding?

14 July 2006 at 16:49  
Anonymous Rick said...

Christ's commandment to love our neighbours.

Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke [reason with] thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.
-- Leviticus 19: 17-18 (KJV)

You may think that Jesus invented the phrase "Love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 5: 43, etc.), but like the rest of us He actually quotes the Hebrew Bible.

BTW.. "Neighbour" meant fellow congregationalists not everyone and anyone...........another case of Debased Christianity through Decadent Observance

The principle was that Christians were "apart" - indeed much of Jesus' teaching is of the Pharisaic school and they were "Chasidim" or "those apart" not fully imbued with the secular world around them.

That is the irony. Leviticus was to purify Priests so they were nearer to God than to Man - creating the Golden Calf made the priest one among men rather than the Servant of God (which Moses was initiating with the tablets on the mountain). The modern Church seeks to retain a professional (as opposed to a lay priesthood) but to make it "just one of the boys" rather than purer than the flock

14 July 2006 at 16:50  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Indeed, and Christ came not to overthrow The Law but to uphold it. While agreeing with Rick's identifying of Christ as being within the Mosaic/Rabbinical tradition, one does also have to consider that the Eucharist would have been a profoundly shocking concept to an observant Jew.

14 July 2006 at 16:59  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

I cant find it in me to have faith in a particular set of beliefs, I really wish I could find it in me
I believe in a God, from my point of view anybody who declares themselves to be an atheist is an idiot, however, I struggle with the flip side of the debate and the certainty others have that they have the only truth.

14 July 2006 at 17:16  
Anonymous miss dot said...

Cranmer said -
"Does not one yearn for Muslims who can engage at this level of historical and theological understanding?"
You'd think so wouldn't you? Phone fool seems to disagree -
"we seem to have a few nasty islamics here go away!"
Cranmer, why is phone fool not barred for his racism? Do you let the insulting comments of those who suck up to you slide past that easily?

14 July 2006 at 17:16  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Miss Dot,

If your posts made grammatical sense, I might be persuaded to spend time responding to them.

Mr Phone Cam Foolery has posted nothing that is racist. Islam is a faith without ethnicity. Muslims are therefore not a race, and anything said contra cannot therefore be racist. Cranmer's blog is a temple of free speech. The intelligent and erudite can indulge in that without resorting to crude profanities. Those who are unable (and, sadly, hitherto they have all been Muslims), must blog elsewhere.


I reiterate my previous yearning.

14 July 2006 at 17:24  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

Miss Dot
If I can make an analogy, this is an extension of Cranmers office, open to the public, but semi private, your behaviour is akin to a lout forcing their way through the door, shouting abuse and giving opinions that nobody wishes to hear.
The internet is an environment with a niche for everybody, I have no doubt that somewhere out here is a forum that would welcome an ignorant troll such as yourself, please try and find it and don't let the door hit you on the a*** on the way out.
If you are guilty of any sin it is the sin of being a very dull waste of bandwidth.
Thank you.

14 July 2006 at 17:43  
Anonymous Kaila said...

'When anyone claims to be a Christian, but continues in a practice that is completely contrary to what the Bible teaches, an observer is entitled to seriously question whether such a person ever truly became a real Christian' -Alfred:

I totally agree with you and it is the same with all religions. So many are christion/muslim/jew's by name but come to practise, it disapears. It becomes an issue when two contrary aspects are combined together.

'This country, having abandoned the Reformed Faith of our forefathers, has reverted to paganism, and instead of enjoying God's grace now finds itself under God's righteous judgment'-

I could not put it better myself. Glad to know there are people out there talking some sense. You should tutor phoney and prick. They need light at the end of the tunnel.

Cranmer, phoney may not be racist but his comments are offensive. Miss.Dot has a right to expect fair treatment. Just because he is your 'mate' should not cloud your judgement.

14 July 2006 at 19:29  
Anonymous Rick said...

Kaila was obviously educated in one of those "bog standard" places that misuse apostrophes and have an unfamiliarity with the dictionary. Lack of clarity in thought is matched by an inability to express coherently in prose............

14 July 2006 at 19:39  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

I think "educated" is stretching it a bit , "sectioned" seems more appropriate.

14 July 2006 at 20:25  
Blogger wrinkled weasel said...

Insulting, brow beating or otherwise deriding persons whose views you fundamentally disagree with plays into the hands of the socialist/liberal humanists, who use this very tactic to stifle dissent. Please stop it.

The issue is a faith versus culture one. New Testament teaching implicitly supports heterosexual marriage type partnerships and is opposed to homosexuality. In the current climate, there are many noisy putatively opressed minorities who are vocal enough to have not only secured their proper rights, as should be accorded in any proper civilisation, but have also become dwarf tyrants. I call it "The Tyranny of the Weak" Not content with acheiving a degree of equity they have gone on to seek to change the way others behave, as if this equity has given them some sort of imperialistic
legitimacy. Moreover, they have enlisted the weak-willed non-thinking classes, who have not read books or spent time away from the television. You know the people I mean, their moral position is characterised by nothing other than vague feeling that you should be nice to everyone and fluffy kittens. They have no critical awareness of their role in this transformation of social values, but they have nevertheless concurred with it blindly , unthinkingly, irreversibly.

Cranmer is concerned, I believe, that this state of affairs, which was hitherto and unformed amorphous sentiment, is now starting to be enshrined in the legislature, and consequently, the state.

Lets roll back the clock, say thirty years. Nothing like this conflict existed. It is new. The State did not interfere with the Church because there were no major points of conflict. As far as I know (because I attended it) the first major consultation on Homosexuality within the CofE was about 25 years ago. Whatever the points made then, I am certain there was no talk of a conflict between Church and State on the issue. If anything at that time Parliament could barely bring itself to mention it, and there were no "out" MP's then. It was unthinkable.

So what has essentially changed that makes it a virtual offense to proclaim the truth of scripture?

I probably don't have the answer, but I sense we are going through an intellectual dark age. Never before have so many influential people admitted to being unread. We no longer maintain Universities as places of academic excellence, but factories to turn out morons with fake degrees. The Church, for so long lulled into relativism by ersatz evangelical fervour has emptied its coffers of integrity. We rely on television for our world view.

The current political leaders, as never before are aware of this and have capitalised on it. History is being re-written at a pace only George Orwell could have envisaged. Words are being changed more often to suit the current set of values and to accomodate lies.

We tend to look at the violent episodes of church history in this country as somehow abberant, as if marytrs were tortured and executed due to some kind of mass hysteria or psycotic reaction. And yet, at the time, the torturers, the executioners, the legislators, thought they were doing society a favour.

William Tyndale merely wished to translate the Bible into common English and for this he was eventually burnt at the stake. Are we really entering a time when The Word is such a threat?

15 July 2006 at 00:28  
Anonymous Rick said...

Probably. I suspect we are more biblical than may be imagined. At the time Jesus walked the earth The Temple was in the hands of the Sadduccees - an aristocrat class happily working with the Romans, and with families such as those of Annas and Caiaphas making money from their franchises for money-lenders, and purveyors of lambs to the affluent and doves to the poor to sacrifice in The Temple.

The Sadduccees had no belief in the Afterlife which was a Pharisaic belief, nor did they believe in angels. They were the aristocratic social elite for whom The Temple ensured public acclaim, status and wealth.

Jesus somewhat disturbed this satisfactory arrangement when he reminded them what purpose The Temple was supposed to fulfill by scourging the moneylenders and upsetting the Sadduccees. The Temple eventually went and with it The Sadduccees leaving the Pharisees to perpetuate Judaism through the Torah Scrolls and the Synagogue and the Rabbi to look after the oral rabbinival traditions written down in The Talmud.

Interestingly enough over the years, despite the first 70 years of Christianity Christians worshipping in synagogues and the Sabbath being on Saturday; it was with the Christians forming The State Church of Rome that innovations took place moving it away from Judaism. Interestingly it was Martin Luther who succeeded where Jan Hus had failed, and who attempted to bring the Roman Catholic Church back to the world of The Bible and away from its Neo-Pagan ritual and secular money-grabbing through sale of Indulgences.

It is the fate of anything connected with mankind that it needs frequent cleansing of its corruption, and the Church of England inter alia is no exception. It has recruited the bureaucrat, the middle-manager, the politician who likes the status and the less than arduous workload and the job security and relative independence.

The Church is in love with the institution. The issues of gay priests, women priests, apostate priests are all staffing issues. We elevate them to theological planes to give gravitas to trivia, since there is nowhere in The Bible that priests are not supposed to be pure and undefiled because they are modelled on the Levites and the Cohanim in Leviticus. They enter The Holy of Holies where the public cannot enter. In the past the priests had their back to the congregation to symbolise their face towards God not the congregation.

Now we have prelates speaking as if the priest must be just one of the ordinary people - a group which includes non-Christians - rather as Aaron so thoughtfully made gold trinkets into the familiar golden calf from Egypt. This is the secularisation of religion and making it conform to the whims of The State - it is no different from what Stalin or Walter Ulbricht or Jakub Berman attempted.

Homosexuality is an issue being used to break open the Church because of its links to Greek Hedonism and refusal to accept Divine Authority - it is the battering ram of the Ideological Left to buckle institutions so Relativism becomes the compass spinning in all directions.

It is actually a trivial issue which has been inflated by mediocre church leaders who forget that Christ told them to pluck out their eye if it offended and to cut off the arm - yet still the huge wealth of ECUSA paying for conferences - makes them reluctant to do so. The Church hierarchy is status obsessed which is why 30 Bishops ran the Church in the 1850s and 114 now........whereas one bishop per county would suffice.

The question is however, if the Church wants to reflect society it should rid itself of bishops and full-time priests. These are a legacy of Leviticus, those who live from the Tithe and do not work but pray. You cannot ditch the role of the pure and God-oriented priest with a priesthood which is essentially secular. If it continues on this path the Congregationalism embodied in the XXXIX Articles will become the New Church and a layman will be elected as Prelate. The whole panoply of Church institutionalism will be gone.

15 July 2006 at 06:44  
Anonymous person said...

croydonian said...and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.
I agree with you croydonian but 'Consumed' only referres to when she started living with the prophet at the age of 9 because that is when she reached the age of puberty. women of that time were known to mature more quickely hence you can't really think the prophet to be a child molester cause he didn't consume his marriage with a CHILD in that sense.

15 July 2006 at 10:59  
Anonymous person said...

cranmer... it's strange how you don't find phoney calling muhammad a child molester as offensive. so tell me, exactly which part of his comment was 'intelligent and erudite?'
oh wait, i get it! cranmer has a soft spot for phoney! granma and phoney sitting in the tree... K I S S I N G !

15 July 2006 at 11:04  
Anonymous Rick said...

women of that time were known to mature more quickel


It is only in modern times that diet and modern healthcare has increased fertility and maturity in a physical sense. Trying to say that the 7th Century Hejaz had 21st Century health standards is totally off the wall.

Try again.

15 July 2006 at 11:54  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

So Jesus champions the poor and week, heals people and dies for his love of the people having lead by example
Mohammed screws a child and cuts peoples heads off if they disagree with him.
I think I am beginning to see why islam hold no appeal for me.

15 July 2006 at 12:30  
Anonymous person said...

Rick, you do not only mature physically via the help of Science and modern medicine,when i was reffering to reaching the age of puberty and maturing quickly, i meant that women were able to produce offspring at an early age.

Rick, read my initial message again, its not rocket-science.


16 July 2006 at 12:45  
Anonymous person said...

Phoney, its funny you think this, cause its your bible which tells us of the coming of another prophet, after Jesus, aka Muhammed.

16 July 2006 at 12:53  
Anonymous Rick said...

No it does in fact warn us about False Prophets though which was clearly good advice.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your Name, and cast out demons in Your Name, and do many mighty works in Your Name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you evildoers.'" (Matthew 7:15-23 RSV)

"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24 RSV)

and you say this was telling us about Mohammed ? Clearly we were warned..............

16 July 2006 at 17:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

16 July 2006 at 17:37  
Anonymous person said...

rick, you might want to refer to deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18...clearly depicting the coming of muhammad.

17 July 2006 at 09:45  
Anonymous person said...

phoney said, if you're guilty of any sin, it is the sin of being a very dull waste of bandwidth.

well you're guilty of many sins,but the most atrocious would be the love you hold deep for cranmer. ugghhhhhh!

17 July 2006 at 09:57  
Anonymous Rick said...

Yes but Deuteronomy 18 also has a few words for the Occultists and their Mohammedan Cult

17 July 2006 at 12:22  
Anonymous Alfred of Wessex said...

We seem to have strayed rather far from the point of Cranmer's original blog post.

Cranmer asks

"To outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is a threat to freedom of conscience and to freedom of religion. ... How can the law force people of faith to approve and cooperate with values that they can never in conscience accept? What persecution awaits the dissenters?"

We live in a secular State, governed by a homocentric party, which is in the process of being absorbed into an even more aggressively secular supra-national institution (the EU). Ever since 1997 we have been governed by an avowedly politically correct administration, for whom the concept of ‘rights’ applies according to whether one is either a ‘victim’ or an ‘oppressor’. The rights of any ‘victim’ group (in this case homosexuals) always trumps the rights of any ‘oppressor’ group (in this case white Christians).

Gay rights activists have been very clever in their strategy of divide and rule. Lesbian and Gay ‘Christian’ groups have been active in neutralizing opposition within the more liberal Christian denominations. Ably assisted by their placemen and women in the media, they have successfully portrayed any opposition as ‘extreme’ or ‘fundamentalist’, and therefore suspicious and dangerous. Working through the CRE and the Academic and Teaching Unions, they have silenced any opposition from within academia, schools, the Civil Service and Local Government.

How can the secular humanist State impose its will on religious minorities? The UK is already doing so. I know from personal experience that anyone who becomes a Civil Servant now has to undergo mandatory ‘diversity’ training. I expect Local Government to be the same, and understand from friends that anyone doing a PGCE with the intention of teaching in state schools is subjected to the same indoctrination. As for our children, how long before mandatory ‘diversity’ education is slipped in via PSCHE lessons? The only way of avoiding this is to work in the private sector, and to send one’s children to private religious schools.

In Germany, Austria, Belgium and France, some evangelical Christians outside ‘recognized’ denominations (e.g. the house-church movement) are treated as ‘sects’ and have been subject to discrimination ( ). In Belgium, the State is cracking down on one couple who teach their children at home, on the grounds that they have refused to rear their children along the lines of the UN Convention on Children’s Rights ( )

What persecution awaits the dissenters? More of the above, I expect. I see the day rapidly approaching where it will be difficult for believing Christians to work anywhere in the public services. How long before we read about a Christian pastor being prosecuted for refusing to ‘marry’ two men or two women?

While in no way equating the EU with the egregious and systematic persecution during the Nazi era, I can see the need for the emergence of a ‘confessing’ Church where true believers come together to live out their faith and resist ‘being conformed to the pattern of this world’ (Rom 12:2). In short, things are going to get much worse for Christian believers. However, we should not be surprised by this – even the most cursory reading of the Book of Revelation warns us to expect it.

17 July 2006 at 15:47  
Anonymous Ricjk said...

Sorry but there are rights in The German Constitution, the EU Convention, the EU Charter, and the UN Charter guaranteeing FREEDOM OF WORSHIP, FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE - and these cannot be abrogated by legislation since they conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998.

It is legislation like this that allows Judges to innovate and lawyers to grow rich and will lead to conflicts between national Supreme Courts and the ECJ and the ECHR and the International Court in The Hague

17 July 2006 at 17:14  
Anonymous Alfred of Wessex said...

Rick, 5:14 PM. So what? Hostility to and intolerance of Biblical Christianity is now official UK Government policy, enforced through the 'diversity and equality' agenda now embedded in all Civil Service Departments, whose upper echelons are the almost exclusive preserve of humanists. The UK Government has already used the "enforcement of pluralism" argument to prevent Christian organisations from running radio stations ( ). Indeed, it has argued this successfully before the European Courts ( ).

I cannot comment on who enforces the German Constitution. However, when was the last time that the ECJ handed down a judgment that protected faith groups against an over-mighty state? The ECJ, after all, is a creature of the monster that spawned it.

We cannot expect these supra-national institutions to uphold our rights when they conflict with the aims and objectives of their creators. Far from being inalienable, our rights, such as they are, are now in their gift, and can be taken away at their pleasure.

17 July 2006 at 21:11  
Anonymous Rick said...

No but clogging themn up with cases would show a Church with the backbone to protect its role and rites.

The fact is simply that the Church of England uses each piece of legislation as an excuse to roll over and prove its secular credentials. If the Church of England were in fact a Church as opposed to a Department of the Home Office it would vigorously defend its Christian Faith.

I have howevever never heard a speech by the Archbishop which mentioned Christianity, or Jesus Christ.

You speak as a supplicant expecting gracious favour from political institutions; the Polish Catholic Church did not survive by grace of the Communist Party; it defined itself in opposition to it......even though they had priests murdered by the UB.

18 July 2006 at 06:57  
Anonymous topmanny said...

hey rick somebody stole ur name, they put a "j" in it, so that its "ricjk" OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! btw rick, i think that ur comments r inspiring rick but ur name isnt rick.ricky wouldve ben better, more spanish.

18 July 2006 at 10:37  
Anonymous Rick said...

hey rick somebody stole ur name, they put a "j" in it,

Mea typo.

18 July 2006 at 12:13  
Anonymous Kaila said...

'poor and week, heals people and dies for his love of the people'

Well phoney, Islam may not appeal to you, but let me ask you this, do you qualify for the above?. Some how I doubt it.

BTW the 'week' you intending for is spelt with an 'a' as in 'weak.' Obviously your confused about your humane standards. Should not be surprised because you probably got mixed up with an idea of how many individuals you can screw in a week.......!!!

18 July 2006 at 20:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

individuals you can screw in a week

Obsessional neurosis

19 July 2006 at 07:24  
Anonymous Alfred of Wessex said...

Rick 6:57 AM

"You speak as a supplicant expecting gracious favour from political institutions; the Polish Catholic Church did not survive by grace of the Communist Party; it defined itself in opposition to it......even though they had priests murdered by the UB."

Rick, I am slow to criticise the Church of England because I owe evangelical Anglicans a great debt of gratitude. Without boring you with my entire testimony, if it hadn't been for their friendship and faithful witness, I would not have become a Christian. (I have attended an evangelical Baptist Church for nearly 18 years now.)

However, I accept you point. The 'free' churches, including the Baptists, to their shame, have been equally weak in their response to the concerted attack waged against biblical Christianity by secular humanists.

19 July 2006 at 14:16  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older