Thursday, January 20, 2011

The state imposition of Satan worship

Sometimes His Grace wonders why he would bother getting up in the morning if it were not for issues Islamic and matters gay.

They have become the staple diet of the MSM where ‘religion’ is concerned: there is scarcely a story on the Roman Catholic Church which does not touch upon priestly paedophilia; or on the Church of England which does not touch upon the gender or sexuality of clergy.

The BBC have even managed to turn the 400th anniversary of the Authorised Version into a gay-fest on the sexuality of King David. Howard Brenton, the gay playwright who presents the programme, said: “To a secular reader the story of David and Jonathan’s love is obviously homosexual, the only gay relationship in the Bible.” He acknowledges that the idea is ‘controversial’.

But it’s not, you see.

If he had sought to discuss this superlative literary creation in the context of the history of Christianity, or the development of the Church of England and the evolution of the English language, that would have been ‘controversial’.

But the juxtaposition, imposition or appropriation of the ubiquitous gay mindset and the secular-liberal agenda is most certainly not in any sense controversial: it is banal conformity to the ‘homophobia’ narrative which coerces while it inducts.

And so it is with matters Islamic.

Scarcely a day goes by which does not touch upon ‘extremist Muslims’, ‘Islamist terrorism’ or ‘Islamophobia’.

Baroness Warsi provides today’s fare, inculcating the sense of victimhood while coercing us to deny the facts. For if we may no longer divide Muslims into ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’ because this, she avers, ‘can fuel misunderstanding and intolerance’, precisely how are we distinguish between the peaceable and the jihadist?

She preaches that we should not use the terrorist offences committed by a small number of Muslims to condemn all who follow Islam.

Of course we should not.

But neither should the Baroness use the ignorance of a small number of kuffar to condemn all who seek to address the genuine socio-religio-political concerns posed by the virulent Wahhabi strain of Islam which now pervades.

It is interesting to note that at 10.00pm on 19th January, James Kirkup posted his article on Baroness Warsi’s speech on the The Daily Telegraph site, and that by 8.00am on 20th January this article had recorded some 1500 posts, the overwhelming majority of which were not receptive to her argument. It is telling that the comments facility is now closed and cannot even be accessed to read.

Baroness Warsi is right to blame ‘the patronising, superficial way faith is discussed in certain quarters, including the media’ for making Britain a less tolerant place for Muslims. If The Daily Telegraph blogs do not permit discussion of the issues (though they berate the Church of England with impunity), it is no surprise that alternative blogs emerge to give a platform to free speech.

But what the Baroness fails to appreciate is that this ‘patronising, superficial’ approach to religion extends to Parliament and the whole of contemporary political discourse: the Conservative Party itself is complicit in censoring intelligent discussion and reasoned debate about the profundities of religio-political matters of immanent and acute concern. They would rather demote an MP for ‘racism’ or sack a parliamentary candidate for ‘bigotry’ than entertain rational discourse, for fear offending a particular constituency.

But, as with the Telegraph, such hyper-sensitivity and consideration does not extend to the Church of England.

Baroness Warsi is undoubtedly right to warn of the dangers of religious prejudice and intolerance: there ought to be no place in civil society for those who seek to incite violence against any group of people on the grounds of their religious adherence. There is, indeed, an ‘ongoing battle against bigotry’ which needs to waged for the poison to be drawn.

But in the popular narrative discourse surrounding religion, ‘bigotry’ has become synonymous with contrariety: mere dissension is equivalent to a ‘closed mind’; to question religious doctrine connotes sectarianism; the ‘bigot’ has become the one with whom we simply disagree.

Which brings His Grace back to the the judgment in the case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull.

The speech being made today by Baroness Warsi would not be made by any Anglican on the Conservative benches. To talk of the marginalisation of Christianity and the diminution of Christian liberties would have the secularists and humanists foaming at the mouth.

But as His Grace has considered this judgment, he wishes his readers and communicants to consider that Labour’s Equality Act 2007 amounts to the provision for the state imposition of Satanism under your own roof.

The judgment in favour of Martin Hall and Steven Preddy was correct and fair in the sense that Mr and Mrs Bull appeared not to make their policy on the sanctity of the marital bed clear at the time of booking: if you journey hundreds of miles for a holiday, only to discover on arrival a restrictive regulation about which you had not previously been informed, then compensation is indeed due.

But the judge went further: he ‘clarified’ the definition of marriage beyond that decreed by Parliament in the Church of England’s liturgy; and he imposed a severe limitation in the right of a homeowner to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in one’s own home, where that home also constitutes a business.

Mr and Mrs Bull did not refuse Mr Hall and Mr Preddy a room on the basis of their homosexuality: indeed, a twin room would have been offered had one been available. This would have provided them with accommodation to enjoy their holiday. As the Judge observed: ‘Putting it bluntly the hotel policy allows them so to do albeit in the confines of a smaller bed.’

Much has been written about the potential implications of this case (eg here, here, here and here).

The rights of homosexuals, it appears, trump the rights of Christians.

But it must be observed that Labour Equality Act was also concerned with religious discrimination: it is illegal to discriminate against people in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of religion or belief.

If devout Christians seek to run their home as a B&B, and do so in accordance with the perceived principles and precepts of their faith, have we now reached that juncture where they would be obliged to tolerate Satan worship under their own roof?

And His Grace does not mean the recitation of the odd private prayer to the inhabitants of Hades: but the mandatory accommodation of the paying guest in one’s own home who insists on bringing pentagrams across your threshold, erecting shrines to demonic idols, replete with candles, books of spells, chicken sacrifice and perverted sexual practices.

This is not a trivial question, for HM Armed Forces have already been obliged to accommodate Satanism upon Her Majesty’s naval vessels.

Satan worship is already accommodated by the state, and so officially recognised.

Judge Rutherford prefaced his judgment with the history of the development of Judaeo-Christian jurisprudence. It merits quoting at length:
In 1882 Her Majesty Queen Victoria opened a new court building. It is in the Strand just at the entrance to the City of London. It was built to house the superior courts of this land with the exception of the House of Lords. No one who enters can fail to be struck by the similarity of the great hall with the interior of those gothic cathedrals with which this kingdom is so richly endowed. But if, before entering, you gaze upon the façade of the building you will notice four statues.

There you will find King Alfred who made such a notable contribution to Saxon England by codifying the laws of his day. You will find Moses to whom was given the ten commandments and to whom, by tradition, is ascribed authorship of the first five books of the Bible in which you will find in great detail the laws governing the children of Israel. Also there on the façade is King Solomon whose wisdom has become a legend and who displayed outstanding qualities as a judge when sitting in the family division in the only reported case of which we have details. And the fourth statue is that of Jesus Christ who, I imagine, needs no introduction to those involved in this case.
Judge Rutherford suggested that the statues ‘emphasise the Judaeo-Christian roots from which the common law of England was derived’, but noted: ‘a great deal has however happened since King Alfred and his Saxon laws, and even more has changed since Moses, King Solomon and Jesus Christ walked upon this earth. Those Judaeo-Christian principles, standards and beliefs which were accepted as normal in times past are no longer so accepted'.

Parliament and the Church are no longer equal pillars of the Establishment co-existing ‘in tension’: the law of Parliament increasingly has no regard at all for the Law of God.

If, as Judge Rutherford observes, social attitudes in Britain have changed to the extent that the laws made in Parliament may ‘cut across deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society’, we are now obliged by statute to accommodate the Satanist under our own roof.

And if we should seek to expel them, we shall be dragged through the courts and fined.

Parliament now imposes its orthodoxy of ‘rights’ and religious uniformity to the extent that we may no longer say, with Joshua: “But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

But doubtless His Grace is a ‘bigot’ merely for making the observation.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not.

Satanism is a religion to.

20 January 2011 at 12:23  
Blogger David Baker said...

Superb article, Your Grace - well done!

20 January 2011 at 12:26  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

The rights of homosexuals, it appears, trump the rights of Christians.

Nonsense! If a guest house run by a gay couple turned away Christians they would be guilty of the same offence.

Parliament and the Church are no longer equal pillars of the Establishment co-existing ‘in tension’: the law of Parliament increasingly has no regard at all for the Law of God.

There is no law of God. There are belief systems that attempt to elevate the rules of their club to that of law. This is the dangerous fallacy that has blighted humankind over most of our existence and is you want to see the current evidence, look at Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia.

If Warsi thinks that this administration “does God” she has a shock coming. What they do is appease the pleading Islamists because they don’t have the bottle to confront them. A phobia is an irrational fear, so Islamophobia is an incorrect term, to fear Islam is entirely rational as the teachings of the Koran contain an explicit threats to all democratic and free societies.

As for Satanism it is no more absurd than any of your religious be they Islam, Christianity or sun worship.

20 January 2011 at 12:34  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Graham Davis

Do we really have to have this conversation over and over and over again? Apparently so.

To you it is all absurd to believe in the divine or the supernatural. Your one dimensional world consists of only things you can see or touch or measure. So anyone who makes a truth claim about something you don't believe in must be being ironic. You are like the blind man joining in a blog examining opto-aural experiences and any time anything to do with vision is mentioned simply saying, "Don't you realise light doesn't exist so how can you claim that the sun is orange".

Various religions make mutually contradictory truth claims. They are either all false (as you have decided) or only one of them is. Get that into your thick skull. Your constant inane interjection of "it's all silly coz it isn't true" is neither original, or insightful, or challenging, or anything except monotonous.

20 January 2011 at 12:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They are either all false (as you have decided) or only one of them is."

Ok. Which one is it? Yours I suppose.

Or what about none of them?

Answers on a fag packet please.

20 January 2011 at 12:47  
Anonymous david wilson said...

Graham - your words are not so much those of a rational man, but rather a man who cannot see, evidenced by the fact that there are men and woman of equal intelligence who have a solid faith based on a relationship through Jesus Christ. I can assure you a life following Jesus in faith is a transformed life.

20 January 2011 at 12:52  
Anonymous RJ said...

"If a guest house run by a gay couple turned away Christians they would be guilty of the same offence"

But we are not discussing beliefs, or even desires, or temperaments, as they were in fact offered accomodation. What was not offered was facility for certain acts.

20 January 2011 at 12:54  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@anonymous 12:47

"Or what about none of them", isn't that what the the sentence says?! ("They are either all false as you have decided")

Funnily enough, I believe the things I believe are true! What about you and the things you believe?

20 January 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 January 2011 at 13:36  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Having just listened to Warsi on the radio I am sure that many here will be pleased to hear that she has been slapped down by her predecessor Norman Tebbit who told here to spend some time in a mosque listening to anti Christian and by implication anti secular, rants from many clerics. Douglas Murray (also interviewed) drew attention to the absurdity of her comment that we should not make a distinction between moderate and extreme Islam as if the latter did not exist.

20 January 2011 at 13:37  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

A Christian B&B owner will have to accommodate a Satanist.

Unless there is a revival and possibly the threat of a revolution it is over for the Judaeo-Christian in this country.

Britain is now a rights based regime. A right to means anything means that the State has a duty to fulfil that right. All rights based regimes produce a hierarchy of Rights that deposit, through the nexus of case law, with the Judaeo-Christian as a second class citizen. There is a spiritual reason for that: rights emanate from the philosophy of humanism.

And this is how it is done by way of example from the USSR:

Article 34 USSR 1977 Constitution (is very similar to Article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998):

‘Citizens of the USSR are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, sex, education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status. The equal rights of citizens of the USSR are guaranteed in all fields of economic, political, social, and cultural life’.

When any faction within Article 34 collides with another – the court of law produces a winning ‘first class’ and losing ‘second class’ citizen. The same with our rights based legislation. For example, Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003 (Equality Act 2006) versus Religion or Belief Regulations 2003 (Equality Act 2006).

By the way the regulations are based on EU directives. The British provincial government is subordinate to the federation.

20 January 2011 at 13:38  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

"Anonymous said...
Why not.
Satanism is a religion to.
20 January 2011 12:23"

Satanism is a religion to...what exactly? You didn't finish your sentence.

@ Graham Davis. If you have a look you'll find that there are a number of 'exclusively gay' guest houses around England. So yes, I'd imagine they would turn away a Christian couple if they felt like it. But then again, I wouldn't expect a Christian couple to make a song and dance about it.

And welcome back Mr Singh. Long time no see.

20 January 2011 at 13:49  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Welcome back D Singh.

You have been missed.

20 January 2011 at 13:50  
Anonymous nicodemus said...

I just want to say thanks for this article and many like it.

20 January 2011 at 13:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...


I am unable to appear here as much as I want. My commanders have given me great responsibilities.

And a good new year to to you all.

20 January 2011 at 13:55  
Blogger oldmaid said...


You raise a number of points in your article but for the moment I will comment on this one

"But it must be observed that Labour Equality Act was also concerned with religious discrimination: it is illegal to discriminate against people in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of religion or belief."

An interesting one, given most of our supermarkets are only stocking (with the exception of pork, which I understand is going to experience a 30% inflationary rise?) halal slaughtered meat.

When I heard of this last year and specifically, Tescos rather arrogant response to one concerned customer that their halal meat was not labelled as such. Tesco informed them that they had no intention of labelling the meats slaughtered to a specific religious standard and those slaughtered meeting the standard UK and RSPCA standards I also decided to write to them.

I was advised "To add further labelling requirementswopuld add unnecessary cost for the comsumer."

Surely this then leaves those of a different religious, or even animal rights beliefs with a dilemma? What of their rights?

With this in mind, surely Tesco and numerous other food outlets adopting this discriminatory practice against all who are not muslim goes against the above stated law?

20 January 2011 at 14:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

With this in mind, surely Tesco and numerous other food outlets adopting this discriminatory practice against all who are not muslim goes against the above stated law?

Yes it does.

'Goods, facilities and services'.

Money for a test case is needed and to establish a case law precedent.

20 January 2011 at 14:13  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

The butchers counter at our local Asda became a "National Halal centre" about 18 months ago, with a large emblem proudly declaring so. Then recently, the signs disappeared. However the butchers all remain from a certain ethnic origin and there is still a distinct lack of pork, ham, bacon and black pudding. Devious sods.

20 January 2011 at 14:20  
Blogger oldmaid said...

D. Singh

Thank you for your response. I suspected as much.

However, Tesco had their 'feet' under the table with government, or at least they did with the last mob and expect this lot, with Warsi on the warpath, are suitably 'sympathic' to keep[ing costs down in the light of inflation...

And no doubt some Judge could be found, as in the gays case, to deliberate in favour of the supermarkets.

For my part, I now only shop where the food is not killed to specific religious standards.

20 January 2011 at 14:26  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

… there ought to be no place in civil society for those who seek to incite violence against any group of people on the grounds of their religious adherence.

In which case, why is there a place in British civil society for a book, the Qur’an, that incites violence against all who are not Muslim? The very existence of the book puts non-Muslims at risk of attack. Geert Wilders would ban the Qur’an; shouldn’t we do the same?

20 January 2011 at 14:28  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

In the Geert Wilders case, the judge who had insisted on the prosecution, arranged to meet one of the key defence witnesses at a dinner party to influence his testimony. The witness, an eminent Arabist, was not aware of this until it happened. Although the case collapsed, the evidence was read into the record and could be summed up as "There is no such thing as moderate Islam, although there are moderate Muslims".

They are going to have a second go at convicting Wilders next month. Watch the English language Dutch blog KELIN VERZET to keep up with it. For some reason the British MSM are not very interested.

20 January 2011 at 14:32  
Blogger oldmaid said...


Moving onto the Warsi article in the Telegraph.

I did manage to read the article and some of the just under 1600 comments bedfore they disappeared.

The DT in response to a number of bloggers commenting on their disappearance against others articles produced this response:

But it is Devilishly to find...

And just to add confusion to the subject matter they have added another with another emotive heading

Do they really think if we don't talk about the 'elephant in the room' the majority will accept it?

Each day I become increasingly of the opinion where the Guardian used to be the States media propaganda machine, this has now been transferred to the DT.

20 January 2011 at 14:41  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Welcome back Mr. Singh.

20 January 2011 at 14:48  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Nobody has pointed out that the Satanist approved for the Royal Navy was a certain Mr Cranmer!

20 January 2011 at 15:04  
Blogger Fr Orsen Carte said...

"The rights of homosexuals, it appears, trump the rights of Christians".
Have you not heard there are many Gay Christians?

20 January 2011 at 15:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So why then does our ‘Conservative’ prime minister not legislate to repeal Labour’s Equality Act? And while he is at it why not abolish the Equalities and Human Rights quango and save the tax-payer a lot of money to boot?

20 January 2011 at 15:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because it ain't Labour's equality act. It's the EU's and Cameron is powerless.

20 January 2011 at 15:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Funnily enough, I believe the things I believe are true! What about you and the things you believe?"

I believe that Santa is a fat alcoholic pedophile, however that is neither hear nor there.

I don't expect to above above the law.

20 January 2011 at 15:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fr Horse and Cart 20 January 2011 15:09
'Have you not heard there are many Gay Christians?'

There are also many gay murderers, adulterers, fornicators, liars, cheats, thieves, fraudsters, drunkards, drug abusers, etc, etc just like heterosexuals.Or is there special CAVEATS included, just for them, in Christianity if someone is sinful?

Your point is?


20 January 2011 at 15:37  
Blogger Fr Orsen Carte said...

Anon: There are many gay clergy, monks, nuns, lay people, devout gays and gay Christians who might like to stay in a B&B without prejudice. Being gay and Christian is not mutually exclusive.

20 January 2011 at 15:42  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

If the B&B had been, in Baroness Warsi's terminology. "extreme" Islamic, any unapproved sexual practice may have had fatal consequences. Is to say so Islamophobia?

20 January 2011 at 15:51  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

YG, do we know what are the beliefs of this Justice Rutherford? If he is a non-believer in Christ, or a devout believer in some other religion, then I suggest this may have had influence on his decision. I think the days have gone when judges can be assumed to be impartial.

20 January 2011 at 16:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fr Horse and Cart 20 January 2011 15:42
Or is there special CAVEATS included, just for them, in Christianity if someone is sinful?

Because you are able to do something does not of itself make it right or most definitely Christian.

St Paul to Corinthians admonished the people!
The Corinthian church was plagued by divisions (What WAS a Christian and HOW should they behave?). The believers in Corinth were dividing into groups loyal to certain spiritual leaders (1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:1-6). Paul exhorted the Corinthian believers to be united because of devotion to Christ (1 Corinthians 3:21-23). Many in the church were essentially approving of an immoral relationship (1 Corinthians 5:1-2). Paul commanded them to expel the wicked man from the church (1 Corinthians 5:13). The Corinthian believers were taking each other to court (1 Corinthians 6:1-2). Paul taught the Corinthians that it would be better to be taken advantage of than to damage their Christian testimony (1 Corinthians 6:3-8).

Paul gave the Corinthian church instructions on marriage and celibacy (chapter 7), food sacrificed to idols (chapters 8 and 10), Christian freedom (chapter 9), the veiling of women (1 Corinthians 11:1-16), the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34), spiritual gifts (chapters 12-14), and the resurrection (chapter 15). Paul organized the book of 1st Corinthians by answering questions the Corinthian believers had asked him and by responding to improper conduct and erroneous beliefs they had accepted.
If it's too hard to accept, why not just be a Humanist and not disobey Christ?


20 January 2011 at 16:09  
Blogger Fr Orsen Carte said...

I am not able to find where Our Lord forbade gay people to stay in a B&B.
Unlike yourself, I am not a fundamentalist.

20 January 2011 at 16:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@fr orsen carte 20 January 2011 16:22
I am also not able to find where Our Lord said it was acceptable for gay people to stay in a Christian couple's B&B, purely for mischief.

What if it was 'Fundamentalists' going in search of mischief at a gay B&B, would you not say 'what kind of behaviour is this from christians'. We kinda guess what happens in a gay b&b, so what would be the purpose..So much for 'live and let live', the old motto for getting the law changed in the first place, yes! This sort of motto is always a one way street for the gullible and leads to the above outcome.

Unlike yourself in your statement above, I follow my Saviour and accept His commandments and not extract what 'SUITS' me personally and therefore cast off what appears 'inconvenient'.


20 January 2011 at 16:48  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Fr Orsen Carte said...
'I am not able to find where Our Lord forbade gay people to stay in a B&B.
Unlike yourself, I am not a fundamentalist.

So presumably even if there were an instance in which Jesus forbade 'gay' people to stay in a B&B, you wouldn't consider yourself bound by it as you are not a 'fundamentalist'.

20 January 2011 at 17:00  
Anonymous PJ said...

KINGOFHIGHCS said "Paul gave the Corinthian church instructions on...the veiling of women (1 Corinthians 11:1-16)", what are you thoughts on that, surely if it's in the bible we it should be encouraged?

20 January 2011 at 17:02  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Extremists and moderates are the same because a moderate is either an extremist in the making or a normal person on the edge of coming to their sences.

The distinction should therefore be between extremists and normal folk.

Satanism is a part of the Abrahamic faith since Satan belongs to the Abrahamic faith.

20 January 2011 at 17:08  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr PJ's reasonable enquiry about Paul's alleged instruction for women to be veiled needs some attention. If I may address it...

Paul's comments are in the cultural context of a significant degree of cultic matriarchy which was often present in Greco-Roman pagan world ('Great is Diana of the Ephesians.'). Also, they are made in the context (in his letter) of his discussion of the created order, to ensure that the Corinthian church distinguished itself from the pagan roots from which many of its members had emerged, asserting its alliegance to the Hebrew scriptures. He was clearly concerned that the church in that place was rapidly becoming indistinguishable from the pagan surroundings.

He therefore required that in that context, married women who took an active, voluble role (praying and prophesying) in the church's meetings, should adopt some sign that they were under authority. The most appropriate sign was the covering of their heads on those occasions.

It has nothing to do with women wearing hats 'in church'. It has nothing to do with women in general: the possessive pronoun, 'your', means that women are to be understood as wives (Koine Greek uses the same word for both).

The covering is a sign of being under authority, by the symboolic means of acknowledging that there is something 'over' their heads

Circumstances now are rather different, though it continues to behove churches to be aware of current social trends and to ensure that the paganism that surrounds us does not influence or corrupt the 'colony of heaven', which each church ought to be.

20 January 2011 at 17:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

pj said 20 January 2011 17:02

Each letter/epistle Paul wrote dealt with specific issues for that City/Church/Culture that was hindering growth and unity as well as addressing their concerns regarding persecution etc!.

From historical records and through the archaelogical excavations of William Ramsey and others, Corinth was prosperous enough to be named as one of the three economic centers of Greece by Plutarch, a writer of the second century.
The famous greek historian Strabo wrote, "Corinth is called 'wealthy' because of its commerce, since it is situated on the Isthmus and is master of two harbors, of which the one leads straight to Asia, and the other to Italy; and it makes easy the exchange of merchandise from both countries that are so far distant from each other."

The Corinthian economy was more wide-ranging than that of many other Roman colonies. In addition to agriculture, Corinth was known for manufacturing and trade, especially of bronze, and the Isthmian games.

Not surprisingly the city derived income from its control of the isthmus. A charge was imposed for boats or cargo hauled on a platform across the isthmus on the "Diolkos," a paved road.

The folk were prone to flaunt their wealth and so Paul especially admonished the believers there to show respect for the Lord whilst in church.

It is a matter of person respect in attire within THAT church leading to division, likewise advice regarding eating of meat sacrificed to idols was becoming a division at THAT church. St Paul addressed this and 2nd Corinthians is the 'Joy' letter from St Paul that all was resolved. OK!


20 January 2011 at 17:40  
Anonymous Luther said...

Excellent article

20 January 2011 at 17:52  
Anonymous PJ said...

Wow! Thank you Anabaptist and KINGOFHIGHCS, wasn't expecting such a detailed analysis. I read it the other day and had completely no idea how to interpret it. So your explanations are appreciated.
Sorry for digressing Cranmer

20 January 2011 at 17:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PJ said 20 January 2011 17:52

You are more than welcome.

I love archaelogical and historical books as they reveal the environment that christians found themselves in, especially St Paul in his epistles and so we can have confidence in God's Word when speaking to others.

They were all human beings with many faults, just like us..

Thanks to Anabaptist also, who beat me to it.


20 January 2011 at 18:03  
Anonymous len said...

The'gay' Christian.

If one is a true Christian ,ie born again, born of the Spirit of God where does the gay part come in?
God condemns homosexuality as being part of the 'fallen 'nature, so the 'gay' Christian is promoting the part of himself which should have gone to the cross.
We are spirit beings inhabiting bodies and we derive power ( either knowingly or not)from the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus,
Or from the fallen Angel,The Prince of the Power of the Air.

Might sound a bit way out to some of you, and I suppose you will deny it vehemently but the evidence is every where to be seen!
Rebellion against God, Denial of the Word of God, denial of the existence of God. Man`s pride and arrogance, hatred of God, where do you think this all comes from?.
I am not surprised that satanic churches are springing up as these provide a figurehead for those in rebellion against God.

20 January 2011 at 20:10  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

'Judge Rutherford suggested that the statues ‘emphasise the Judaeo-Christian roots from which the common law of England was derived’, but noted: ‘a great deal has however happened since King Alfred and his Saxon laws, and even more has changed since Moses, King Solomon and Jesus Christ walked upon this earth. Those Judaeo-Christian principles, standards and beliefs which were accepted as normal in times past are no longer so accepted'.

I dare say, that with those words, he sealed his fate. Just like Pilate.

21 January 2011 at 01:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what a load of cobblers

21 January 2011 at 12:05  
Blogger Daddy said...

This judgement cuts across the whole politico-religious world.

"If Solomon, Moses and Jesus are now no longer considered to be eminent 'judges', perhaps we Christians should lobby for their likenesses to be chiseled from the face of a building whose business no longer honours them."

Would the Muslims tolerate a carving of Mohammed on a non-sharia court building?

21 January 2011 at 16:09  
Blogger James said...

Why not tollerate Satanism in our society? Other non-christian religions are tollerated, who gets in a fuss over hindus, jews, buddhists and christian sub-sects practicing their respective faiths?
Is the state imposing mandatory Satan worship? No, the state is imposing mandatory legislation to allow for freedom of religion and other such differences that exist among people in our society.
What's this about chicken sacrifices? Most Satanists are against animal sacrifice. If you dont believe it, ask some. A quick google search will give you many online Satanic churches, forums and blogs.
Perverse sexual practices? Are you listening to paranoid rumors or have you actually witnessed first hand a Satanic ritual? The Satanist position on sex and sexuality is that anything is permitted providing that consent is given by willing participants, above the age at which the law deems that consent can be given, who are fully aware of what they are consenting to. Homosexuality and fetishism are tollerated, but participation is not a mandatory religious practice. Dont believe it? Ask some Satanists. You may wish to start with the theistic Satanism blog by Diane Vera, it is well written, thorough and accessable to non-Satanists, it also dissolves the myths of the Ritual Abuse Scare of the 1980-90's and links to many other online resources and groups. We dont seek to impose our beliefs on others, we are not perverts and sadists, we are not stereotypical z-list horror movie extras, we are people who value freedom of choice and self-determination.

With regards the Satanist allowed to practice in the navy, he was of an athiestic variety of Satanism much like humanism and not a devil worshipper.

Although our theological ideals conflict somewhat with yours, we need not conflict with each other. I hope you will permit my comment to be posted, for the benefit of all those concerned. Thank you.

19 November 2011 at 18:43  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older