Monday, June 08, 2009

Christian preacher threatened with arrest for saying homosexuality is a sin (even though he said nothing of the sort)



From The Christian Institute, it transpires that police officers told an open-air preacher in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, that it is a criminal offence to identify homosexuality as a sin. They said this to Andy Robertson, even though he had not mentioned anything to do with homosexuality in his preaching.

He was recording his preaching because the local council had been making allegations about the content of his message. The conversation with police officers was caught on tape. It is revealing.

The offence, of course, is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet now it seems that preachers can be silenced merely on the strength of a false accusation.

His Grace preaches that salvation is found in Jesus of Nazareth and none other.

His Grace is accused of homophobia/racism/sexism/sundry transgressions of various rafts of equality legislation.

His Grace is threatened with arrest and silenced by the authorities.

And thus the wheel has come full circle.

122 Comments:

Anonymous Voyager said...

it is a criminal offence to identify homosexuality as a sin

I think any Policeman who says such should be asked to produce a dissertation on Sin. The legal framework in England is incapable of legislating on Morality.

The Police Officer should be named and subjected to a Civil Suit under the Human Rights Act and be ridiculed for his attempt to pervert Statute to embrace Morality


I do not know in Britain has the most stupid policemen sui generis in Europe, but when one listens to the inarticulate types masquerading as detectives one suspects that they are poorly educated and revert to intimidation whenever they need an authority-fix. In fact just the type of behaviour nmost common with the Secret Police in backward polities like Britain.

Face it folks. We live on a backward little island with troglodytes running round having been unleashed by incompetent and corrupt administrators over several generations. The country is a swamp and the vegetation is starting to pollute the water

8 June 2009 at 17:14  
Anonymous Got the Guts to wear God said...

Well said! He's out there preaching God!!! It's not the easiest job in the world. Of course the real sin is that he's a Christian in Marxist--I mean Nu-Labours Great Britain.

8 June 2009 at 17:16  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

Not to worry Your grace, we will now have a Christian voice in Europe.

Hah! You couldn't make it up really.

8 June 2009 at 17:19  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

On a more serious note though, this is SALT OF THE EARTH.

Now if we can organise around this sort of line then maybe we can justify our whimperings about the BNP because at least we are putting our condiments where our mouth is.

8 June 2009 at 17:30  
Blogger UKViewer said...

What I find so disturbing about this, is that accusations can be made, without supporting evidence.

For Police Officers to attempt to move a Preacher on, on the basis of hearsay defeats the very freedoms that we have. Anonymous complaints are not valid in English Law.

Of course, if he were arrested, he would have DNA taken, and everafter, be found on Police Checks if he were to need to gain clearance for any employment, all based on the word of someone who probably either has a personal axe to grind against Christianity, or is just making mischief.

We are now definitely living in a Police State, where people can be accused and bascially have no defence other than prove it.

8 June 2009 at 17:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the churches full of religious people, Christians are soon going to have to start meeting in secret rooms again.

8 June 2009 at 17:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Christian haters have no place in society.

8 June 2009 at 18:03  
Anonymous Puritan Preacher said...

Your Grace

There have been other instances where persecution of this nature has happened.
There was an elderly Christian couple who wanted to put leaflets out promoting Christian marriage as an alternative to gay lifestyles. The council official they approached reported them to the police and they were leant on pretty hard.
There was also another street preacher who was just reading the Bible in public, I think this was in Manchester. His feet soon left the ground and he was off to the cop shop in short order because the passage in question was one where St Paul was pretty forthright about homosexuality. .

8 June 2009 at 18:09  
Anonymous judith said...

As Your Grace is aware, I am an agnostic, but nevertheless find this all very disturbing.

Had the preacher been inciting a crowd to commit violence against gays, or had he been attracting a crowd big enough to block the highway, or had he not got permission from the property owner whose messuage he stood on, I could understand the police action.

Since none of the above appear to have happened, and as he denied even mentioning homosexuality, I can only hope that the police in question toddled off to the nearest mosque to check on the kind of literature and cassettes there, which all too often carry messages of violent hatred towards gays.

8 June 2009 at 18:35  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Has Your Grace been following the Stephen Boissoin case in Canada? After spending more money than he owned on his defence before a so-called "Human Rights" tribunal, he was banned from mentioning homosexuality ever again, not only from his pulpit even in private correspondence:

http://tinyurl.com/5e754v

I followed Your Grace's link to the Christian Institute but found nothing there about the unnamed Lincolnshire preacher and his tete-à-tete with PC Plod. Was I looking in the wrong place?

8 June 2009 at 19:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you insist on electing people and sending them to participate in foreign, colonial, repressive government of the UK.

And you let them fill up the UK with foreigners who insist that the indigenes must have no rights.

And then you complain because you have no rights.

Really - the foreigners could almost be forgiven for thinking that you're all witless and spineless. May the BNP multiply!!!

8 June 2009 at 19:04  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

Here we go again - another thought-crime! When the Government falls, how are we to identify police officers and public servants who can move forward with minimal retraining, and separate them from the ideological warriors who are terminally separated from common sense?

8 June 2009 at 19:05  
Anonymous Katy said...

This is the trouble with our Police force, though. They listen to a complaint and the complainant tells them that someone is breaking the law; they believe the complainant. They do not check. So, as we saw in a tv program last year, a bailiff turns up at an address seeking to distrain goods because someone who used to live there (but no longer does) owes money somewhere. They tell the police that they have the legal right to remove goods belonging to this defaulter's mother (which they do not) in the absence of the defaulter. The police believe them. By the time poor old mum has managed to obtain a legal decision to the contrary, her goods have been sold.

I have just read section 5 of the Public Order Act. Your comments don't just have to be likely to cause offence, they have to be 'threatening, abusive or insulting' AND said/displayed where they might cause offence. I can't see that saying homosexuality is a sin is likely to be found 'threating, abusive or insulting'. Upsetting, maybe.

ps although, that said, I looked up 'Insult' on wikipedia, and it says that you can accidentally cause insult by underestimating the intelligence of your listener. Well, quite!!

8 June 2009 at 19:08  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Katy said,
//Your comments don't just have to be likely to cause offence, they have to be 'threatening, abusive or insulting' AND said/displayed where they might cause offence. I can't see that saying homosexuality is a sin is likely to be found 'threating, abusive or insulting'. Upsetting, maybe.//

You do not think that it would also be very insulting to be told that a facet of your person it evil and wrong? That you will be condemned to eternal torment in a lake of fire for this "sin". Surely that is very very threatening? Surely hell is threatening; that is the whole point!

Or try this, if someone said that mixed-race marriages or inter-faith marriages were sinful, would that be merely "upsetting", rather than threatening, abusive or insulting? Or even if they said that black skin was sinful and abhorrent? Would that be only "upsetting", or also threatening, abusive and insulting.

8 June 2009 at 19:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, this is all very disturbing, and we have to take a stand against the ever increasing attacks on freedom of speech in our country.

Mind you,in the 'Roman Catholic' country of Franco's Spain (and afterwards) we were stopped far less politely!

8 June 2009 at 19:47  
Anonymous McKenzie said...

Indigo

Hell sure sounds one mother-fuckin dangerous place to me. But, there again, how threating is being told that you are going to get lung cancer and die? Don't stop the bastards printing it on my cigarette box though.

8 June 2009 at 20:02  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Remember that the police always go for the easy arrests, they cause less bother and keep their scores up.

In the old days it was homosexuals if they could find them in the bushes, today it's motorists, the christians, little old ladies who might be terrorists. Remember the old song (sounds like G&S but its Offenbach (H/T to http://omf.blogspot.com/ Dec 2007)):

We're public guardians bold yet wary
And of ourselves we take good care
To risk our precious lives we're rather chary
When danger threatens we're never there
But when we see a helpless woman
Or little boys who do no harm…
We run them in, we run them in
We run them in, we run them in
To show them we're the beaux gendarmes

8 June 2009 at 20:11  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

McKenzie said,
//Hell sure sounds one mother-fuckin dangerous place to me. But, there again, how threating is being told that you are going to get lung cancer and die? Don't stop the bastards printing it on my cigarette box though.//

Ahhh, so you do agree that preaching that homosexuality is a sin is threatening, therefore to arrest someone for it is, not just within the law, but demanded by it.

The warning on the box is not a moral judgement, while declaring something a sin, is. The warning merely informs you of the potential consequences of the actions of smoking; it does not threaten to impose lung cancer on you if you continue to smoke. However, when Christians say x y or z is a sin, they are saying that someone will be punished for what they have done; that is judgement.

You may as well say that warning someone not to drop something heavy on their tow may break it, is threatening and insulting. It would be threatening and insulting is someone said "drop that on your toe, and God will break your foot". That would be threatening. Sentient, self-aware agents are subject to different rules than inanimate forces of nature.

8 June 2009 at 20:20  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

sp - I meant "toe" not "tow"

8 June 2009 at 20:25  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

Indigo

Potential consequences (so they say).

8 June 2009 at 20:33  
Anonymous len said...

The wheel has indeed come full circle!
The system being set up in the E U is not compatible with Christianity.
What the E U requires is that Gods moral code is abolished and with it Gods plan for salvation-and freedom and choice.
Secular Humanism is the religion of man.Secular humanism ideals are-
" Men are by their own efforts to establish the Kingdom of Man on earth, the reign of universal happiness. Man is to be his own saviour. The saviour of men is to be ousted from the position He has held for nigh on two thousand years. The kingdom of Man is to take the place of the Kingdom of God"
While some might view this as utopia it will catapult this world into a darkness few can imagine.

8 June 2009 at 20:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was an article in the Times about "Libel Tourism". It's worth reading - see what you think.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6446411.ece

Here's an extract:-
"Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace, Global Witness, Index on Censorship and representatives of Oxfam and Christian Aid are all known to be alarmed by the way UK courts are being used to challenge their reports."

8 June 2009 at 20:42  
Anonymous McKenzie said...

If you stand on the street and say that according to Greek Mythology all homosexuality is a sin (not sure if it was), surely you are simply stating a fact according to Greek Mythology? And if you wish to disagree then you either point out your own argument in the same calm way that this chap seemed to be doing, or walk away and think,, "who cares"?

Why the hysteria involving the Police and section this and section that. What would you tell your five year old kids when the run into the house and say "Johnny said I'm going to Hell"? Indigo, don't answer this because you already have.

Imagine these headlines:

Police called to church: Priest threatens eternal damnation in Hell is a potential threat for sinners!

8 June 2009 at 20:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, there is no use hoping for any robust comment to this from the Archbishop of Canturbury. He simply does not defend Chtristian values - that's just not intellectually stimulasting enough for him, and would be all too grubby a pursuit.

8 June 2009 at 21:04  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Again, free speech.

This guy should be able to say what he wants and people should feel free to challenge him.

Personally I don't think homosexuality is a sin, but I don't believe in the notion of sin as I don't believe in god, and as such it is my right to say all religion is a lot of old worldy tosh and this gent's right to call whatever he wants a sin, just because he says it doesn't mean that homosexuals will be hurt unless they are extremely thin skinned.

8 June 2009 at 21:05  
Blogger ooberLib said...

If you are giving your own interpretation of hate and discrimination then maybe. But simply 'reading' scripture? Sounds to me like the verses he was reading were striking home and people were condemning themselves.

8 June 2009 at 21:13  
Blogger A S Grey said...

This is ludicrous. If expressing an opinion is a crime then freedom of speech is virtually non-existent.

Irrespective of what one thinks about this man's opinions, he at least has the right to express them. If a gay person were to disagree with him, then s/he should equally have the right to do so without being arrested.

That is, of course, if he ever expresses such opinions - which he didn't even do!

8 June 2009 at 21:18  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8 June 2009 at 22:16  
Anonymous judith said...

Indigomyth: your argument doesn't work - if you have faith, you will either agree with a God that condemns homosexuality as a sin, or emigrate to another version of your religion that finds it acceptable.

If you are an agnostic/atheist, threats of eternal damnation are irrelevant, and may be regarded with a resigned shrug of the shoulders.

8 June 2009 at 22:53  
Anonymous not a machine said...

The right to disagree your grace is being lost , and perhaps soon the right to debate and question.

I am quite concerned now with this council/police action by the unamed and vaugue use of law.

offence is perhaps better than totalitarian oppression.

The creep of liberal socialism into the faith into a permanent cannon will be the silenecing of the church

9 June 2009 at 02:44  
Anonymous no nonny said...

So now we get to stand up and be counted.

Clearly, our votes don't count... so it's up to us to justify ourselves in Faith, and through God's Grace.

Well that's all there ever was anyway. I wonder if that's the kind of circle His Grace refers to.

9 June 2009 at 02:53  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

judith said,
//Indigomyth: your argument doesn't work - if you have faith, you will either agree with a God that condemns homosexuality as a sin, or emigrate to another version of your religion that finds it acceptable.

If you are an agnostic/atheist, threats of eternal damnation are irrelevant, and may be regarded with a resigned shrug of the shoulders.//

Well, I am an atheist, yet if someone were to say that mixed-race marriages were a sin, I would be appalled. Not because I believe that the punishment of hell would occur, but because it reflects something of the mentality of the person doing the preaching that they are prepared to believe and accept that mixed-race marriages are a sin. Further, you are ignoring the fact that atheists have to live in a world populated with believers, believers who are prepared to make laws based on their faith. So we can justifiably get irate when people call homosexuality a sin, because it will mean that people who believe that, are likely to oppose things like civil marriage, which directly effect those that do not share their beliefs. So, even though hell is a fiction, the actions of the Christian (acting on the belief that it is a sin) in the real world have repercussions for people who do not share their convictions. If Christians were prepared to keep their faith to themselves, and not oppose things like civil unions etc, then the allegation of the sinfulness of homosexuality could readily be ignored. However, the problem is that calling homosexuality leads people to act like it is, and that leads to the degradation of peoples lives and happiness. Would you not scandalised if someone claimed that they were a Christian, and that they supported racial segregation on religious grounds? Or would you merely shrug your shoulders?

So that is two reasons why it is perfectly possible to be utterly offended and disgusted with people calling homosexuality a sin.

9 June 2009 at 07:16  
Anonymous i said...

ooberlib said,
//If you are giving your own interpretation of hate and discrimination then maybe. But simply 'reading' scripture? Sounds to me like the verses he was reading were striking home and people were condemning themselves.//

Just like if you simply read scripture that says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? Or that homosexuals need to be killed? In any case, there are many liberal "Christians" that would argue that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Indeed, there can be no such thing as simply reading something; to read something is to contextualise it, to
understand it within a framework of morality familiar to someone.

9 June 2009 at 07:21  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

the last post was from me. finger slipped

9 June 2009 at 07:22  
OpenID jamestheless said...

One wonders whether there would be complaints if a preacher were to condemn adultery, masturbation or bestiality, for example. Not to mention more serious sins, such as apathy, envy or gluttony. Why should homosexuality have a privileged status?

Of course, the most serious sin of all is to deny the existence of God, yet no-one seems to object to being told that they will go to hell for their unbelief.

Again, why should homosexuality have a privileged status?

9 June 2009 at 07:42  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I can only assume that the officers were not aware they were being recorded. They might have felt "threatened" and insisted the recording be stopped.

It is obvious from the recording that the officers had not observed for themselves the "offence" allegedly committed. That our police officers are reduced to acting upon the accusations of tittle-tale scumbags (how many busy shoppers do you know would scuttle off looking for a typically scarce copper after being allegedly offended?) to uphold a new and grossly unfair law is a criminal waste of resources. I don't pay my taxes so that policemen can act like playground bullies at the behest of a control freak government.

Having an opinion isn't a crime. Publicly practising one's religion isn't a crime. Being Christian in a Christian country isn't a crime. Being persecuted and harassed for doing so IS a crime. Cameron needs to address this imbalance when Labour is booted out of office. A lot of Labour imposed laws damaging or destroying our civil liberties need to be torn from the statute books and flushed down the toilet. If that upsets the EU Stasi state then sod 'em.

I won't hold my breath.

PS my verification code is fuherr. How (almost) appropriate. :D

9 June 2009 at 07:55  
Anonymous len said...

I think many people don`t realize that there is a spiritual law' the law of sin and death'.
This law is firmly established and when you break it there are consequences!.
Now you may say " I do not recognise this law of sin and death"
This may be likened to someone standing on the top of a tower block and saying " I do not recognize 'the law of gravity' therefore I believe it will not affect me if I jump"
The law of sin and death may not be as sudden but it will just as surely kill you.
When Adam and eve sinned they died spiritually instantly, but physical death did not ensue for many years.
The only way to overcome this 'Law of sin and death ' is to replace it with a higher law ' The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

9 June 2009 at 08:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

The error Indigomyth makes is that he mistakes the moral judgment on homosexuality as the moral equivalent of racism.

9 June 2009 at 08:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is the 'local council' under Labour control ? Alastair Campbell was reported as stating "we don't do God".

There are alarming changes reported in the behaviour of our once revered police since Sir Ian Blair's sacking.

To accuse, without evidence, is vile; for any officer of the law to do so is akin to a police state.

9 June 2009 at 09:17  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

It is a question of the violation of freedom of speech.There will be more persecution of Christians to come.It's a question of sticking to your guns or folding.It has all happened before. I don't support the Christian teaching on homosexuality but I will defend the right of any Christian to express his religious belief. This is a disgraceful state of affairs and will only get worse.

9 June 2009 at 10:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

There is a consensus that this is all going to get worse.

The Christian Institute has been recording cases for a long time.

What if anything can we do about it?

9 June 2009 at 10:18  
Blogger Damo Mackerel said...

Are homosexuals not offended by the fact that the law treats them with kids gloves? Surely a homosexual, comfortable with their sexuality would not find it offensive if someone pointed out that homosexuality is a sin.

9 June 2009 at 10:38  
Blogger ooberLib said...

indigo

To read something is to contextualise it.

That's what I said. condemning themselves.

9 June 2009 at 11:14  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Surely the Scriptures say "ALL have sinned", this is why Christ came, to "take away the sins of the WORLD". There is no grade to sin, like death, one can not be a little bit dead, or a lot dead or even, very dead. The preacher is like a warning sign, 'Thin Ice' or 'High voltage cables' & to stop the warning is in itself criminal, some warnings are by neccesity verbal e.g 'Look Out' even if the language is not understood the tone is recognised & hopefully a life is saved. Evangelists have to decide whose law is higher when their is a conflict of interests, Gods or mans, I know which I have chosen & hope that more Christians will speak out, even if persecution becomes greater, don't forget that the gospel has been effectively delivered in court from the very beginning of our faith.

9 June 2009 at 12:37  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Preacher,

It has hard to advise a man to obey God's law rather than Man's law. Difficult to look him and his family in the eye.

The Lawyers Christian Fellowship is asking the question:

That Christians should not promote or actively take part in a process which, by its nature, necessarily leads to a result which is contrary to the Word of God.

The Christian Lawyer Spring 2009 (magazine)

9 June 2009 at 12:52  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

The homosexual behaviour & the State tiranny displayed against Christians by police, local and even national and European authorities, is far worse than an offense (and we get much of that, and nobody cares...it's okay... John 15 & 16) of those who hate us, because we condemn what God condemns: Their homosexual behaviour.

These homo's are actually LOOKING ACTIVELY FOR ANYTHING THEY CAN LABEL an OFFENSE, SO THEY CAN RUN TO THE POLICE & LEGAL AUTHORITIES WITH IT, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO CHANGE SOCIETY IN THE WAY THEY WANT, IN AN UNDEMOCRATIC WAY, BYPASSING THE NORMAL democratic legaslative procedure of making laws!

This cursed, satanic way to change society in an illegal, undemocratic way by lobbying and such unbehaving behaviour by unadapted homosexuals, who refuse to adapt but want everybody to adapt to them, has worked to ruin our society because of our cowardly politicians & judges & totalitarian - politically - 'correct' - State-ideology which is now the 'undeclared' State - religion of the land. Sign my PETITION on SIGN the PETITION!

9 June 2009 at 13:35  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Even worse: Homosexuals are often not happy with the slow speed (in their opinion) with which their immoral behaviour is forced upon the public, which is far greater than the handful of homosexuals who refuse to behave themselves within society (it's less than 5% of the population who are actually homosexuals, just check the Professional Soccer Teams how few if any homo's it has...- they and the lying media of course - SHOUT other figures - as if the more and the harder they are shouting their lies, the easier the public will accept them as truth), so to speed things up these homosexuals are not satisfied to just look for opportunities to accuse someone of 'offense' (as if 'offense' can objectively be measured..it's a slippery downward slope...), no they activelly seek to PROVOKE responses of people that they can exploit and employ to run with to the local counsel, police, etc. as accusations, so that the decisions by cowardly, foolish or even simply hostile judges, can bring théir kind of society closer. Bypassing the much longer, but more democratic road of the law-making process. In this way, they have succeeded very succesfully to change our society in s streetgang way.

I have a law proposal that will stop this nonsense: Every complaint of 'offense' and such, MUST FIRST be sufficiently proven by the accuser to be well-founded as an deliberate, intentional, personal insult and offense to him/her personally. If the accuser can not show this beyond any doubt, he / she/ they should be punished for abusing the judicial procedure/ courts to settele private disputes and to gain political goals.

Why has not one politician introduced this sound legilsature so far?

9 June 2009 at 14:20  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘Why has not one politician introduced this sound legislature so far?’

Because it is verboten.

The change of law was compelled by the EU: the Framework Directive, agreed by the Council of European Union in 2000, sought to establish a ‘general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation’ across the EU member states.

Britain transposed the Framework Directive into national law as secondary legislation – relying on its powers to do so under the 1972 European Communities Act. That is why there was no parliamentary debate or media interest in what Parliament was doing in June 2003.

9 June 2009 at 14:46  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

By specially designed actions and open displays of homosexual behaviour that they know are offensive to the public! - they activelly seek to PROVOKE responses of people that they can exploit and employ to run with to the local counsel, police, etc. as accusations, so that the decisions by cowardly, foolish or even simply hostile judges, can bring théir kind of society closer. Bypassing the much longer, but more democratic road of the law-making process. In this way, they have succeeded very succesfully to change our society in s streetgang way.

9 June 2009 at 15:39  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

D@ D. Singh: Even within the EU-framework, I do not think it is forbidden to make a law that lays the burden of proof with the accuser to prove that the accused is guilty of intentionally, deliberately personally offending him/her, in contrast to the evil and injust pratise we witness today that the accused has to prove that he/she is NOT GUILTY of that which any idiot can accuse him/her of, filling the courts with frivolous matters by some ill-behaved handful of individuals who seek to exploit and abuse the courts to bypass a democratic legislative process which they would NEVER WIN! Because they are a SMALL minority! They are allowed to use a Megaphone and thus fool the public in thinking the mouse, that they really are, is a lion! Not so!

They should be punished for burdening the courts with their falsely motivated false accusations aimed at changing society in the way they want.

So far they have been getting away with their ill-behaviour which has burdened the public because their politicians, police-forces, judges rewarded them for it, rather than punish them!

9 June 2009 at 15:57  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Oh really?

S. 5 (1) of the Employment (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 states:

For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (‘A’) subjects another person (‘B’) to harassment where, on grounds of sexual orientation , A engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of –

(a) violating B’s dignity; or
(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment.

Now that picture of you and your wife on your desk creates an atmosphere promoting heterosexuality.

Please could you remove it?

9 June 2009 at 16:05  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

It's unfair to blame the police for being officious. The trend of government policy is to encourage this kind of behaviour. Indeed a policeman who didn't act probably would face trouble for being insufficiently politically correct.

The purging of the police of people who are "racist", "sexist", "homophobic" etc was always merely codewords for "exclude anyone who is not supporting our political agenda". The judiciary is being similarly purged. The actual issues are almost irrelevant; it is the control, and exclusion of normal people, that is the real issue.

Troubling to see this sort of thing, all the same. The churches are always pretty inoffensive, if boring. No decent government ever feels the need to persecute them; so much so, that it's almost a litmus test for oppressiveness that there are clergy being "questioned" by the police.

Gordon -- and Mandy -- you have much to answer for.

9 June 2009 at 16:10  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

I wonder what would happen if someone suggested we should push him off a mountain, I'm not going to, My brain hurts just trying to think about what the consequences might be.

I mean who would I be insulting.

9 June 2009 at 17:31  
Anonymous Preacher said...

D. Singh.
Thank you for your earlier comment, as I stated it's for the individual to choose how far he/she is prepared to go in obeying God or man when laws are contrary to one another. For me the higher law takes precedence over the lower, a good example is Peter & John before the Sanhedrin in Acts 4 v18-21, also think of the persecuted church in China or until recently Russia plus of course those christians who live in many Muslim countries, but the truth of the gospel is not silenced & the church has seen many saved in these places.
Although we should obey the law of those that rule over us, morality & conscience must play a part in our decisions, it's not good enough to say like many war criminals "I was just obeying orders". All evangelism should be undertaken for the purist motives of love for our fellow man & sometimes it will involve sacrifice, as our Lord demonstrated & many saints have followed. As the Lord taught, count the cost before commitment.

9 June 2009 at 17:36  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Jamestheless said,
//One wonders whether there would be complaints if a preacher were to condemn adultery, masturbation or bestiality, for example. Not to mention more serious sins, such as apathy, envy or gluttony. Why should homosexuality have a privileged status?

Of course, the most serious sin of all is to deny the existence of God, yet no-one seems to object to being told that they will go to hell for their unbelief.

Again, why should homosexuality have a privileged status?//

Well, I think it would be offensive and insulting to label masturbation a sin. And also envy, which is a natural and vital part of human nature. And I do believe that many atheists object to being told that they will go to hell for their non-belief. That is very offensive; to be told no matter how good your to your fellow man, you will still burn forever. That is very threatening and insulting.


Indeed, I do not even believe that bestiality should be listed as an intrinsic sin. Why should it matter if you screw animals, if you work hard, and contribute to society, help other people enjoy their lives. I would even be of the view that someone practising bestiality would be more worthy of heaven than the 900,000+ people who voted for the BNP last week.

Curiously James, the Bible also condemns those who worship other gods. It would seem that that sin gets up plenty of peoples noses. Perhaps you would prefer the police arresting you for preaching against homosexuality, rather that a mob of angry Muslims stoning you to death for preaching that Islam is a false religion, and worshipping any god other than Jesus is going to get you sent to hell? Just a thought.

Homosexuality should be treated differently, because it involves consenting adults, with no betrayal of trust of another party. It is not a chosen orientation, by most definitions of "choice".

9 June 2009 at 18:15  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

D.Singh said,
//The error Indigomyth makes is that he mistakes the moral judgment on homosexuality as the moral equivalent of racism.//

If you could explain the error, that would be most appreciated, because I have analysed your comments and no where do you attempt discourse on this matter.

So, what makes moral judging homosexuality to be a sin, different from judging having and displaying black skin to be a sin. Or from saying that inter-racial marriages are sinful. I look forward to your response, because I have to say I have read many attempts to answer this question (by, if I might say so, people that seem more well informed and more intelligent than you), and none of them has convinced me.

9 June 2009 at 18:26  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

dutchlionfrans1953 said,
//IN AN UNDEMOCRATIC WAY, BYPASSING THE NORMAL democratic legaslative procedure of making laws! //

Ahh, you mean like exactly the same way that the courts (not the people) decided (not through vote or referendum) to strike down (against the popular will) anti-miscegenation laws? Or is it just those laws that YOU disagree with that should bypass normal democratic channels. Also, if we were to hold a vote or referendum in Iran or Saudi Ararbia about, oh I don't know, stoning apostates and Christians to death, or at least ostracising them from the community, how confident are you that the vote would go the way you would want? Or, are you okay with Christians being beaten to death as long as it is the product of the popular will, approved of by "THE NORMAL democratic legaslative procedure of making laws".

Please think more clearly if you are going to post in future. It makes things alot less tedious for the rest of us.

9 June 2009 at 18:37  
Blogger ZZMike said...

One of the "Anonymous" remarked about "freedom of speech". I believe he's English.

There is no such guarantee in English law. (In Canada, a recent judgement prohibits a particular person from talking about a matter of which he was accused even in private.)

There also used to be a quaint notion that "an Englishman's home is his castle". Another post here recounts how the police were able to go into somebody's house and confiscate furniture (or goods) that were presumed to be unpaid for.

Yet another news story from some months ago told of a city councilman going into a small business and fining the owner for tossing his "sanny wrapper" into an office trash-bin. (Our gracious host posted about a similar event on 2008/11 (Web search engines are relentless). His title is "Carol singers banned for ‘health and safety’ reasons".)

Anyone who thinks that England is a "free country" is deluded.

We here across the pond are not that far behind.

9 June 2009 at 18:43  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

ZZMike said,
//Another post here recounts how the police were able to go into somebody's house and confiscate furniture (or goods) that were presumed to be unpaid for.//

Well, is that not just "recovery of stolen goods". They were believed stolen. What would you have them do? Knock politely on the door, and ask "can we have the things back we think you stole"?

//Anyone who thinks that England is a "free country" is deluded.//

Could you paint us a picture of a "free country" then? What precedent would you like to revisit? And this should, ideally, be a country in which people of all faiths and orientations can do as they wish, to be ultimately free. Or, do you just mean "free for Christians that want to act like I want to act, and to hell with everyone else"? Do you only want freedom for yourself?

9 June 2009 at 18:53  
Anonymous len said...

The whole point that everyone seems to be missing is that everyone on this planet is born with a sin nature, it is our nature to sin!.It is not our acts of sin that make us sinners , but the fact that we have a sin nature which compels us to sin! We, of our own efforts cannot do anything to rectify this sin nature, we can put a lot of effort into 'trying to be good' but how long does that last?
There are differing levels of sinners but who wants to be the best sinner that ever went to hell?
So man rejects Gods moral law because it doesn`t fit in with his fallen nature, then fallen man comes up with a solution - he re-defines sin.
What previously was ( under Gods moral law sin) now becomes O K, acceptable.
But in seeking freedom, man becomes enslaved.
Jesus said" I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin"( John 8 :34)
We ALL need Jesus Christ,without exception.
Why anyone would want to reject Jesus Christ who is their only hope of redemption is beyond me but we all have free will to accept or refuse Christ.
Jesus said I stand at the door and knock.( Revelation 3:20)

9 June 2009 at 19:14  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

//But in seeking freedom, man becomes enslaved.//

Enslaved to who? To what master? I can only think that he becomes slave to himself. So he becomes both slave and master. Surely that is ultimate freedom. To be master without option is to be a slave to mastery; to be a slave without choice is to be a slave to dominance and an owner. In truth, is God not the ultimate slave; he has no ability to do what is wrong because he is purely good. So god is a slave. Perhaps man is his master?

9 June 2009 at 19:19  
Anonymous judith said...

Indigo, I'm an agnostic from a Jewish family. Many decades ago, I married a man from a mildly Christian background.

Most of my family went berserk, and a close and deeply Orthodox relative sat in mourning for me. My beloved Grandmother never spoke to me again, and I was permanently ostracised by certain people.

I could have spent the last 40 years being deeply offended. Instead I dealt quietly with my sorrow and concentrated on building a sound and happy family of my own.

I do not for one moment support active persecution by the religious, but I do feel we should all stop being so quick to take offence.

9 June 2009 at 19:51  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Mr. Myth: I quote you: "So, what makes moral judging homosexuality to be a sin, different from judging having and displaying black skin

Answer: Homosexuality is a choice, a sinful- choice, and someone's skincolour is not a choice, but it is what he is born with.

I know that homosexuals and ill-informed people often violantly disagree (from their choice of behaviour they choose) but the fact that there are many ex-homosexuals, proves the point! There are NO EX-BLACKS!

This is why homosexuals HATE ex-homosexuals for it blows their lying presumptions right out of the water!

Watch the testimony of Dennis Jernigan! Freedom From Homosexuality - 9 parts

9 June 2009 at 20:01  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

The propagation of homosexuality was done by the USA-Congress as far back as 1963! As the Congressional Record shows.

And: House Bill 15090 showing that the U.S. government asked for the HIV- AIDS virus to be made, for which it allocated 10 million $!

And: "UK Government Education Guidelines: Don't use terms "Mom" and "Dad" - see Political Correctness Watch

"Government guidelines for training school officials to be more sensitive to homosexuality, instruct teachers not to use the terms "mum and dad" when referring to students' parents, and to treat "even casual" use of terms like "gay" as equal to racism. The guidedance was commissioned by the Labour government directly from the homosexual lobby group Stonewall. The document was launched today at a Stonewall conference by Schools Secretary Ed Balls.

Ed Balls said, "Homophobic insults should be viewed as seriously as racism." "Even casual use of homophobic language in schools can create an atmosphere that isolates young people and can be the forerunner of more serious forms of bullying."

The guidelines say that the word "parents" must replace "mum and dad", and that teachers should educate pupils about civil partnerships and gay adoption rights.

In Britain's current political climate, even young children have been subject to police interventions on accusations of making "racist" or "homophobic" comments. In October 2006, a 14-year-old school girl was arrested by police and detained in a cell for three hours after she asked to be moved into a group of students who spoke English in class. Stott was denounced to police for "racism" by her teachers. In April 2007, a ten-year-old boy was questioned after the boy sent an email calling another boy "gay".

9 June 2009 at 20:51  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

In the "Frequently Asked Questions" section of the guidelines, in answer to the question, "We have to respect cultural and religious differences. Does this mean pupils can be homophobic?" the guidelines specifically state that those with religious views regarded by the homosexual movement as "intolerant" must be silent. "A person can hold whatever views they want but expressing views that denigrate others is unacceptable." However, It seems perfetly acceptable to these pro-homo figures to do all that and worse to all Christians they disagree with, directly, openly, violantly and injustly and with no shame! WHO BEWITCHED OUR AUTHORITIES & COURTS????

For Stonewall, youth and sexual innocence is no reason for an exemption. To the objection that primary school students are too young to understand issues of homosexuality, the guidelines respond, "Primary-school pupils may be too young to understand their own sexual orientation but it is likely that some primary-school pupils will know someone who is gay." "Homophobic language is used in primary schools without the pupils necessarily realising what it is that they are saying. Primary schools should respond to homophobic bullying in an age-appropriate way whilst demonstrating that it is not acceptable in school."

For parents who object to their children being exposed to instruction on homosexuality, the guidelines say, "Regardless of their views on gay people or sexual orientation, parents and carers have to understand that schools have a responsibility to keep pupils safe."

Stonewall, perhaps the most successful homosexual activist organization in the world, has been accepted by the Labour government, first under Tony Blair and now by Gordon Brown's leadership, as the leading voice on all issues regarding homosexuality. The guidelines take this a step further in actually allowing the lobby group to author a government document.

Under Tony Blair's "New Labour" government, Section 28 - the law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools, was repealed. Since then, homosexual activists have used their influence in Parliament to implement a full roster of training for both teachers and students in normalizing homosexuality
"


Reason for the promotion of homosexuality by the UK and USA governments: Homosexuals do not get children, and the politicians even then allowed themselves to be lied to, even by the lying report of the Club of Rome, that the world was so called overcrowded.

The world was not then and not now overcrowded, and CO2, being PlantFOOD is GOOD!

9 June 2009 at 20:52  
Blogger ZZMike said...

indigomyth: "Well, is that not just "recovery of stolen goods"."

The key word, as I wrote it, is "presumed". They were not, in fact, stolen.

Had it been a case of stolen goods, the police would have made an arrest.

"Could you paint us a picture of a "free country" then?"

Easily. One in which the people are free do do as they please, bound only by just laws, and one with a minimum of interference by the government. It's important to point out that the people must understand the difference between freedom and license. A free man recognizes the rights of others.

"Or, do you just mean "free for Christians ..." You're attributing to me words I did not say. As a matter of fact, it seems (at least, from daily reports in the news) that there are lots of people who would be more than happy to see an England "free for Muslims, ...". They're the ones who push for Shari'a law in England, who take umbrage (or offense, if there's a difference) at any slight sign or symbol of Christianity, or any perceived disrespect to their God.

"Enslaved to who?" I'm afraid that your response makes no more sense than len's post. "slave to himself"?

The subject really needs a good definition of "slave". The Romans had a simple one, as did most of the world at that time. Even that was different from more recent times. A Greek's slave, for example, was one of the household - he just couldn't come and go as he pleased, and had to what he was told.

I believe that Trappist monks are perfectly free, and that a modern-day up-and-coming young businessman, who works 60-hour weeks, makes a substantial income, and may neglect his family, is not.

9 June 2009 at 20:55  
OpenID jamestheless said...

indigomyth,

"And I do believe that many atheists object to being told that they will go to hell for their non-belief."

Perhaps we move in different circles. I don't think I've ever met an atheist who didn't relish the prospect!

"That is very offensive; to be told no matter how good your to your fellow man, you will still burn forever. That is very threatening and insulting."

I don't understand this. If you don't believe in God, hell or hellfire, why do you feel threatened by it?

Since vocal inflections do not transmit over blogs, I should add that I am gently trying to explain what I believe to be the consequence of actions. My feelings towards sinners, of whom I am one and in no position to cast the first stone, is not of hatred or triumphalism, but compassion towards fellow-sufferers. Some realise they need healing, some don't; some who want to be healed have found a doctor, some are still looking.

Perhaps I should also add that I don't interpret Hell as "God's torture chamber"; it's more a case of God giving people what they truly desire. If people genuinely wish to have nothing to do with him and spend all eternity in a godless place surrounded by godless people doing godless things in a godless way, then God will grant that wish.

9 June 2009 at 22:45  
Blogger Mr Spanton said...

Didnt it happen in the Bible that 2 disciples were beaten up for preaching the gospel of salvation, and told "never to speak again in the name of Jesus" It didnt stop them-because they were full of the fire of God, like some of the other Bible people, they spoke God's message even if it looked like they would get threatened or killed. Look at Ahab, tried to intimidate Elijah "you troubler of Israel" anti-God folk always tend to invert the truth dont they. But Elijah wasnt deterred, he turned it around "you and your wife have caused the trouble in Israel(drought for 3 1/2 years) with your witchcraft. Look at Gideon, he was frightened and hiding away for long enough but eventually had to come out and confront his enemy. They threw Jeremiah down a well for speaking the truth. Its happened before and will happen again, godly people get persecuted because the devil despises Jesus. John the Baptist lost his head.
Someone else on this blog posted about churches "full of religious people" and they are right. There is a form of godliness (rituals, routines, man-made traditions etc) that deny the power of God. I think we desperately neeed a few fiery, fearless preachers, not anaemic guilt ridden pseudo-intellectual marxists like Rowan Williams.

9 June 2009 at 23:31  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

dutchlionfrans1953 said,
//Answer: Homosexuality is a choice, a sinful- choice, and someone's skincolour is not a choice, but it is what he is born with.

I know that homosexuals and ill-informed people often violantly disagree (from their choice of behaviour they choose) but the fact that there are many ex-homosexuals, proves the point! There are NO EX-BLACKS!//

What about Michael Jackson? He no longer appears black. And with therapeutic treatments, skin lightning surgeries and bleaches, people no longer need to have black skin. Note that I was talking about black skin being sinful. It is perfectly possible to change the colour of ones skin, and perfectly easy to change the appearance of ones skin.

I am not overly surprised at their being ex-homosexuals. It seems quite obvious to me that castration or lobotomy could alter ones sexual feelings. However I did say choice in the way we usual regard the term. I have met people who only have one arm, or one leg. Are we to infer from that, that having two arms and two legs is a choice? Certainly it is a choice not to cut off your left hand; does that mean that you choose to have two hands? In the same way, just because you choose not to excise your sexuality using pseudo-psychology, chemical or surgical procedures, does that mean that homosexuality is a choice?

Further, I have yet to hear the homosexual, or ex-homosexual, say that they made a concious choice to become homosexual. It seems that most ex-gays have had to struggle with their orientation. If it was a mere "choice" rather than a biological / mental attribute, we should expect it to be easier to change. Not even NARTH claims that homosexuality is a choice; merely that it is changeable, which are two different things.


The reality is that homosexuality, same-sex attraction is something that develops overtime, as a product of biological and environmental factors. It is no more a choice as ones skin colour.

Also, perhaps you should fully consider the repercussions of what you are saying. Effectively you are arguing that YOU could find men attractive, and want to kiss them etc. If homosexuality is a choice, then you should be able to choose to love men. Could you do that?

Further, since there are also "ex-heterosexuals" are we to also conclude, using your reasoning, that being straight is also a choice, not being something one is born with.

The last point for this post is that you slipped without heed from talking about homosexuality to homosexual behaviour. Which is it that you are talking about? For homosexuality describes the feelings of attraction one has to the same-sex. The behaviour is the actualisation of those inclinations.

10 June 2009 at 07:25  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

ZZMike said,
// The key word, as I wrote it, is "presumed". They were not, in fact, stolen.//

Yes, and I recognised that in the little script I wrote. My point remains, the items were thought to be stolen, therefore the actions of the police should be as if they were stolen. For how are you to know if you merely think something stolen, or if they are actually stolen. The goods needed to be assessed and checked to make sure they were not stolen.

//Had it been a case of stolen goods, the police would have made an arrest.//

I presume then, that following confirmation that the goods were not stolen, the police made no arrests. Do you believe that the police should only act when 100% certain that goods are stolen? If that is the case, no raids would ever be made, because there is always an element of doubt. What percentage certainty would you want from the police before they could raid a house? 99%? 95%? 75%?

"Could you paint us a picture of a "free country" then?"

Easily. One in which the people are free do do as they please, bound only by just laws, and one with a minimum of interference by the government. It's important to point out that the people must understand the difference between freedom and license. A free man recognizes the rights of others.

//"Or, do you just mean "free for Christians ..." You're attributing to me words I did not say.//

They were inverted commas, not quotation marks. I was highlighting the fact that such a state would not be worthy of the word "free".

So do you support blasphemy laws, against the Christian God? And whose definition of "just laws" (quotation marks this time). I consider abortion to be Just. Do you?

//"Enslaved to who?" I'm afraid that your response makes no more sense than len's post. "slave to himself"?//

That was my point; to show len that what he was saying was nonsensical by taking his statement to its logical extreme.

//The subject really needs a good definition of "slave". The Romans had a simple one, as did most of the world at that time. Even that was different from more recent times. A Greek's slave, for example, was one of the household - he just couldn't come and go as he pleased, and had to what he was told.//

Indeed, the definition of "slave" is a difficult one. I was presuming the usage of the term most familiar to the modern day; a slave being an item of property, like a cow or sheep, with no rights of any kind.

The difference between a true slave, and the business man you speak of, is one of choice without imposed repercussions. A slave cannot choose to be free; their situation of enslavement is imposed on them from above. The businessman's work schedule is borne by him willingly. He could quit and get another job, the company does not force him to stay an employee.

10 June 2009 at 07:41  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

jamestheless said,
//Perhaps we move in different circles. I don't think I've ever met an atheist who didn't relish the prospect!

"That is very offensive; to be told no matter how good your to your fellow man, you will still burn forever. That is very threatening and insulting."

I don't understand this. If you don't believe in God, hell or hellfire, why do you feel threatened by it?//

It is not the prospect of burning forever that concerns us. It is the mentality of those that believe that hell is a fitting punishment for people who do not believe in their god. It is threatening because the willingness to believe that apostasy and non-belief are Just reasons to send someone to hell indicates a lack of perspective, and a fundamental inhumanity that is quite shocking. It is not the threat of eternal torment that is the horrible thing (though the concept is unpleasant), it is the existence of people that believe that hell is a fitting punishment for those who do not believe.

//Perhaps I should also add that I don't interpret Hell as "God's torture chamber"; it's more a case of God giving people what they truly desire. If people genuinely wish to have nothing to do with him and spend all eternity in a godless place surrounded by godless people doing godless things in a godless way, then God will grant that wish.//

Your interpretation is not one hugely common among ardent Christians (or at least the ones that frequent sites like Rapture Ready).

If the place we ended up was just as you say, then that would be fine. I am unsure why God felt it necessary to add the pain the agony.

10 June 2009 at 07:50  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

duthlionfrans1953

I have just watched the first video of the series you posted, and your point is disproved.

This man is still homosexual. He admits himself when he says that he is still tempted. He still has homosexual feelings and still attracted to men. He says that he struggles with homosexuality; not the words of someone who has chosen that orientation. I do not see how this backs up your point about homosexuality being a choice, in anyway shape or form.

In anycase, what he believes about his sexual orientation is totally irrelevant. He may wish to fervently believe that he was not born homosexual, but unfortunately reality is not subject to his beliefs. The question of whether he was born homosexual or not is a scientific one; not one of faith.

10 June 2009 at 08:03  
Anonymous len said...

Indigomyth,

I don`t know why you cannot understand simple truths!
Perhaps its because you don`t want to!
You are a slave to sin. The master of sin is satan.
Now you will say " I don`t believe in satan" So you remain enslaved through your sin and your ignorance.

Your homosexual gene theory is unproved.

10 June 2009 at 08:07  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Len

Almost everything you say is unprovable and at best theological psycho-babble.

I don't know why you bother to join in these debates (which a lot of the time are being discussed in a civil manner between two opposing viewpoints) with your random scripture quoting. Do you not understand that if someone is not religious there is no point in quoting religious scripture to them, and best you will be ignored at worse your cause the abuse to be thrown back and forward.

10 June 2009 at 09:07  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

len said,
//Now you will say " I don`t believe in satan" So you remain enslaved through your sin and your ignorance.

Your homosexual gene theory is unproved.//

Erm, could you show ANYWHERE in my posts where I have said that homosexuality is the sole product of genetics. I have merely said it is not a choice, which is backed up by all observed evidence.

Homosexuality is likely to be influenced by genetics, in much the same way that most personality attributes are genetically influenced. However a larger influence is likely to be hormonal and biochemical factors during pregnancy, hormone levels in puberty, and environmental and social factors. Could you show which of any of these factors is subject to the "choice" of the individual; homosexuality is a trait received in almost exactly the same way as race.

But if I choose to sin, then have I not actively chosen to follow Satan, and therefore have I not exercised my freedom?
...
The Glovner said,
//I don't know why you bother to join in these debates (which a lot of the time are being discussed in a civil manner between two opposing viewpoints) with your random scripture quoting.//

Lol, you have evidently not visited Damian Thompson's blog. My impressions are that ordinary Roman Catholics do seem to be rather more incapable of debate than the Protestants here.

10 June 2009 at 18:12  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Well I just went and had a quick check on your "recommendation", yup wouldn't say they are any worse than Len, but certainly as pointless.

10 June 2009 at 21:07  
Blogger WoollyMindedLiberal said...

What is it with you Christians and homosexuality? The Bible condemns eating shellfish just as severely as it does being gay but I never hear anybody saying that a Prawn Vindaloo is an abomination that will send you to Hell.

Same sex pair-bonding has been well documented in most mammals and several bird species. It seems to be pretty widespread in the natural world. So if you believe that God ordained that penguins and sheep would be gay it seems odd that you can't accept that he might have ordained the same for people too.

As indigomyth has observed, sexuality seems pretty well entrenched in people and is not easy to change. In the last century many boys born with damaged or abnormal genitals were castrated, brought up as girls, pumped full of hormones and they still didn't fancy boys! You can't catch homosexuality from hearing about it, talking to homosexuals, being their friends and so on.

10 June 2009 at 22:05  
Anonymous len said...

The Glovner,
" Len, I don`t know why you bother to join
in these debates" (end of quote)
You obviously don`t see the hypocrisy of this remark.

You are being Heterophobic!
I would defend your right to free speech.
Obviously you require a platform for your views but would deny me the same right, your hypocrisy is exposed for all the world to see!!!
Scripture is a truth you seem to find unpalatable.I will continue to use scripture as it is the only truth in a sea of lies and misinformation.
!

11 June 2009 at 08:06  
Anonymous len said...

The glovner ,
You have absolutely illustrated the point of homosexuals wishing to promote their values and life styles but wishing to stop christians living and promoting theirs!!!

11 June 2009 at 08:20  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Len.

Thanks for that, it is actually hard to get across in words how much I am sitting here pissing myself laughing at your ranting nonsense in your previous two posts.

First off, no need for the excessive use of the exclamation marks at the end of your sentences, just makes it look like you are ranting like a madman (which is the same quality given by your other posts I admit but I am sure you don't want to appear that way so just a bit of gramatical advice for you there).

I'm being "heterophobic"? This would mean I hate myself since I am heterosexual? Or are you implying perhaps that I am not heterosexual? Your comments don't make a huge amount of sense so feel free to (if you will pardon the pun) "enlighten" me.

I would not for one second deny anyones right to free speech, and if you had read other posts by me you could quite easily see that this is a point I make frequently. However, what I was saying (and I will try and spell this out more clearly so you maybe get it this time):

If you are going to quote what I say it would be worth quoting the whole statement rather than picking and choosing what you include as it then takes the remark out of context.

Yes I asked why you bother adding your input to the debate. That does not say I don't think you are allowed to add your input but I am challenging the point of you quoting scripture that really only bears relevance to the religious.

If you are going to debate a topic with Evil Baby Eating Raping Murdering Amoral Infidel Atheists (such as I must appear to you, and perhaps homosexual, but we won't know that until you clear up your earlier "points"), it makes no sense to argue your case by regurgitating scripture written thousands of years ago in a time where things were completely different to current times.

Would you bother to argue with someone that only spoke chinese by repeatedly screaming English at them louder and louder even when it reached a point that they began to ignore you because you added nothing to the discussion?

I don't think any homosexual wants the right (or even does for that matter) to "promote" their views and lifestyle, I think they simply want to have the same rights as heterosexual people to live in their lifestyle. To compare this to religion is a bit of apples and origins, being that homosexuality is not a religion and they don't exactly go around knocking on peoples doors trying to get them to become homosexual and when refused tell them that after they die they will burn forever for not making the beast of two backs with the same sex.

A christian can live their lifestyle if they want, but if their lifestyle encroaches on others then expect a backlash, I get the impression you have views similar to the group that recently pelted the BNP with eggs.

I think the quote was something like:

"I support free speech, but not for fascists"

So in closing, yes Len, I support your's and everyone else right to free speech, whether the free speech people give is actually worthwile is a copmletely different issue which is the point I was making concrening your input.

11 June 2009 at 12:30  
Anonymous Andrew Lilico said...

Two telling things there, I thought:

1) The policeman thought that the fact that he would find it offensive to be told that what he did was sinful meant, as he understood the relevant law, that the preacher was guilty of a crime - i.e. that it is a crime to give offence.

2) Christianity regards remarriage after divorce as a sin (setting aside victims of adultery). Christianity regards slothfulness as a sin. Would the policeman have thought it potentially a crime for the preacher to have stood in the street denouncing sloth? Would he have thought it legitimate to suggest that someone had caused a public order offence by saying that divorce and remarriage is a sin? Or do homosexuals have a unique right not to be offended?

11 June 2009 at 16:24  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Andrew Lilico said,
//Christianity regards slothfulness as a sin. Would the policeman have thought it potentially a crime for the preacher to have stood in the street denouncing sloth? Would he have thought it legitimate to suggest that someone had caused a public order offence by saying that divorce and remarriage is a sin? Or do homosexuals have a unique right not to be offended?//

And as soon as people start marching with banners saying "god hates sloths" and "god hates divorcees" than you can start making that comparison.

The difference is that certain types of Christians act far more readily on the injunction against homosexuality, than on the injunction against divorce and sloth. The seriousness which Christians react against something, and the degree to which they are prepared to go in their cause, are all relevant factors to take into consideration when drawing up guidelines.

Indeed, I think that if the preacher had been shouting about divorce being a sin, he should have been silenced as he has been in this case. The demonising of divorcees, without specific reference to the circumstances of those divorces, is unacceptable.

11 June 2009 at 18:24  
Anonymous len said...

The glovner I do not understand your post.What point if any are you trying to make?(
As for grammar, people in glasshouses?
I will continue to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to use scripture, I am sorry if that upsets you ( you seem quite rattled) but nothing on this earth will stop me!.

11 June 2009 at 19:25  
OpenID jamestheless said...

Indigomyth,

"It is threatening because the willingness to believe that apostasy and non-belief are Just reasons to send someone to hell indicates a lack of perspective, and a fundamental inhumanity that is quite shocking."

OK, that's understandable. However, it is important to remember that it will be God who decides whether or not to send someone to hell, not a human sticking to the rulebook. Christianity tells us that God is loving and merciful (how often do we get judged by someone who was willing to die for us?)

I would even say that a non-believer who sincerely seeks the good and tries to do what is right will probably be viewed favourably, since everything that is good ultimately comes from God. The ones who have most to fear are those who claim to be Christians, but deny Christ by their thoughts and actions.

"Your interpretation is not one hugely common among ardent Christians"

It is however very common in mainstream Christianity.

"(or at least the ones that frequent sites like Rapture Ready)."

That looks like a hardline American Evangelical site - the kind that believes that Roman Catholics aren't Christians.

11 June 2009 at 19:35  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

jamestheless said,

//However, it is important to remember that it will be God who decides whether or not to send someone to hell, not a human sticking to the rulebook. Christianity tells us that God is loving and merciful (how often do we get judged by someone who was willing to die for us?)//

I see your logic; that the preacher is merely the messenger of God's Word, therefore cannot be held accountable for its content. However, I feel happy to judge as bad, Muslims that say that it is Allah's will to kill non-believers and Christians, yet they could say the same thing about their actions. I have to judge what someone says based upon what seems most reasonable. That is also the way the legal system works, with regard to hate speech and inflammatory rhetoric. I even acknowledge that these people sincerely believe what they are preaching is the Word of God, and therefore also appreciate that their outrage at being silenced is genuine. However, once again, I am happy to silence the ravings of the demented and seditious, even is they believe what they say.

As for the ethics of self-sacrifice, that is rather a big conversation to have; suffice to say, I am not one who holds an entirely favourable view of Christ's actions, even were we to assume he has crucified.

//It is however very common in mainstream Christianity.

"(or at least the ones that frequent sites like Rapture Ready)."

That looks like a hardline American Evangelical site - the kind that believes that Roman Catholics aren't Christians.//

I am unfamiliar with the mainstream Christian community, so cannot talk with authority about it. I can only say how things appear to me, from the people I talk to. And I would have to say that even the Christians on here do not seem overly sympathetic with your viewpoint. Am I to infer that they are not mainstream? I hear many claims that most Christians in Britain are "liberal". I have not seen concrete evidence to back this up.

I am very sceptical of when people claim to know what the "Majority" want, or believe, without any substantial evidence to back said claims up. I am as sceptical about this with those people whose causes I support, as I am those whose causes I loathe.

So, to sum up, I do not really know what mainstream Christianity is, and even if I did, that would be no guarantee that that would be the correct form of Christianity.

11 June 2009 at 19:55  
Anonymous len said...

Anyone who preaches the full Gospel of Jesus Christ is going to eventually come into conflict with 'the world'( referring to his Grace`s original article)
Gods Divine order is completely different from 'the worlds' system, and the two different systems inevitably clash ,they are incompatible.
Jesus Christ said " I am the way, the truth, and the life.
Truth doesn`t change which makes the bible relevant today but truth is apparently unacceptable to many people.

11 June 2009 at 19:57  
OpenID jamestheless said...

WoollyMindedLiberal,

"The Bible condemns eating shellfish just as severely as it does being gay"

In fact, the Bible says that Gentile Christians are not required to follow Jewish dietary laws.

"Same sex pair-bonding has been well documented in most mammals and several bird species. It seems to be pretty widespread in the natural world. So if you believe that God ordained that penguins and sheep would be gay it seems odd that you can't accept that he might have ordained the same for people too."

You seem to be assuming that whatever is natural must be good. This is not the Christian understanding: although the world was made by God, and it was good, humans have messed it up by trying to set themselves above God. The goodness of the world, and of our hearts, has become obscured and we often think that what is wrong is right.

"As indigomyth has observed, sexuality seems pretty well entrenched in people and is not easy to change. In the last century many boys born with damaged or abnormal genitals were castrated, brought up as girls, pumped full of hormones and they still didn't fancy boys! You can't catch homosexuality from hearing about it, talking to homosexuals, being their friends and so on."

This is true. It is important to distinguish between homosexual orientation, which is not sinful in itself and (for want of a better term) homosexual practice, which is. As by the way is heterosexual practice, except for husband and wife attempting to procreate.

The recommendation - both for homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals - is to lead a life of celibacy, dedicated to Christ. Unreasonable? Unrealistic? Yes, but we are told that everything is possible with God.

11 June 2009 at 19:58  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

len said,
// I will continue to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to use scripture, I am sorry if that upsets you ( you seem quite rattled) but nothing on this earth will stop me!.//

An admirable dedication to your beliefs, despite opposition. I have a grudging respect for your determination, in much the same way that I have a kind of awe regarding the dedication of the terrorists that flew into the Twin Towers. However, you will understand why I will oppose you at every step.

11 June 2009 at 20:00  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Which point exactly would you like me to clear up for you?

Excessive use of an exclamation mark?

No point in agruing with atheists by using scripture?

My question regarding the implications you seem to make on my being "Heterophobic"?

The hypocriscy of the hate you spew from a point of christanity? (a peaceful and loving religion so I am told)

The inequality of comparing a sexual persuasion to a religious sect?

My views on free speech?

Take your pick, or would you rather ignore the points and mindlessly quote scripture from a 1700 year old story book/

11 June 2009 at 20:07  
OpenID jamestheless said...

"The difference is that certain types of Christians act far more readily on the injunction against homosexuality, than on the injunction against divorce and sloth."

Yes! This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier (and obviously failed).

Incidentally, it's not quite true that Christians regard re-marriage after divorce as a sin. The Eastern Orthodox Church, which is closest to the early church, allows up to two re-marriages with a dispensation (for laity; clergymen are not allowed to re-marry at all, even if widowed).

Roman Catholicism doesn't allow it in theory, but the rich and famous can usually get an annulment, which means that the first marriage didn't officially happen. And the Church of England now allows re-marriage in church.

11 June 2009 at 20:12  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

jamestheless said,
//Yes! This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier (and obviously failed).//

But, my point is that if there was a very real chance of people taking injunctions against divorce or sloth seriously, to the detriment of those people who are divorced or slothful, as they have with homosexuality and homosexuals, than it would be entirely Just for the police to crack down on them hard.

So, for example in Islamic countries, where adultery is seen as a serious vice, where woman are attacked for even being thought to have committed those "crimes", it would make perfect sense to censure people preaching against adultery, to protect adulterers.

In the same way, it is necessary to censure True Christians TM, because some people will act on those teachings in ways they will not with regards to divorce or adultery. Not to say that most Christians will react violently, but they may be encouraged to oppose gay rights etc.

Also, there is the theory that certain things should not be criticised, like mixed-race marriages. It is an article of some peoples belief that mixed-race marriages are wrong. Should they be permitted to preach against them, without censure?

11 June 2009 at 20:22  
OpenID jamestheless said...

indigomyth,

"I am unfamiliar with the mainstream Christian community, so cannot talk with authority about it. I can only say how things appear to me, from the people I talk to. And I would have to say that even the Christians on here do not seem overly sympathetic with your viewpoint. Am I to infer that they are not mainstream? I hear many claims that most Christians in Britain are "liberal". I have not seen concrete evidence to back this up."

By mainstream Christianity, I mean the beliefs that are more or less common to the churches which can trace their history all the way back to the Apostles: the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic and the Anglican Communion. A classic statement of these beliefs was set out by English theologians in the 16th and 17th centuries, His Grace among them.

Although I must admit that this is probably not mainstream any more: it does not fit into any of the three main "tribes" of the Church of England (Liberal, Evangelical or Anglo-Catholic). Perhaps I am not typical of the Christians who post here most frequently, but such is life.

Of course, knowing who is mainstream can be a problem with other religions. For many Westerners, their first experience of Islam was when they heard the Ayatollah Khomeini ranting about America being the Great Satan.

His Grace does tend to attract the more conservative Christian, not to mention some rather strange people of all persuasions! If you want to find liberal Christianity, just look at any Bishop of the Church of England (with the exceptions of Rochester and York).

11 June 2009 at 21:52  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"His Grace does tend to attract the more conservative Christian..."

He does?

Tell that to the conservative Christians who fill his email inbox with accusatory rants of liberal luke-warmness and accommodating compromise. Indeed, quite a few accuse His Grace of not being a 'real Christian'.

Now then, another glass of red...

11 June 2009 at 22:20  
OpenID jamestheless said...

indigomyth,

"//Yes! This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier (and obviously failed).//

In fact, I misinterpreted what you wrote. Please ignore the above comment.

"But, my point is that if there was a very real chance of people taking injunctions against divorce or sloth seriously, to the detriment of those people who are divorced or slothful, as they have with homosexuality and homosexuals, than it would be entirely Just for the police to crack down on them hard."

Well, I think we need to distinguish between offence and threats. In general, no-one has the right not to be offended. To revert to an example that the glovner gave, I don't think that an atheist should be prevented from preaching that all vicars, ministers, priests etc., are paedophiles. If the preacher gives the audience the name of a particular priest, a list of his alleged abuses and his home address, with suggestions on what they should do to him, then that is wrong, but it is already covered by the common law. There is no need to make a law to prevent people from accusing priests of being paedophiles.

Again, I ask: why should homosexuality have a privileged status?

11 June 2009 at 22:43  
OpenID jamestheless said...

"He does?"

A question of where one places the yardstick, Your Grace. I placed it at Lambeth, which is perhaps not the wisest choice.

"Now then, another glass of red..."

The most sensible comment on this thread so far, if I may say so. May Your Grace's ashes remain re-constituted for many more years!

11 June 2009 at 23:06  
Anonymous Doorkeeper said...

" The fool has said in his heart, there is no God".

12 June 2009 at 01:19  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Indigo: You prove the saying: "A Man Convinced Against His Will Is Of The Same Opinion Still!"

You are here to vomit, not to listen, consider and learn. You want everybody else to listen to you. For you are convinced you know everything best.

But it must be said, at least you took the trouble to view part 1 of ex-homosexual Dennis Jernigan's testimony (it is not a series but youtube does not allow contributions longer than 10 minutes so anything longer must be cut in pieces of 10 minutes. The reasoning behind it, I do not know).

But your comment shows you have no clue about the nature of temptation! May be you do not get tempted because you do not want to obey Jesus Christ and just always do what you feel to do.

Homosexuals are not born homosexual. Homosexuals know this very very well! That is why they want to get their hands on the youth, because the youth are very vulnerable, especially in this area.

That Dennis Jernigan admits that he reckognizes temptation in that area - stemming from it being a weak point from his past - is admirable. You should listen to the whole testimony.

For me homosexuality is not a temptation because I never went for that. I could have when I was in highschool and a schoolmate started to do things that one would now call homosexual, starting to masturbate in front of me when I came to him to do homework together! 'I hate him for that,' but as a Christian I am rewquired to forgive him and so I do. That is why I know so very well that homosexuality is a CHOICE! I think every boy has things like this happen in his life, where he must make a choice; the RIGHT CHOICE! Which homosexuals want to deny him, and our Minister of Education, Minister Plasterk, a fool and an idiot and a dangerous man for the land, corrupting the land when he commands his inpectors to go out in the Netherlands to all schools to make sure that all kids are taught that homosexuality is normal. It is an OUTRAGE that hardly any protest...apart from my own Petition on The Voice of God to All Nations is heard. So the corruption of the land is well deserved as well as the outpooring of God's judgment and WRATH!

It is tiranny of the Dutch government to force the schoolchildren and students the State-religion of 'Political-Correctism' and to teach them - in coflict with the Biblical teaching - that homosexuality is normal. It is NOT! And by doing so, Minister Plasterk violates the Freedom of Religion that even our Constitution - which is a dumm document as article 1 forbids Discrimination for any reason which means that everybody violates the Dutch Consitution. It shows our country is governed by FOOLS!

The difference between homosexuality and any other sin is that homosexuality the judgment and wrath of God upon the land brings, faster than anything else.

No civilisation that allowed homosexuality within it's midst has survived! Not one!

That is why it is a lie that it doesn't matter what my neighbour does in private!

For more, I like to direct you to my website and petition where I explain more about the State.

12 June 2009 at 02:12  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

jamestheless said,
//I don't think that an atheist should be prevented from preaching that all vicars, ministers, priests etc., are paedophiles. If the preacher gives the audience the name of a particular priest, a list of his alleged abuses and his home address, with suggestions on what they should do to him, then that is wrong, but it is already covered by the common law. There is no need to make a law to prevent people from accusing priests of being paedophiles.

Again, I ask: why should homosexuality have a privileged status?//

You see, I do believe that an atheist should be prevented from saying those things about all preachers. It is immoral that they should be allowed to make false accusations against innocent people. So, homosexuality does not have a privileged status in my view, it is just one of many facets of personality that may not be criticised in the manner that some Christians talk about it.

12 June 2009 at 07:21  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

dutchlionfrans1953 said,
//But your comment shows you have no clue about the nature of temptation! May be you do not get tempted because you do not want to obey Jesus Christ and just always do what you feel to do.

Homosexuals are not born homosexual. Homosexuals know this very very well! That is why they want to get their hands on the youth, because the youth are very vulnerable, especially in this area.

That Dennis Jernigan admits that he reckognizes temptation in that area - stemming from it being a weak point from his past - is admirable. You should listen to the whole testimony.

For me homosexuality is not a temptation because I never went for that.//

//That is why I know so very well that homosexuality is a CHOICE! //

How do you know this? Homosexuality is the feeling of attraction for someone of the same-sex. How is it a choice to feel that inclination? Jernigan does not say that it was his choice to feel attracted to members of the same-sex, does he? Does he ANYWHERE claim that it was a choice (noting that even if he does, it does not matter to the reality; we are dealing with a question of science, not faith).

Your example about the masturbation is a non-sequiter to the debate. Tell me, did you feel attraction towards this boy masturbating in front of you; did you become aroused by his movements? If you say "no", then how was that a choice? Did you choose not to find him attractive or appealing? Do you choose which woman you find attractive or appealing? Indeed, you say you "never went for that", but surely temptation is not about "going for that" but about being tempted to do so? So were you ever tempted to perform homosexual acts; have you ever been attracted to a member of the same-sex? Can you choose to be tempted to do something? And can you be tempted to choose to be tempted to do something?

Your comment shows you do not understand the nature of sexual development and the relationship between the concious and sub-concious minds. Indeed, your "argument" is not supported by any psychological analysis, even ones critical of homosexuality. So tell me about the extent of your comprehension of matters to do with the biochemical and hormonal developments of the pubescent child? Or, we could start off smaller, and you could provide us with a definition of "choice", because you seem to be using one that is distinct from one most people use.

//No civilisation that allowed homosexuality within it's midst has survived! Not one! //

Perhaps that is because very very few civilisations have survived, full stop.

//The difference between homosexuality and any other sin is that homosexuality the judgment and wrath of God upon the land brings, faster than anything else.//

What, even faster than denying his existence?!

//You are here to vomit, not to listen, consider and learn. You want everybody else to listen to you. For you are convinced you know everything best.//

Considering that you are the one directing people to your personal blog, that you are the one linking to petitions to sign, that you are the one claiming to have an absolute moral truth on your side, I do not really see how you could be claiming to be listening and considering? I, on the other hand, have been having a very civil discussion with jamestheless, and even talking quite amicably with len. Which of us is the one that is spewing vomit?

//So the corruption of the land is well deserved as well as the outpooring of God's judgment and WRATH! //

Well, shall we just leave that up for God to decide. San Francisco and Brighton seem to have survived fairly intact up until now, so I assume God is busy doing other things; he did, after all, have to insure that Obama was elected.

12 June 2009 at 07:48  
Anonymous Andrew Lilico said...

The question was asked above whether people should be permitted to preach against mixed-race marriages. Of course they should! And they should be able to tell me that all property is theft, and that lizard-men from outer space run the UN, and many other wacky things.

My children are mixed-race, so if I wanted to get all uppity I could take offence at someone preaching about the evils of mixed-race marriage. But should the fact that I am offended by this be a reason for a policeman to intervene and stop the person commenting? Of course not - provided only that I was not in a position of physical threat or similar (e.g. outnumbered by a large number of anti-mixed-race people who were shouting at me, even if they didn't threaten violence against me).

The reality is that a preacher saying that homosexuality is a sin is no threat to homosexuals, and there is no good reason why homosexuals should be able to have such a person silenced.

Regarding the priorities of Christians, it is of course true that some people focus more on homosexuality than they do on remarriage after divorce or slothfulness. Perhaps they should indeed spend more time criticising the latter and a bit less on the former. But that's not a good reason to prevent people from preaching about what they *do* choose to preach about. Sure - advise them to talk about sloth more, if you want. Whether they take your advice must be up to them.

One other thing. A number of commentators have said things like "should people be able to say things that are offensive without censure or challenge"? Of course not! But what is being talked about here is not someone debating with the street preacher - someone challenging him on what he said. No. What happened here was that a policeman tried to silence him. And that's different.

12 June 2009 at 12:29  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

@Andrew: Very sensible remarks!

The whole matter is that homosexuals make it an issue to silence everybody who says, preaches, believes that homosexuality is a sin. Because homosexuals do not want to be reminded of the truth - as Romans 1: 18 says: "They hold the truth in unrighteousness"

That the government and those in power have in majority embraced the lie that homosexuality is normal and has equal rights to heterosexuality, shows their utter deprivation and corruption of morals - they are of a reprobate mind!

It is so bad because they now terrorize the population by abuse of government power in order for all to become of the same reprobate kind.

The church must stand up...but alas...much of what is called church just bears that name as a package where the content is missing.

To deny the preaching - and hearing - of the truth - because some unrepentent people take offense - is the devils greatest dream. For by it he denies mankind a chance to be saved. For the first requirement to be saved is to acknowledge one's own utter misery and guilt in front of God Almighty. As Jesus Christ said: "The Truth shall make you free!"

So, as the devil always turns everything upside down, so it is with this. They speak of love, but it is the expression of utter hatred to deny the truth to be preached. Even enforced by abusive government power and authority! How blind can the government be?!

Now, if anyone would purposely seek to offend anyone by intent, it is another matter!

12 June 2009 at 13:42  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

The LAW SHOULD REQUIRE that these homosexuals, muslims etc. and their mislead sympathizers proove that the preacher, teacher, author etc. intentionally wanted to offend the accuser personnally!

The LAW should make it a crime to submit a complaint / accusation & charge against anyone intended to terrorise, intimidate, and silence him, because of personal issues or because of the message, if the accuser can not proove that the accused had the intention to offend the accuser.

This just makes plain sense.

How far our authorities, churches, media etc. have sunk. Many people have sought public office and authority to force society into their mold, instead of for the proper reasons.

Many homosexuals - not satisfied with the speed things are changing their way - are not happy to just look for opportunities and occasions to accuse those that preach, teach, think what they do not want to hear; they take action intended to provoke outrage, horror, offense with the public that they invade with open displays of homosexuality. Then when the public respond (as they would when invaded with heterosexual or islamic acts of that same kind - but it's homsexuals who specialise in this; rarely if ever is this done by heterosexuals, and certainly not with the aim of provoking the public), the homosexuals charge them before the police and the courts.

It is utter deprivation of the police and the courts that they do not send these homosexuals away, saying: "If you do not quickly get out of here, we will arrest you for inappropriate behaviour and for burdening us with this, and for trying to bring about politically desired changes in an illegal manner!"

So, the law against submitting charges of libel and offense unfounded, should be introduced and passed quickly. It would lift much of the pressure off of society which has been so oppressed by this handful of ill-behaving (like rebellious school-boys) homosexuals that already burden our healthcare system by self-induced sicknesses (1 AIDS patient costs at least £ 100.000 /year! And the public who is forced to pay that money, has a right to say something about it!).

The same should be done to muslims , even from other countries like Saoudi-Arabia bringing libel suits against American authors that dared tell the truth about financial dealings of the S-A banker - which drive the authors and publishers to such enormous legal expenses - because of the utterly deprived PARASITES of lawyers that charge £ 1200/ hour - how dare they charge such money for an adminstrative exercise?! They should be punished for this!

The bad libel laws of the UK have brought even a libel-suit tourism which has brought these professional PARASITES of the legal profession great wealth at the expense of freedom of expression, of press, etc.

If they (homosexuals) complain that people hate them, they should also acknowledge that they give good cause! The same can be said of muslims,lawyers, evil judges, authorities and other ill-behaving people who are trying to put society into their mold by force!

One final word to Indigo: You seem wired wrongly - I find many of your remarks illogical, offensive and not appropriate.

12 June 2009 at 13:44  
Anonymous len said...

Indigomyth and the glovner,
Re persecuted christians,
I never understood ( until now) why Jesus said " blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me!( Matthew 5:11)
It has just recently came to me that persecution actually makes a christian stronger!It drives a christian into a position when Christ becomes his strength and clarifies the position of the believer.

There seem to be some very mixed up ideas about what a christian is.
There is only one sort the born again Spirit filled, all else is delusion.

God judges no-one.Christ is the Judge of all.
Ultimately we judge ourselves by rejecting or accepting Christ.

12 June 2009 at 13:47  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Yeah okay len, whatever, you bore me now as I explained would happen when you quote scriptre to someone that doesn't subscribe to the same tripe as you do.

And as for the uneducated nonsense coming from dutchlionfrans1953.

You remind me of a program once (It was either Brass Eye or The Day Today, I can't remember which). Where they had a parody news story concerning "BAD AIDS" and "GOOD AIDS". If you contracted your disease from taking drugs or having homosexual relations with a sufferer then you got "BAD AIDS" and were shunned from society, however if you got it from an unclean blood transfusion which wasn't your fault then you contracted "GOOD AIDS" and society should mourn you and help you as you suffer your terrible affliction.

In other words I am not sure if your comments are a parody/sarcasm or whether you really are that fucking ignorant that you would think that anyone would go out and seek to be inflicted with AIDS because of their sexual persuasion.

The problem with the world isn't:

-Lack of god in peoples lives.
-The evil secularist/humainists/atheists and the void within them where the morals that exclusive to the religious should live.
-Richard Dawkins
-Satan himself
-Dirty Homosexuals forcing the kids to take up bum love and make no more children in the world or even infect everyone with "their" disease.

Or any other religious madness you might what to imagine.

The problem in the world these days is the complete hipocrisy parcticed by opposing groups who think that everyone should live in the same way as they do and there should be no individuality except in the boundries of what they deem to be fit and the absolute ignorance shown by these people.

12 June 2009 at 15:04  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Apoligies.

"might want* to imagine"

12 June 2009 at 15:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Have you finished studying the Equality Bill 2009?

Clause 10 Religion and Belief

(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief - …
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.

The notes to the Bill say: ‘Denominations or sects within a religion can be considered to be a religion or belief, such as Protestants and catholics within Christianity.’

Clause 12 Sexual Orientation

(2) In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation - …
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

The notes to the Bill say: ‘It relates to a person’s feelings rather then their actions.’

Why is a Muslim who expresses feelings that he wants to convert to Christianity not protected from discrimination by, say, his Muslim co-workers?

Why is a married man who expresses feelings for another man – but no action – protected?

12 June 2009 at 15:54  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Singh,

This Bill is an idious piece of legislation which, sadly, will probably now easily pass all legislative hurdles under the pretext that it purports to outlaw the constitution of the BNP.

His Grace shall return to this, and thanks you for highlighting these important questions.

12 June 2009 at 16:03  
Anonymous len said...

The Glovner.
The 'problem with the world 'is that man has a fallen corrupted nature and because of his pride (you illustrate this point perfectly) won`t or can`t accept the truth.(Truth is a person -Jesus Christ )
God says ( another scripture )
" And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things which are not convenient"( Romans 1:28)

This is a terrifying verse, climaxing the awful indictment of God against a world in rebellion against its maker.Gods wrath is revealed against all who" hold the truth" or, more explicitly, " hold down or suppress the truth in unrighteousness."( end of quote)
If you won`t listen Mr Glovner perhaps there are others who will.

12 June 2009 at 18:20  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Thats fine then, you go and quote your mindless scripture to them then while I remain open minded for the rest of my life. You can tell me in your afterlife who had the most worthwile existence.

12 June 2009 at 20:41  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

TheG: ignoring your hostile, offensive remarks, I must remark that you are not up to date on what is happening in the world. There are homosexuals so corrupted, so way out in their minds, that activelly seek, pursue to get infected with AIDS!

This is called 'the gift of love' (how sick in your mind can you be?) Ha, and the tax-payer and health-insurance contributers are paying because our foolish governments refuse to prosecute such people for stealing from us, the healthy people! And for endangering us as well!

Check here, just to see I am not talking from my neck: HIV and Barebacking - Often called "bug chasers" among the gay community, these men seek out other gay men who are infected, in hopes of having unprotected sex, barebacking, in an effort to become infected with HIV. Across the Internet, chat rooms and newsgroups are advertising "conversion parties" where negative men seek out those who are positive in hopes of getting infected.....The number of gay men looking to become positive seems to be growing. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control (The CDC) reports a new surge in the incidence of HIV among gay males, in part due to this unthinkable practice.

The government should be prosecuted for making this possible; for providing bad health-care: Instead of protecting the healthy population from sick people - isolation is and was the normal healthprocedure in many contagious diseases like TBC and leprosy. No one protested. But with AIDS, being a sickness that effects more homosexuals - for this very reason - is singled out from these measures and the truth about AIDS is covered up for convenience.

There is a lot of BLOOD on the hands of health-officials and the government.

Why is the public not informed about the truth about AIDS and the real costs? Go here to find out some more - If you think the government isn't telling
you the truth about AIDS - you're right! Read: "AIDS: What the Government Isn't Telling You."

12 June 2009 at 23:12  
Blogger WoollyMindedLiberal said...

jamestheless said... In fact, the Bible says that Gentile Christians are not required to follow Jewish dietary laws.

Yes it does, in direct contradiction of what Jesus is supposed to have said. But what did he know after all?

You seem to be assuming that whatever is natural must be good.

By no means am I ever a party to the Naturalistic Fallacy. What is natural is natural. Plague, cholera, diptheria, smallpox, tuberculosis, cancer, tapeworms and a host of horrors are totally natural but the world is a better place without them. I was just pointing out that eating shellfish was a perfectly natural thing to do. That does not make it a good thing to do, God has spoken after all and denounced it as an abomination no matter how 'natural' it may seem. Even if its as natural as homosexuality its still wicked.


This is not the Christian understanding: although the world was made by God, and it was good, humans have messed it up by trying to set themselves above God.

So it is our fault that eating the shellfish that God created and ordained to be tasty and nutritious is evil. We have brought this abomination upon ourselves. Thankyou for explaining that.

The goodness of the world, and of our hearts, has become obscured and we often think that what is wrong is right.

Yes indeed, if it were not for God we would not know that eating of prawns, mussels, oysters, scallops and the rest is an abomination. We would thing that just because they are tasty and healthy that it was not an abomination.

This is true. It is important to distinguish between homosexual orientation, which is not sinful in itself and (for want of a better term) homosexual practice, which is. As by the way is heterosexual practice, except for husband and wife attempting to procreate.

This is a very cruel piece of doctrine. God has ordained in his kindness that women become infertile over a certain age at which point it becomes wicked and sinful for their husbands to make love to them. Thankyou Jesus! If it were not for you then we might labour under the illusion that the middle aged or elderly married couples were being good and caring when they were sexually intimate and look upon it approvingly. But thanks to your divine guidance we now know better.

The recommendation - both for homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals - is to lead a life of celibacy, dedicated to Christ. Unreasonable? Unrealistic? Yes, but we are told that everything is possible with God.

Possible yes, but still unreasonable.wives. Who ever said that belief was reasonable? I trust that nobody here dares to call themselves a 'Christian' yet does such vile things as make love to a wife who is past the menopause. Or indeed be a woman unable to bear children yet sinfully have sexual relations with her husband.

12 June 2009 at 23:27  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Hi WoollyMindedLiberal...your theology does not liberate, it binds!

You are wrong to distinguish between homosexual orientation (which is a worldly term, or a term rather invented by some weak clergy why try to adapt to the world, to be accepted by the world!) and homosexual practise.

Jesus Christ makes no such disctinction. On the contrary!

He said that those who looked upon a woman with lust had already committed adultery in their heart. The same with those who lust after men; they have already committed the homosexual deed.

I can not imagine how a man can look with lust upon another man, unless he is bound by a homosexual demon. That is why the church often fails to bring total freedom from homosexuality to homosexual men who repent of their sins. Because unless they have been delivered from their homosexual demon(s), they will never be truelly free. Only Jesus Christ, Who defeated the enemy at the cross and by His resurrection from the dead, can set us free indeed!

Now, your idea that sex is only allowed for the act of procreation: I am sorry if you let yourself be robbed by the devil (for he is a liar and the father of lies) from much pleasure and love - sex was given by God to be enjoyed by a man and woman, married to each other! The fact that women can no longer bear children after a certain young age of say 45, and that she can enjoy sex up to the end of her life, be she 90 or older, should tell you that it was never God's intention that sex stop when the power to procreate stops. Please, throw off this yoke of bondage by wrong doctrine you allowed yourself to be yoked with! God loves you and He does not want to deny you anything He said was very good!

If you do choose this yoke out of (misguided) love, the Lord can not stop you, and He will receive it. But you better enjoy that yoke, and it better not make you bitter towards Him, for than satan would have succeeeded - and you would have been a bad testimony of Jesus Christ to the world.

For when they look and listen to you, they will conclude Jesus Christ is different from what and who He really is. And they would rightly reject the false Jesus Christ YOU portray and display. But they would then not look any further to find the true Jesus Christ! Because they would think the Jesus you so falsely portray and display is the true Jesus! Oh, how the church is guilty of presenting a FALSE JESUS CHRIST in the image of their limited and false doctrine to the world. How many people have landed in HELL because of this? The church is much to blame and should repent in sackcloth and ashes!

13 June 2009 at 13:49  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

To finish my reply to the FOLLY of the wrong doctrine of WOOLLY:

The ónly Scriptural agreement and justification for a man and a woman to deny each other their bodies, is for a time of fasting and prayer. Then, so apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7, they should come together again quickly so as not to give an opportunity to satan!

I quote: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Dó check it also in other versions, that you may understand this portion better.

It must be clear to you now that the union of man and woman is not just, or even in the first place, for the purpose of procreation! Because these Scriptures do not speak about procreation at all! They speak about the sexual union as a Biblically sound reason to marry: Verse 9 says: "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. "

So, if you are a married woman, you better not deny your husband your body, because your body does not belong to you! God calls it FRAUD, and you stand guilty in His sight, if you do! You are only free áfter your husband has died! The rest of 1 Corinthians 7 makes this clear. So, let the truth of the Word of God now make you free from your false doctrine and from thus denying yourself and your husband much pleasure, making things hard on you. And do no longer present the world a false Jesus Christ!

ENJOY what God has given you to enjoy! There is more than enough that robs us of joy and gives cause to grief!

13 June 2009 at 14:27  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

dutchlion said,
//One final word to Indigo: You seem wired wrongly - I find many of your remarks illogical, offensive and not appropriate.//

And yet you have not shown anywhere the illogic of my arguments; you have not shown how I have been offensive (can you demonstrate that I deliberately intended to offend you, which is what you are demanding); you have not shown how they are not appropriate. My comments are relevant to the debate, based upon good solid evidence and basic logic, and yet all you have done is retort with baseless assertions and incoherent assumptions. It is little surprise that your petition has attracted so little attention.

I find amusing that you accuse others, who disagree with you quite civilly to be offensive, and yet you say that I am wired wrong, that homosexuals are sick in the head.
//The LAW SHOULD REQUIRE that these homosexuals, muslims etc. and their mislead sympathizers proove that the preacher, teacher, author etc. intentionally wanted to offend the accuser personnally!

The LAW should make it a crime to submit a complaint / accusation & charge against anyone intended to terrorise, intimidate, and silence him, because of personal issues or because of the message, if the accuser can not proove that the accused had the intention to offend the accuser.//

I call your bluff, dutchlion. By your own law, I demand that you prove that the people on here have wanted to cause you deliberate, personal offence.

//He said that those who looked upon a woman with lust had already committed adultery in their heart. The same with those who lust after men; they have already committed the homosexual deed.//

Ahh, so the man who you linked to is still a practising homosexual, despite all that you have claimed. He still desires men, and in your theology desire=action. Perhaps you should consider things more fully before linking to them?

13 June 2009 at 16:55  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Andrew Lilico said,
//The question was asked above whether people should be permitted to preach against mixed-race marriages. Of course they should! And they should be able to tell me that all property is theft, and that lizard-men from outer space run the UN, and many other wacky things.

My children are mixed-race, so if I wanted to get all uppity I could take offence at someone preaching about the evils of mixed-race marriage.//

I would have to disagree with you: I do not believe people should be allowed to preach against mixed-race marriage. Why should they? It seems odd to me that a decent society should permit the airing of such odious opinions. Also, do you believe that they should be permitted to prevent people of difference races from being married?

13 June 2009 at 17:01  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

There is only one race: The human race!

Ah, and yes, may be only one other: The church-race: Those who have been born of God, and are filled with His Spirit, and who follow Jesus Christ, in obedience to the Word of God; for Whom Jesus Christ will return to take them to be with Him, to marry Him as His bride, and to live with Him for ever and ever! Amen!

13 June 2009 at 18:11  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

dutchlion said,
//There is only one race: The human race!//

This is manifestly untrue. There are biological differences between members of different races. This is obvious.

13 June 2009 at 18:30  
OpenID jamestheless said...

WoollyMindedLiberal,

"Yes it does, in direct contradiction of what Jesus is supposed to have said. But what did he know after all?"

It's not clear why we should accept your suppositions about what Jesus would have said.

All we know is that there are no recorded statements of his concerning many practical considerations, including dietary requirements. These were worked out by the early church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 15 for an example).

"By no means am I ever a party to the Naturalistic Fallacy. What is natural is natural. Plague, cholera, diptheria, smallpox, tuberculosis, cancer, tapeworms and a host of horrors are totally natural but the world is a better place without them. I was just pointing out that eating shellfish was a perfectly natural thing to do. That does not make it a good thing to do, God has spoken after all and denounced it as an abomination no matter how 'natural' it may seem. Even if its as natural as homosexuality its still wicked."

This is rather different from your original statement, which I repeat here:

"Same sex pair-bonding has been well documented in most mammals and several bird species. It seems to be pretty widespread in the natural world. So if you believe that God ordained that penguins and sheep would be gay it seems odd that you can't accept that he might have ordained the same for people too."

Would you regard other activities which are "pretty widespread" in the natural world - murder, rape or incest for example - to be acceptable for humans?

"So it is our fault that eating the shellfish that God created and ordained to be tasty and nutritious is evil. We have brought this abomination upon ourselves. Thankyou for explaining that."

So many points here:

1. I've already explained that Christians are allowed to eat shellfish.

2. Dietary laws are not a result of sin; when God created Adam and Eve, he told them to be vegetarians.

3. In those churches which still have dietary laws (in the form of partial or complete fasting), breaking them is generally not regarded as a sin.

4. The "we" who are responsible for evil in the world is all humanity, including our ancestors; because humans refuse to follow God's plans and insist on doing whatever suits them, the natural world does not reflect God's intentions. Therefore, we cannot reliably deduce God's intentions from the natural world.

5. Christians have the means of escape from this deadly cycle of sin. This is not just for themselves, but also - because it returns the world slightly closer to God's intentions - for everyone else. If there is still evil in the world, a large part of the blame falls on Christians who have failed to live up to Christ.

"Yes indeed, if it were not for God we would not know that eating of prawns, mussels, oysters, scallops and the rest is an abomination. We would thing that just because they are tasty and healthy that it was not an abomination."

No, it's not a case of God arbitrarily decreeing that we should not be allowed to enjoy something. Sins are sinful because they increase the distance between man and God. Christ said that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord God with all our heart and soul, and our neighbour as ourselves. Every time a Christian is distracted from loving God, whether it is by sex, a new car, a good meal in a restaurant or anything else, this commandment is broken (even if they only thought about it).

[I will have to continue in a separate post due to the restriction of 4096 characters. Apologies]

13 June 2009 at 19:53  
OpenID jamestheless said...

[continued from previous post - apologies for testing His Grace's hospitality]

"This is a very cruel piece of doctrine."

As you may recall, Jesus gave the commandment about loving the Lord God in response to the question "what must I do to be perfect"? The "recommendation" in my earlier post (I should have written "ideal") describes the sexual status of someone who is far along the road to perfection.

Does God expect Christians to be perfect? No, of course he doesn't. But he does expect Christians to strive to do better, through Christ, with Christ and in Christ.

Another relevant passage (in a completely different context) was was the disciple's reaction to the teaching of the Eucharist in John: this is a hard saying, who can swallow it? And many of them gave up and stopped following him.

Yes, Christianity is a harsh and very demanding creed, and Christians often feel like giving up. We struggle on in the belief that the harshness is tempered with a great deal of mercy knowing that we have a reliable helper who will pick us up every time we stumble.

Finally, at the risk of trying His Grace even further, I would like to repeat a comment I made earlier in the thread:

Since vocal inflections do not transmit over blogs, I should add that I am gently trying to explain what I believe to be the consequence of actions. My feelings towards sinners, of whom I am one and in no position to cast the first stone, is not of hatred or triumphalism, but compassion towards fellow-sufferers. Some realise they need healing, some don't; some who want to be healed have found a doctor, some are still looking.

13 June 2009 at 19:58  
Anonymous len said...

The problem that happened with the fall of man is that mans driving force( his spirit) was corrupted.
To use an imperfect analogy its like programming a computer( the mind) with corrupted data. Rubbish in rubbish out as the saying goes.
So atheists, agnostics,you are making decisions with corrupted data!.
Gods word( correct data) does not agree with your corrupted data so you reject it!
That is why God speaking of earthly wisdom said" Professing to be wise they became fools"
Scripture is the only yardstick we have to define truth.
God gives man ( born- again) a new spirit( correct data) and that born- again believer Knows the truth ( not by intellectual process`s alone but the Truth resides inside him) and the believer can re-order his life to align with this living truth.
That is why Jesus Christ said "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life "
Gods answer to all the ills of humanity are contained in The Lord Jesus Christ.

14 June 2009 at 10:13  
Anonymous len said...

I would like to add to my previous post that when God created this planet He established certain physical and spiritual laws.
God also gave warnings about breaking these laws.( as any reasonable person would) Electricity companies place warnings around high voltages cables saying if you touch this it will kill you.( That`s not the electricity company teaching you a lesson for touching the cable , its natural cause and effect.
So it is with Gods spiritual laws.

14 June 2009 at 10:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

jamestheless

Fascinating post. God told Adam and Eve to be vegetarians? I think you have inferred that. If so a very clever inference.

17 June 2009 at 15:46  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older