Friday, July 15, 2011

Cash for Confession?

Cash for Questions’ was the first highly damaging parliamentary scandal of recent years. It concerned MPs accepting bribes from lobbyists to table questions in Parliament, and led to the establishment of the Nolan Committee to review the issue of standards in public life. It all occurred under the premiership of John Major, and brought down a few prominent MPs. The saga morphed into ‘Cash for Honours’ under Tony Blair, when a disturbing correlation was observed between those who were loaning money to the Labour Party and the bestowal of knighthoods and peerages, such that the question ‘Do you want a K or a P?’ was more base than lavatorial. And then we had ‘Cash for Influence’ under Gordon Brown’, when Labour peers were found to be accepting money for helping to amend legislation. The corruption of Parliament reached its zenith (or was it a nadir?) in the ‘Cash for Me’ expenses scandal, though ‘Cash for Access’ is still bubbling away beneath the surface.

As the trial-by-tabloid hounding of the Murdochs continues, there will doubtless be many at The Guardian and the BBC who will be rejoicing at (indeed, stoking) the assault on the world’s largest media empire inclined to the Republican/Conservative worldview. But the euphoria will also be felt in the cloisters of the Church of England: His Grace reported some time ago on the objections of the Bishop of Manchester to the BSkyB takeover, on the grounds of media plurality. His Grace agreed with His Lordship that the vitality and plurality of the media is ‘essential’ for a ‘well informed democracy’. And His Grace further agreed that there is a danger of the ‘exercise of subtle editorial influence’ should BSkyB be taken over completely by News Corp. But His Grace was dumbfounded as to why His Lordship, as the Church of England’s ‘lead media spokesman’, has expressed no such concerns about the BBC, especially when News Corp has just six per cent of news viewers while the BBC attracts 58 per cent.

As the Established Church grapples with the ethical issues raised by its ownership of 344,586 shares in News Corp, worth just under about £3.8 million, the Roman Catholic Church is now becoming embroiled in the saga. Questions have already been asked about Rupert Murdoch’s knighthood, which was apparently bestowed after he donated $10m to help build a cathedral in Los Angeles. His Grace has a slight problem with rewarding those who make donations to the Church, not least because, verily, they have had their reward on earth. But it now appears he wasn’t the only Murdoch to be asked if he wanted a K or a C.

James Murdoch wouldn’t be the first to offer cash for confession: Frank Sinatra famously offered an undisclosed sum for Pope John Paul II to hear his last confession, as though the Mafioso's sins were so unforgivably mortal and pervesely carnal that only the Vicar of Christ himself had the authority on earth to grant absolution. And throughout the ages various salvation packages have been available, at a price, to those who wield temporal power and political authority.

But it is sad that James Murdoch’s six-figure donation ahead of Pope Benedict’s visit to the UK last year is now as tarnished as his father’s ‘K’ and the Church of England’s shares, which must have appeared a jolly sound investment at the time. Rupert Murdoch is not Roman Catholic, which makes his knighthood rather remarkable. Though the fact that his wife, Anna, and son, James, are, certainly helps to explain the very generous donations. But Mr Murdoch Snr is not, unlike Sinatra, trying to circumvent a well-deserved period in Purgatory. Perhaps it is more ‘Cash for Access’ than ‘Cash for Confession’: there was certainly never a question of it being ‘Cash for Influence’ over Canon Law.

While many Roman Catholics are calling for Sir Rupert to be stripped of his knighthood, there is resistance. Dr William Oddie said: "Just cancelling the knighthood simply gives the impression of futile censoriousness.” And the Church of England is also resisting divestment, just in case their Murdoch shares should increase in value over the coming years (ie, when News Corp finally does take over BSkyB).

But there is some bizarre reasoning:
“We'll have to be careful in the future about that particular source of money," said Bishop Kieran Conry of the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton. "A conversation needs to take place, discussion needs to take place. It is a public scandal and everyone knows Murdoch's empire is tainted by these revelations."

Francis Davis, a fundraiser for various religious causes, former government adviser and trustee of numerous charities, added: "Given the importance that the English bishops have attached to ethics in business since the banking crisis, it would now be extraordinary if the bishops were not to review the ethical provenance of this donation. And perhaps it raises questions about other donations we don't know about."
How, pray, can one be careful about the morality and ethical provenance of the unknown unknowns? And who has yet made known what is unknown, or professes to know beyond a shadow of doubt what a court of law has yet to make known?

150 Comments:

Anonymous MrJ said...

That is what needed to be said in good Cranmerian style.

Also provides target practice for the brickbatateers.

15 July 2011 at 10:06  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

The curious thing about Murdoch is that I have never heard a respected senior editor say that Murdoch has ever attempted to control their editorial freedom. Patience Wheatcroft said it again this morning.

Of course he is involved in the choice of editors and is unlikely to headhunt from the Guardian, and although his papers have generally taken a rightish view they (the Sun more so than the others) have been more concerned with backing winners than promoting a political ideology.

Politicians know the power of the Sun, with its clever headlines that can influence elections and sway public opinion but in courting Murdoch they are demonstrating their own lack of conviction and not his personal power.

The print media is changing fast and my guess is that the influence of newspapers will eventually fade and then the pressure will be on to allow politically partisan TV networks (like Fox) in this country.

15 July 2011 at 10:36  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

YG, well put.
Didn't the CofE lose a seriously large amount of its wealth several years ago, because of its stupid investment decisions? So, isn't what we are hearing just cant on their part?

15 July 2011 at 11:18  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace, it is time for a debate on the respective qualities of the 'national interest' and 'private interests'.

Note how Dave declared that Rupert Murdoch's decision to withdraw his bid for BSkyB was 'good for the nation'. A very important choice of words. Dave is defining the national interest as an outcome contrary to Murdoch's private interests and pronoucing that 'good'. Ergo, Murdoch and his private interests are 'bad', although this was not said specifically, it is nonetheless implied.


Now His Grace's communicants will all be aware that the great challenge in liberal democracies lies in protecting the individual from the power of the state. It is reasonable for private citizens to assume that the 'national interest' which governs their activities through the executive will be determined in public debate monitored by a free press. Parliament is important in this process, of course.

But look what happened when Dave conferred with Clegg and Milipede. There was no public debate and their meeting took place in a private room with the press being excluded. What emerged from that meeting was a complete reversal of previous public policy targeted at a single personality, Rupert Murdoch. There is no act of parliament, just an agreement to gang-up on Murdoch.

Dave's total cynicsm in this matter is deplorable. He started off on the back foot when his friend Coulson was arrested and has since decided that salvation lies in destroying the private interests of the Murdoch family in the UK. The tool being used is a secret pact with Dave's political opponents in the Labour Party, endorsed by the Lib-Dems. So in order to destroy the private enterprise of the Murdoch family (and shore up the left of centre Coalition with the Lib-Dems at the same time) a Conservative Prime Minister is implicitly defining the 'national interest' as a Conservative alliance with the Labour Party.

The whirring sound, Your Grace, is a large number of former Conservative Prime Ministers (Traitor Heath excepted) spinning in their graves.

Cameron has just acted in a manner which flouts every tenet of democratic governance. All done to save his own skin.

15 July 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Sir,

There is no evidential link between donations, knighthoods, purgatory or the forgiveness of sins in this sorry saga. Strip him or not of his knighthood it is of no real import.

As you say:

"And who has yet made known what is unknown, or professes to know beyond a shadow of doubt what a court of law has yet to make known?"

However, be sure the Pope will not be answering improper questions about this very private matter.

15 July 2011 at 13:09  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

...the great challenge in liberal democracies lies in protecting the individual from the power of the state.

Surely this lofty, ethereal riposte would have some semblence of relevance if it was applied to the individual in an illiberal State?

I think the biggest challenge in a liberal democracy is protecting the individual from the wills and actions other individuals.

15 July 2011 at 14:00  
Anonymous Voyager said...

trial-by-tabloid hounding of the Murdochs

You are of course being ironic.....as if - trial-by-tabloid - is a practice unknown in Murdochia

15 July 2011 at 14:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The way to protect individuals from the power of the state, and from the tyranny of the majority, is rights. Yet the concept of rights is not that popular these days, or actually properly understood, after being constantly trashed by much of the newspaper media.

15 July 2011 at 14:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm waiting for a Becky on Rupert toe-sucking story to appear in the Sunday Mirror.

15 July 2011 at 14:12  
Anonymous Oswin said...

All rather reminiscent of a certain fictional character, Michael Corleone eh? A prime example of the truth occasionally being stranger than fiction; and truly 'big time' this time!

The whole thing is a 'conspiracy theorists' nightmare: like waiting for a bus when three arrive simultaneously; or in this case, several thousand!

I'm pleased to see, Your Grace, that for the second time around, you are excoriating the selling of indulgencies. Do though, try not to get burned this time around.

15 July 2011 at 14:26  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Graham Davies said

"the pressure will be on to allow politically partisan TV networks (like Fox) in this country."

We already have one- it's called the BBC!

15 July 2011 at 14:30  
Anonymous Voyager said...

d...

The way to protect individuals from the power of the state, and from the tyranny of the majority, is rights.


AH The Positive Freedom Crowd....you have no "rights" unless The King grants them.....the Hegelian Serf

15 July 2011 at 14:38  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Much of this phoney moral fervour to protect the rights of the individual to privacy is more of an opportunity for politicians to even the score with the media: it is in danger of becoming the smoke screen that they hope will blur the iniquity of the complicity of politicians to side with whomever best serves their own ends.

They may well be patting themselves on the back at ridding themselves of one puppet master - but I doubt that they have suddenly acquired a spine of principal that wont wilt at the next sniff of opportunism.

The Whip System; The Lobby System; Cash for honours; expenses; Corporate schmoozing; overpaid private 'advisors' and 'directorships'; gold-plated pensions and above all treating the public as fools and this Nation's long term future, as their Party plaything.

They will have to address these issues and more before they claw back any credibility from me.

15 July 2011 at 14:48  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Broadly agreeing with Mr bluedog (12:55) and Mr Dreadnaught (14:48), and adding that Mr Cameron has again been acting in character, as have all the other vocal and posturing M.P.s (would like to know of any exception).

There is no indication that they are well-informed about Mr Murdoch's financial crisis, any more than they have been of the sterling and world monetary crisis, or would have a clue what to do about it.

15 July 2011 at 15:13  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I know its a very serious matter YG, but I had tears of laughter running down my cheeks at 'Cash for Me'

Its the way you tell em :-D

15 July 2011 at 16:35  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Naughty man giving a wrong message about Rome and the Pope!

Cash for Confession? Most definitely NOT. Indeed your own sources make it obviouse. What are we to think of you and your objectivity?

Your blog gives the misleading impression Sinatra paid for his last confession yet this is myth!

I quote:
"THE story goes that Frank Sinatra asked John Paul II to hear his confession. The pope declined, despite Mr Sinatra’s promise to see him right. The story may have been made up, perhaps by Mr Sinatra’s own publicists; little that is reported about showbiz can be taken on trust."

Similarly, there is no suggestion of money for confession with James Murdoch.

Again I quote:
"The Catholic Church has been criticised for accepting a six-figure donation from James Murdoch ahead of him being given a personal audience with Pope Benedict during last year's papal visit."

Why do this?

15 July 2011 at 17:23  
Anonymous Reformer said...

Dodo- listen to the word of God and be converted from your sinful catholic ways :

“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color (official Vatican colors), and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls (the Vatican is filthy rich), having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations (the Holocaust, inquisitions, etc.) and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY (very few people realize where the Catholic religion started), BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (who seduce people into their damnable religion) AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” —Revelation 17:4,5


Catholicism’s ill-gotten children profess to know Christ but do service to Satan by disregarding the commandments of God in order to keep the traditions of men which papists even themselves call "TRADITION." Why is she (the whore) called a mystery? The antichrist spirit of ancient pagan Babylon, though seemingly long fallen, lives in the rites and blasphemies of the Roman Catholic religion. Now that ancient Babylonian false religion lives today within the Catholic religion, disguised by Christian names. What a Satanic scam! The queen of heaven is now... Mary! Mystery Babylon lives, undetected by doomed millions across the world.

15 July 2011 at 17:30  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Much as I hold no brief for or sympathy with the Roman Catholic organisation (falsely called a 'church'), I really don't think these comments exist for people like Mr Reformer to use your erudite blog as a platform for unadorned anti-RC propaganda. Maybe it is time for the exercise of some moderator intervention, Cranny. What do you think?

15 July 2011 at 17:50  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Much has been said about Rupert Murdoch , mostly subtle and mostly from the left with a little hand rubbing included. Peter Oborne has done an excellent article reviewing his own time as a journalist and helps the public somewhat . A free press is somthing bandied about without much respect to what it is supposed to compliment. We now have the spectacle of the very same people who made parliament unfit for democrcay ,now saying they were afraid of what the press could do , suggesting they were the victims along with the deeply wronged people whose lives and phones have been privately rifled through for intense headlines .
conspiracists showboating as victims , and now latent defenders of what the corruptions they oversaw ,is a little too much to stomach for me.
I noted the demise of the pro public investagtive reporter some time ago , jouranlism had turned into celebrity gossip because the big corporations could do strange and powerful things to media that exposed somthing .
Rupert Murdoch is a man who knows newspapers , he also gave his editors quite a bit of freedom, we should not forget that , editors have to back there journalists or things become conformist and the "free" is taken out of the free press. Yet it is a superficial media age we live in ,where some types of reporting may seem boring , which is an interesting question in itself .

Olly grender was quite sure that we wanted pluralistic media and I was left wondering what the plural of dumbed down pap was, and wether yet again somthing was being decided for us by a liberal/left elite in the vein of progressive speak as we are now just mentally incapacitated dumb animals.

The sheer ammount often junk in some years from now will perhaps lead to judge sitting asking if it was right to wire in human minds that need some sort of truth ,to a perpetually spinning diet of spiv dictatorship.
I dont think we were made to function in this continual external mental soup ,it affects our intimate lives , souls perhaps , and yet no one can explain to me if this good or bad as it seems so normal now .

15 July 2011 at 17:55  
Blogger English Viking said...

Anabaptist,

I agree that His Grace should censor stuff.

Hopefully he'll start with your self-righteous gob-shite.


Dreadnaught,

Are you under the illusion that UK subjects are living in a liberal state?

Dodo,

You claim HG is quoting out of context, whilst you yourself are quoting out of context. (Popiness is dirty, all that grubbing around for money, ughhh!)

15 July 2011 at 18:12  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

I have to say that I agree with Anabaptist on this one, it is not just the comment above, but there were a few left on the Eric Pickles thread which were a bit below the belt too and I have to say some-one writing that I'll 'go to hell' is a bit rich given that it's not their place to determine that.

15 July 2011 at 18:28  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Anabaptist:

Robust disputation should in no way be restricted. Does your moniker not speak to Anabaptist propaganda?
Please, Your Grace; No censorship, even for the rude and excitable.
Now I see Paul Twigg has chimed in. Getting a bit thinkinned aren't we?

15 July 2011 at 18:33  
Blogger English Viking said...

Paul Twigg,

It was not I that damned you, nor would I presume to know the mind of God on the matter of your salvation, but you do seem a bit wet, though.

15 July 2011 at 18:34  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Frank Sinatra famously offered an undisclosed sum for Pope John Paul II to hear his last confession, as though the Mafioso's sins were so unforgivably mortal and pervesely carnal that only the Vicar of Christ himself had the authority on earth to grant absolution.

I did not infer from this sentence that the RCC had accepted money from Sinatra. In fact I presumed quite the opposite. But what should strike the reader is that this kind of attitude is precisely consistent with the sacramentalism inherent in the RC view of justification. All one has to do is slip in that sacrament in at the last minute. Or perhaps wear a scapular. Or purchase an indulgance. Perhaps even a pre-emptory indulgance that pardons all futrue sins that will be committed in service of the church - as (say) was done with the Crusaders who sacked Beziers.

What need has a man to cling naked and destitute to the righteousness of Christ when he can avail himself of all these wonderful sacramental rituals?

carl

15 July 2011 at 18:49  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr English Viking, your language, demeanour and opinions mark you out as a complete contradiction of the person and things you profess to believe and follow, and your foul-mouthed tirades expose the Christian gospel to justified scepticism from atheists on this blog. Presumably, 'self-righteous' means anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you and your shameful unchristian rantings.

If you had any perception or intelligence, you would have noticed that my plea for moderator intervention was not made on my own behalf but for the sake of someone with whom I disagree. But you, Mr EV, seem to know no other form of debate than crude insult. Prove me wrong if you can.

Mr Reformer's outpourings against Roman Catholicism had nothing to do with the subject under discussion. They were just a naked, typically-Prod, knee-jerk attack on Mr Dodo's beliefs.

15 July 2011 at 18:54  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

English Viking,

No you did not dam me, because the person or person(s) posting did so under the name of "Reformer" and "John Ireland", in actual fact I had not suspected that it was you doing so, although it would appear that you are now suggesting you were said people? Really, as you are writing already under a monkier, I don't know why you went to all that trouble.

I am in fact in favour of free speech, but I think that on a Christian blog, one should be a little less offensive and slightly more constructive that saying some is, for example, a " self-righteous gob-shite".

In terms of my faith, that is a matter between myself & God and requires no justification to either you or Ian Cad or Len or Ernsty and all the other bloggers who seem to have extreme Fundamentalist Christian worldviews and who seem to flock to an Anglican blog as moths to a flame. I could not care less if you think I am 'wet' or not, whatever that phrase means.

Ian Cad- Paul Twigg will chime in if he wants to do so. I would not call the ravings of that person who calls himself "reformer" as being "robust disputation", but nothing more than a rant against something the poster does not like.

In Christ.

15 July 2011 at 18:55  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

>>Rupert Murdoch’s knighthood, which was apparently bestowed after he donated $10m to help build a cathedral in Los Angeles<<

So what?

From Wikipedia "Rupert Murdoch was listed three times in the Time 100 as among the most influential people in the world. He is ranked 13th most powerful person in the world in the 2010 Forbes' The World's Most Powerful People list.[3] With a net worth of US$6.3 billion, he is ranked 117th wealthiest person in the world.[4]

Hardly the widow's mite! I'll leave those interested to do the maths.
Unfortunately some in the church do little to dispel the notion that you can buy your way to heaven lest the lack of 'good works' might leave them a little short!

15 July 2011 at 19:00  
Anonymous IanCad said...

My Goodness Mr. Twigg! I dont think you would have joined in the Reformation.
Luther would be far too vulgar for you. Knox was too outspoken. Wesley disturbed the crowd so much that he made them throw rocks at him. What you would have made of the Apostles only you can know.

15 July 2011 at 19:13  
Blogger English Viking said...

Anabaptist,

Oooh, get you. Touchy, touchy.

If only every Christian were as good as you, eh?

To be anti-catholic IS to be Christian.

Muppet.


Mr Twigg,

I NEVER sock-puppet, I'm sure Mr Cranmer can confirm this if you will not take me at my word.

On the matter of being offensive; perhaps my language leaves a little to be desired. I think the sentiment behind it thoroughly Christian, though.

Christ regularly called liars 'liars', thieves 'thieves' and fools 'fools'.

One cannot have unity at the expense of truth, and those who would pander to the whore of Rome are attempting exactly that.

By 'wet' I mean wishy-washy, indistinct, insipid.

Hope that helps.

15 July 2011 at 19:14  
Anonymous Reformer said...

I shall continue to post as I see fit, even if the Anti-Christs Anabaptist and Paul Twigg and Dodo the Dude protest! The gates of hell shall ye prevail against the Lord's Church!

Satan is definitely working in the Vatican and in Catholic organizations all across the world. Though most Catholics will deny worshipping Mary, the evidence says something very different! They bow down and literally pray in the name of "Mother Mary" to a graven statue of Mary. This is sinful idolatry! They are lying through their teeth. God makes CLEAR in His Word that He will NOT share His glory with another (that includes Mary).

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." —Isaiah 42:8

How could anyone be so foolish to actually bow down in prayer to a statue of Mary, yet at the same time deny that they are worshipping her? Talk about crazy! God clearly command us in the second of the Ten Commandments NOT to make unto ourselves ANY graven images.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" —Exodus 20:4

Do the Catholics need glasses? It says right there in black and white in Exodus 20:4 that we are NOT to make unto ourselves ANY likeness of anything that is in heaven!!! Mary is in Heaven. We are NOT to make any likeness of her according to Exodus 20:4. So what do you call a statue of mother Mary?It surely is a likeness of her, a graven image! Here's another shocker...

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them..." —Exodus 20:5

Ok, so then why does every Catholic BOW DOWN before a statue of Mary in their worship places? I'll tell you why... because they are practicing FALSE religion totally void of the truth of God. You can argue whether or not you are worshipping Mary as your bowing down to her; but one thing is for certain, God has commanded us in Exodus 20:5 NOT TO BOW DOWN to her. Even if your not worshipping Mary, you ARE SINNING if you bow down to her because the Bible strictly forbids it! As I write, millions of people all around the world are bowing down to Mary in violation of God's Word. Yes, Satanism is in the Vatican!

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." —Mark 7:7

"For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." —Mark 13:22

15 July 2011 at 19:16  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Mr Viking,

I will take your word for it.

15 July 2011 at 19:18  
Blogger English Viking said...

Reformer,

Preach it brother!

Oooh yeah!

15 July 2011 at 19:19  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr Twigg,

You are most kind, Sir.

15 July 2011 at 19:20  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Mr. Reformer:
Are you saying that Mary is in Heaven? If so you are swallowing one of the fundamental tenets of the papacy, namely the Assumption of Mary.
Mary is dead. She is in the grave. To be awakened only when Christ returns in power and glory.

15 July 2011 at 19:34  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Are you under the illusion that UK subjects are living in a liberal state?
No more than you are under the illusion of being an English viking.

15 July 2011 at 19:35  
Anonymous Reformer said...

Ian Cad,

Mary would be in heaven if she believed in Jesus Christ, but she was only a normal sinful human like everyone else. She needed to be saved as well.

To everyone else :

Catholicism is a lie of the Devil, a prison-house of religion. If I didn't sincerely care about people, then I wouldn't take the time to WARN others. The Catholic religion is all a bunch of Satanic lies based upon traditions and dishonest manipulation and perversion of the Word of God. See a list of Catholic heresies.

I plead with you, obey the Gospel by acknowledging your guilt of sin for breaking God's Laws, turn to the Lord Jesus Christ in faith, trusting solely upon His work of redemption to wash away your sins, and by all means, forsake the hideous Mother of Harlots.

The Great Whore of the Catholic Church will take you to Hell with them if you're foolish enough to follow them. Luke 11:44, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them." I tell you, the Catholic Church is like an open grave, a trap just as Jesus warned, waiting for its next victim to fall into it. Please don't do it. Salvation is NOT found in a religion, but in a Person—the Lord Jesus Christ!

15 July 2011 at 19:44  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

My suggestion: '...But you, Mr EV, seem to know no other form of debate than crude insult. Prove me wrong if you can...'

Mr English Viking's reply:
'...Oooh, get you. Touchy, touchy.
If only every Christian were as good as you, eh?
To be anti-catholic IS to be Christian.
Muppet.'


My case rests.

15 July 2011 at 19:51  
Anonymous Jon Ley said...

This is one of my key problems with the ultra fundamentalist Christian denominations- note that the reformer spends half a page railing against the catholic church, yet one, tiny, tiny sentence has Ian Chad arguing with him. No wonder these types of churches constantly split and become cults in all but name.

15 July 2011 at 19:52  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dreadnaught,

I shall refrain from teaching you history. Just check out the invasions, and the DNA, in the North of England in particular, to see that a great many English have Viking blood.

There are French ones, too.

Have you ever thought about the etymology of the province of Normandy?

The Normans? How can they be from the North, when Normandy is South of England?

15 July 2011 at 19:52  
Blogger English Viking said...

Anabaptist,

If only your mouth would do the same.

15 July 2011 at 19:53  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

And while the Christians are biting lumps out of each other Islam is busily taking over redundant churches and reclaiming the world for Allah.

15 July 2011 at 19:54  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dreadnaught,

They'll have a shock when they get to my house.

15 July 2011 at 19:56  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Ian Chad :

The thing is that this is supposed to be a blog of erudite and intelligent discussion, not a forum for crude sterotyping and ranting behaviour, how would you feel if I told you to "fuck off twat"? You'd say that was hypocritcal and UnChristian of me. I trust that this makes my point clear.

English Viking- I am Church of England in denomination, so from your world view yes I am 'wishy washy'. To others, though, I am nothing more than a ignorant 'godbot'. Depends on your perspective.

15 July 2011 at 19:57  
Blogger English Viking said...

Paul,

Let loose with the expletives, you'll feel so much better.

I like smashing stuff up. Try that. It helps.

15 July 2011 at 20:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 July 2011 at 20:11  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

If the 'reformer' had any idea of the nature of evil and satan he would not go around using the term 'antichrist' on this blog as a casual personal insult. You might have theological or political differences, with me and the others you mention, but please NEVER EVER, EVER ,EVER CALL ME AN ANTI-CHRIST AGAIN!

15 July 2011 at 20:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Voyager: "AH The Positive Freedom Crowd....you have no "rights" unless The King grants them.....the Hegelian Serf"

Oh god, he's off again with his weird German philosophy thingy.

I see Michael Gove has already trail-blazed a place for Voyager in Pseud's Corner. ;)

15 July 2011 at 20:17  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Viking, what you offer as an enlightened insight in to Scandanavian influences on European social history is quite unremarkable - next you'll be telling me 16thC Spain controlled The Netherlands.

15 July 2011 at 20:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"If the 'reformer' had any idea of the nature of evil and satan he would not go around using the term 'antichrist' on this blog as a casual personal insult."

It's just an anagram of Santa and you know who that turned out to be in the end so don't worry about it.

15 July 2011 at 20:21  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

"Let loose with the expletives, you'll feel so much better."

No when I became a Christian I learned that there was a better way, some of you write about being "born again". Indeed, so the old sinful life is to be put away as we walk with Jesus Christ.

I do appreciate that sometimes in the heat of the moment it is difficult to exercise self-control.

As some of the fundamentalists like to go about quoting scripture at everyone, I suggest that they read this :

"The fruits of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control .Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other" (Galatians 5 vs 22-26).

15 July 2011 at 20:24  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

'...'If only your mouth would do the same.'

And another one.

This level of argument and erudition is so impressive...

15 July 2011 at 20:26  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Danjo- as an atheist I wouldn't expect you to understand exactly what a slur that is on a believer of Jesus Christ- but trust me it is not a nice thing to be called. Think of the worst anti-gay insult you have ever been called and you will get the picture.

15 July 2011 at 20:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Think of the worst anti-gay insult you have ever been called and you will get the picture."

To be honest, no gay insults actually bother me as they remind me of the school playground. I just laugh when Viking describes us as shirtlifters and the like. :)

One needs a thick skin around here anyway, especially if one is a muslim, or a left-winger, or a Catholic. Even being an MP is thought to be pretty dreadful.

15 July 2011 at 20:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "And while the Christians are biting lumps out of each other Islam is busily taking over redundant churches and reclaiming the world for Allah."

Only vaguely related but I've just watched that Life of Mohammed thing (the first episode) on iplayer. It's quite informative in a sort of visual Wikipedia sort of way but I laughed at Rageh's handling of the two controversies in the episode.

15 July 2011 at 20:43  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr DanJ0,

Judging by some of the comments not infrequently directed towards His Grace, one also needs a thick skin around here if one is an Anglican, and even more if one is Protestant.

15 July 2011 at 20:44  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Danjo- I do actually have a thick skin & can take most insults. Foolishly I expected better from the posters on this blog and therefore let my guard down. Well lesson learnt.

15 July 2011 at 20:45  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

"one also needs a thick skin around here if one is an Anglican, and even more if one is Protestant".

Well I am both.Strange though that it is the fundies which are on the attack tonight, eh Your Grace?

15 July 2011 at 20:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

Anabaptist,

I thought you'd rested?

Dreadnaught,

If you are familiar with the history, then you will retract your comment concerning my screen-tag.

DanJ0,

Just for you: turd-burglar.

15 July 2011 at 20:57  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Danjo, I too watched the programme and had to crunch on ice-cubes for the sake of preserving my TV screen: talk about fairy la-la-land!

It will be interesting to see how or if he covers the violence of the 'revelations' in the Medina period or how Islam won the hearts and minds (or is that heads)of 'reverts' wherever they went thereafter.

Well we knew it was going to be a
whitewash all along especially with a Muslim head of religious programming.

Those plucky little Muslims - bless!

15 July 2011 at 20:59  
Anonymous Archbishop Cranmer said...

His Grace, being the person he is actually endorses everything that has been said against the catholic church. Papists can rot in hell. Which is why I won't delete any of the above comments- freedom of speech is my smokescreen for being a bigot.

15 July 2011 at 20:59  
Anonymous Gigger said...

I can think of better insults than that offered by EV to the gay -bitch and all round gay filth of danjo the banjo!

15 July 2011 at 21:01  
Blogger English Viking said...

Gigger,

That's not nice!

He's more reasoned than some of the 'Christians' on here, even though he is a brown-hatter.

15 July 2011 at 21:05  
Blogger English Viking said...

Paul,

How is it possible to be a Christian without believing the fundamentals?

15 July 2011 at 21:06  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Archbishop Cranmer 20:59

Sounds like DoDo has been at the Calpol again.

15 July 2011 at 21:14  
Anonymous Len's former lodger said...

Satan owns and controls the Catholic Church. Their demonic organization total rejects, denies and goes contrary to the plainest teachings of the Word of God that only by being BORN AGAIN can a man enter into the kingdom of God. That is what Jesus taught (John 3:1-7). Tragically, one billion fools today are following the madness of the Catholic highway to Hell . . .

15 July 2011 at 21:17  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

English Viking,

There is a difference between Fundamentalist Christianity and the fundamentals of Christianity. I would suggest you read John Stott's 'Evangelical Truth' on this subject, Pages 20-24.

15 July 2011 at 21:21  
Blogger English Viking said...

Paul,

I shall do so (DV) and report back.

15 July 2011 at 21:24  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Archbishop Cranmer said...
"... one also needs a thick skin around here if one is an Anglican, and even more if one is Protestant."

I've come to understand there are Protestants and there are Protestants! Apart from varying degrees of antipathy towards Rome, ranging from the mild to the extreme, I'm not sure what Anglican and Protestant (or Anglican and Reformed) shares with the more fundamental Protestants posting here.

Presumably the 'born again' evangelical extremists are as hostile to the Anglican community with its priests, sacraments and rituals as they are to Roman Catholicism. They constantly attack individual representatives of the Anglican Church but not its beliefs and practices. Why is this? Afraid of the response to going public?

I understand Anglicanism is a broad Church but how broad? And what really unites 'Protestants'?

15 July 2011 at 21:39  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

The other reason why I would not call myself a fundamentalist is that a fundamentalist actually moves further and further from the principles of the beliefs that they apparently hold most dear.

I would also suggest that understanding the paradox of fundamentalism (of any creed) is also a crucial way to understand some of what happens in the world.

The paradox is that the more a fundamentalist attempts to adhere to his/her belief the further they actually get from that belief. For example :

1. Marxism/Socialism- if one reads Marx, the socialist dream world seems like a paradise, an attempt to build a better world, but which when put into practice becomes a total distort of the origional utopian dream in which people are sent to salt mines and live in utter poverty and misery. I cannot think of one 'pure' socialist country that has existed ever that I would want to live in, despite the claim that one would be living in would be a near perfect society .

2. Christinaity- take one of the 10 commandments 'you shall not murder', a line which is often taken by fundamentalist christians (both Protestant and Catholic) to be a justification for being anti-abortion. Some take this to mean in any circumstances (the fundamentalist viewpoint). However the fundamentalist activists are quite prepared to murder the doctors who perform abortion. Thus a paradox- a group of people who believe that murder is wrong, yet are willing to do the same to prevent murder.

15 July 2011 at 21:39  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 July 2011 at 21:48  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Dodo, by the same token I also discovered that there are Roman Catholics and Roman Catholics- just as in the Anglican Church there are moderates, traditionalists and fundamentalists. I remember once being shouted at by a fundamentalist catholic that they only way to heaven is via the church and being a catholic- that the Anglican Church was not a 'proper church' and a lot of gloating about our apparent divisions.

So in all fairness there is an equal amount of antipathy by some on the roman catholic spectrum towards non-catholic churches.

Strange really, given that I have gone to great lengths today to argue about the tone and language used in the theological discussions on this subject from those on the protestant side.

15 July 2011 at 21:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "It will be interesting to see how or if he covers the violence of the 'revelations' in the Medina period or how Islam won the hearts and minds (or is that heads)of 'reverts' wherever they went thereafter."

I'm looking forward to episode 2 now. That thing about Rushdie ... it was claimed that UK muslims suddenly realised that they were part of the worldwide Ummah (I paraphrase) because of that. I need to watch that bit again I think but it seemed to me that it was saying if it wasn't for Rushdie then muslims as a group in the UK wouldn't be as stroppy and self-aware as they are often portrayed. I'd be surprised if that were the case.

15 July 2011 at 21:55  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Paul Twigg

I agree.

It's a learning curve!

15 July 2011 at 21:57  
Blogger len said...

Throwing money at the church to pay for ones sin may be profitable for the Church(the Church which must not be named as it offends Mr Anabaptist, but is universal, and not adverse to acquiring large sums of cash to ease anyone`s conscience) but is a totally useless endeavour.
Jesus Christ paid for the sin of humanity through the Cross of Calvary, God will accept no other payment.
Catho- phobia seems to be running a little rampant at the moment not without good cause though.Poor old Dodo has shot himself in the foot so many times I wonder he can still stand up.During the war a plan was made by the allies to rid themselves of Hitler but as he was making such a hash of running the war they decided to leave him to it as he was more of a danger to them as he was to us.
Lesson to be learned Mr Dodo?

15 July 2011 at 21:57  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught

Multiple personalities tonight I see.

Bearing false witness is a serious sin. And using fake names on here and suggesting it is someone else is just sillyness. Besides, you're not bright enough to pull it off!

Do grow up.

15 July 2011 at 22:04  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

I would humbly suggest, Dodo, that the key matters of faith are :

1. The Authority of the Bible as the revelation of God about his world and his plans for it.

2. The belief that only through faith in Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection can one get to heaven and God. A place is heaven is not purchased with good deeds, gold or silver (or a Murdock donation) but through the blood of Jesus Christ.

3.That one day Jesus Christ will return again and judge the living and the dead.

4. That it is the mission of the Church to attempt to spread the gospel or good news to every corner of the earth.

5. The Holy Spirit is there to guide and command the above.

There are differences surrounding these 3 areas (e.g. Church organisation, how, when, whomn re the second coming, as we have seen on the other thread, how literally do you take the Bible) but personally I think that these are the glues of Christian faith.

15 July 2011 at 22:07  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

Look who's talking!!!

You know so little about the faith you attack it's laughable. You're just making yourself look more foolish.

15 July 2011 at 22:10  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Paul I don't think a Catholic would argue against these as basic truths.

As you probably know we would give greater emphasis to points (4) and (5), with more weight to tradition and reason in understanding the bible, and also stress the authority of the Church and the Pope.

15 July 2011 at 22:25  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Not guilty DoDo.

15 July 2011 at 22:29  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Dodo

I don't think a Catholic would argue against these as basic truths.

Perhaps only because he dropped the word 'alone' in point 2. The (Infallible) Canons of the Council of Trent must be beat against these points to come to a proper understanding of the differences involved.

carl

15 July 2011 at 22:30  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

if it wasn't for Rushdie then muslims as a group in the UK wouldn't be as stroppy...

That's what they said; then tried to posit and that it was a spontaneous mass knee jerk reaction. Mass offence was sustained even though hardly any of them looked as though they could read English, let alone get to understand Rushdie's concept.

15 July 2011 at 22:39  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Carl, do I detect a little bit of obscurantism here?

If you look at it "he" did not 'drop' the word 'alone' in point 2 because "he" didn't write it there in the first place, but if it makes you happier....

PS- it seems that the difference between Anglican/other Protestants is I guess this is it- debating over 1 word from 2 paragraphs of writing and finding fault with it to the point of being at odds with the greater whole.

15 July 2011 at 22:42  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Paul Twigg

[D]o I detect a little bit of obscurantism here?

I was not intending to be obscure, so let me be clear. The difference between "faith in Christ" and "faith in Christ alone" is the difference between a false gospel and the true Gospel. A RC asserts that a man is saved by Faith plus "something." That's why Dodo could give assent to your list. It was ambiguous on the critical difference between Protestant and Catholic - that being the anathemas of the Gospel found in the Canons of the Council of Trent.

carl

15 July 2011 at 23:01  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Carl, you are welcome to post to me on a first name basis, to be fair I did not intend to be ambiguous about this and to my mind the addition of 'alone' goes without saying and I am 100% comfortable with this addition. Dodo can of course speak for himself on the matter.

Although I would not automatically suggest that 'faith in christ' and 'faith in christ alone' leads to a choice of a 'false gospel' and the 'true gospel'. It is, as you point that, only when you add a whole sentence (rather than an omission of 1 word) that it becomes a false doctrine -i.e.
'the something else'.

15 July 2011 at 23:25  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Paul, I don't pretend to be a theologian, not even a good Catholic!

However, I do agree nuances cause strive being open to different understandings. Hence my acceptance of Catholic Church authority bestowed, I believe, by Christ on the Apostles with His promise of success.

Is 'alone' really what is meant by 'sola fide' or is this one part of a more complex whole? Given the opportunity to know Jesus and the Good News, to then refuse the gift of faith and to deny Him entry into your heart, would be to refuse salvation. No problem with this.

Faith, according to Catholicism, needs building and strengthening and the right circumstances to flourish.

Attending Mass and receiving the sacraments fortifies us. Acts of giving show our love of our neighbour and serve as an example to others. A Christian just helps those in need - for Christ's sake!

Similarly, we believe, accepting the Doctrines and following the teachings of the Catholic Church helps us to avoid error that can undermine and destroy faith.

If this sends me to Hell then so be it!

15 July 2011 at 23:42  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Now the tears have cleared YG.

I would just like to say when the unknown, uknowns, clash with the plain truths which are common knowledge, I will be borrowing a hijab, in order to prevent the shit getting in my teeth when it hits the fan.

Forget ticket touts, forget title touts.

Grab your Hijabs why you can, because this shower of shits will need them, to escape conviction.

I have pre-ordered a double load of Hijabs, which will be purveying at thrice the normal cost, any political or media folk interested?

It may be your only way of escaping notice!

Capitalism with a small c :-D

All proceeds will go to those Brits dispossessed of their ancestral homelands and the rebuilding of a Cottage industry.

Danjo may apply for the cottage industry, but is forewarned, your inability to comprehend my meaning may warant you sharing a public convenience with Dreadnaught.

15 July 2011 at 23:54  
Blogger English Viking said...

Len is correct.

16 July 2011 at 00:11  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Viki

len is misguided?

You, well, what's the point?

16 July 2011 at 00:14  
Anonymous MrJ said...

How can Mr Reformer's comments be regarded as anything but spoof ?

It is very obvious, and noone needs telling, that Catholics (Roman or other) adhere more or less to certain credal observances and others do not.

It is difficult to see why anyone would, seriously and in good faith, imagine that this blogsite is for denouncing others due to credal differences.

But the course of discussion can benefit from mention of such points of difference as mentioned at 23:01 (Mr carl jacobs), about "the critical difference between Protestant and Catholic - that being the anathemas of the Gospel found in the Canons of the Council of Trent".

16 July 2011 at 00:20  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr J said ...
" ... the critical difference between Protestant and Catholic - that being the anathemas of the Gospel found in the Canons of the Council of Trent".

For goodness sake!

Please refer me to the exact source in the documents of Council of Trent for this gross over simplification and distortion of Catholic dogma.

The anathemas of the Gospel indeed!

16 July 2011 at 00:33  
Anonymous MrJ said...

To whom it may concern:

00:33 appears to result from a misreading of 00:20 (possibly inadvertent).

16 July 2011 at 00:54  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I am quite sure that the christian faith is somthing no one person can comprehend in its entiritey ,hence the need for communion and the peace.

I see us as sort of living parts of gods message , we have both our own salvation and that of others to consider.

Fundamentalist can have different contextual meanings , if one looks at how the methodists came about ,you might consider it a fundamentalist movement.

How the protestant and roman catholic positions may come together is important , I do not believe we have that much to fall out over ,when our culture is being handed over to the godless. Look at us , same bible , same key understanding of jesus , and we seem so limited in trying to stop our culture deteriorating into little more than a nice warm feeling at certain times of the year.

It is a living work , full of challenges , discipline , and seeking the mysteries of the faith and gods love.

By all means good theology , meaningful services , prayer for others and ourselves redemption and salvation .

We only know god by spending time with him , no head of either church , has yet had the power to bridge all humanities errors in a mass conversion event ,in that sense both churches are still seeking the lord , before his invisble presence .

16 July 2011 at 01:23  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Many were a trifle overly excited today (yesterday now) - perhaps due to the full-moon eh? (and they say astrology is nonsense)

16 July 2011 at 02:45  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

From the Canons on Justification of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIII.-If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

carl

16 July 2011 at 04:59  
Blogger prziloczek said...

I, for one, am getting fed up with Rupe.
He has, like the rest of us, done a lot of good in his life. He has also done a lot of bad.
So have I.
It is no big deal really.

The moral of the tale, of course, is: QUIT WHILE YOU ARE WINNING.

16 July 2011 at 06:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bred: "Danjo may apply for the cottage industry, but is forewarned, your inability to comprehend my meaning may warant you sharing a public convenience with Dreadnaught."

Is preferring the literal to the lateral an inability or a sideways slant? Trying to mix DAN up might seem like an act of gene-ius but the bone bluedog gnawed on recently suggests your focus on a certain topic might actually have been bred in the closet even if it looks like a dog's dinner to most here. Are you at a critical crossroad rather than a cryptic crossword? Not a cross word, you understand. You know, it's been said before! Hope that is clear. ;)

16 July 2011 at 07:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

These internecine fights are curious things. Standing on the outside, I can see the benefits of having a Magisterium and propagating a single interpretation developed over many hundreds of years of careful and iterative study. Yet any mistake early on will have been compounded and built upon so that the deviation later on could be huge.

Compare that with the free-format, individualistic attempts to interpret and understand the often cryptic meanings in the bible, starting afresh and from probably damaged or culturally loaded personalities, and it's going to end up looking like an incoherent mess. Worse, we end up with cults, end-of-worlders, and messianic nutters in some cases.

Even the middle way suffers from the dissatisfaction of the various groups within it but at least it has an umbrella understanding I suppose. Of course, we also end up with political power struggles between those groups which never looks good from the outside.

As I said when I first came here, I simply can't understand how or why a Holy Spirit can't make itself clear. This is the Lord of All Creation, apparently sustaining the entire universe moment by moment as an act of will and allegedly our minds are part of the environment in which it exists in its special non-contingent-existing sort of way.

16 July 2011 at 07:51  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Please Danjo, quite banging your head against a brick wall, before it gets you locked up in a padded cell for your own safety.

16 July 2011 at 07:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

3 down, 1 a cross.

16 July 2011 at 08:11  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,
'As I said when I first came here, I simply can't understand how or why a Holy Spirit can't make itself clear.'

First point the Holy Spirit is not an 'it' but a 'He'.
The Holy Spirit is exactly the same Spirit as Christ.So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.(1 Corinthians 15:45)Christ shares His Spirit with born again believers, His Spirit becomes my Spirit.This is why it is essential to be born again as Christ instructed.
Now religion instructs a man as to how to behave and this religious person tries to conform his behaviour to try and reproduce the behaviour that only Christ can produce.The Spirit of the religious, unredeemed, man remains unchanged and is actually opposed to Christ because through pride this man feels(although he will never say it) that he is as good as Christ.
This is the difference between those who hear the voice of the Holy Spirit and those who resist it.This is exactly the problem Jesus had with the (religious) Pharisees because Jesus was born of the Spirit of God and they were not.

16 July 2011 at 08:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Please Danjo, quite banging your head against a brick wall, before it gets you locked up in a padded cell for your own safety."

You can try your hard cell on me but I know my rights! The law protects the consumer not the seller of dodgy wares.

16 July 2011 at 08:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "This is the difference between those who hear the voice of the Holy Spirit and those who resist it."

Did you watch Rageh's programme? Mohammed had a revelation akin to those of the Old Testament prophets. Not a full-of-joy one but a painful one like Jeremiah and he too was apparently rather reluctant to receive it. Why shouldn't we believe that claim?

You can (and do) claim Catholics are not true Christians, Catholics can (and do) claim you are not a true Christian. Muslims claim you all are not on message. And Satan is behind all of it, except the particular one the person blaming Satan holds.

16 July 2011 at 08:25  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,
I can only speak through my own experience .
I did watch Ragehs programme and thought it skirted around vital issues and produced a 'Mohammed' none who followed him would have recognised.Also the background of Mohammed and how he came to his'belief system' and his contact with Judaism and pagan Christianity was 'glossed over'.Jewish scribes were alleged to have sold him made up 'bible stories' and these are found in the Koran, no mention of this though!.

I have said in past posts I believe some Catholics are genuine Christians not because of Catholicism but despite it.God will work with anyone who responds to Him but there are many obstacles to Him in religion especially Catholicism and Islam.

The condition Jesus said you MUST comply with is to be born again.This is entry level Christianity.

The 'Jesus' in Islam is not the Jesus of the Bible at all be a created being.Islam has so many errors in it( derived from false Christianity and Judaism mixed with pagan beliefs) that any serious searches will easily expose this.

What it basically comes down to is that if you are genuinely seeking the God of the Bible he will make Himself known to you.Come close to God, and God will come close to you.This is a 'heart thing 'not a 'head thing'.

(WV seekin! )

16 July 2011 at 08:51  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Explain your theories then Danjo, do you believe homosexual tendancies to be latent in all folk.

Because this tendency to propose anyone bringing the matter up is emerging from a closet, seems a nonsence to me.

Then again you did once claim to be evolving us with your ideology, maybe you see homosexuality as some state in which we all need to emerge like a butterfly.

Don't think I have not faced these issues Danjo, when my Brother emerged from his closet like a butterfly, I did spend sleepless nights worrying it could happen to me.

He eventually reasured me it does not work that way, but then went on to claim all good looking men where gay deep down and I thought you cheeky git!

16 July 2011 at 08:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Explain your theories then Danjo, do you believe homosexual tendancies to be latent in all folk."

Not at all, quite the opposite. I think the people who believe we somehow recruit are completely daft.

Marie and I have argued over this a couple of months ago when she thought the people around her were 'turning gay' simply to be fashionable. I'm afraid we still snigger over that one. I expect that little gem came from the BNP. When Marie pops in, I think the average IQ of both here and the BNP mailing list goes down about 30 notches. :)

I'm just teasing you like I do with other homophobic people.

16 July 2011 at 09:35  
Anonymous MrJ said...

The headline on the front page of the Times this morning (print edition)is:

>Day of atonement_ *Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton resign *Murdoch apologises to the Dowler family<

An earlier generation could have supposed such a usage to be intended to resonate with "scapegoat" or the Christian doctrine of "redemption".

But today it is more likely to be taken as an allusion to Ian McEwan's novel "Atonement" (2001). For those, like this commenter, who have not read it, or seen the film version (2007), this excerpt from Wikipedia explains:

"On a fateful day, a young girl (who aspires to be a writer) makes a terrible mistake that has life-changing effects for many people. Consequently, she lives seeking atonement—which leads to an exploration on the nature of writing."

Wikipedia also mentions that an opera is to be written based on the novel:music, Michael Berkeley, libretto Craig Raine. "It is hoped to produce the opera in the US, UK and Germany in 2013."

If the Murdoch Affair is still running then, it may be that the curtain will have come down for the above-named resigners.

(In the Shorter OED the first of the definitions of atonement in the Shorter OED: "Unity of feeling; harmony, concord, agreement".)

16 July 2011 at 09:48  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl jacobs @ 04:59

You really must not put words into the mouths of Roman Catholics!

Nothing at Trent anathemising the Gospels. It anathemised what it regarded as false understandings of the Gospel.

Read alongside the other teachings of the Council of Trent, the ones referred to seek to show salvation reqires cooperation.

I agree justification was declared to be offered upon the basis of faith and good works as opposed to the Protestant doctrine of 'faith alone', and faith was treated as a progressive work. The idea of man being utterly passive under the influence of grace was also rejected.

However, to fully understand this position requires a full reading of all the final documents. The Council saw its position as entirely consistent with the Gospel message and cited Scripture.

16 July 2011 at 10:28  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I am far from homophobic Danjo.

I am a radical traditionalist and find your progressiveness a threat to the traditional spiritual way of life for many folk.

As a matter of fact I enjoy the philosophical outlook of the Indologist and gay french writer Alain Daneilou.

He was straightforward enough on the issues that face us today and how to preserve ancient ways and protect diversity.

He made some good points on how anti-racists are the real racists in his book: India a Civilisation of Differences.

16 July 2011 at 10:42  
Anonymous MrJ said...

MrJ is sincerely grateful to Mr Dodo the Dude for so clear an epitome of the possibility of error which induced the Papal party to separate from communion with others, and to Mr carl jacobs for his comment (and citation of certain anathemas pronounced by the Council of Trent) which led to it.

16 July 2011 at 12:14  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Dodo the Dude

You really must not put words into the mouths of Roman Catholics!

I simply quoted the canons without comment - canons to which all Catholics must submit on penalty of damnation. But then, you have admirably highlighted the essential differences in any case when you wrote...

I agree justification was declared to be offered upon the basis of faith and good works as opposed to the Protestant doctrine of 'faith alone'

You now admit to the truth of my original comment when I said you could only give assent to Paul Twigg's list because it did not contain the word 'alone' after the word 'Faith.' The debate between Protestant and Catholic is not about the necessity of faith. It is about the sufficiency of faith.

carl

16 July 2011 at 13:27  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Bred in the bone @ 10:42 & elsewhere:

It's a slow-burner, but I'm warming to you (non-patronizing!)in the midst of your ferment of ideas you often bowl a purler.

16 July 2011 at 14:28  
Blogger len said...

Cash for confession.

When I was younger, a lot younger, my Mother used to give me money to put in the collection plate at church.
Once having missed the collection plate I put the money in a box at the back of the church which was marked'for the vicars discretion'but in my youthful ignorance when asked by my mother where I had put the money I replied 'I put it in a box for the vicars indiscretions ' might have been almost prophetic!.

16 July 2011 at 15:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl jacobs

My point was to dismiss your suggestion that Trent somehow anathematised the Gospels which you know to be nonsense.

The Council arrived at a different theological position to Protestants and reaffirmed it's constant teaching. I've outlined this and it's all based on Scripture, reason and tradition.

Most certainly Catholics have taken from Scripture a more complex understanding of the relationship between faith and works and the role of developing grace, than the belief that 'faith alone' justifies and leads to salvation.

MrJ

Maybe I misread you but I think
you obtain a perverse pleasure from misrepresenting others and being provocative. If you've nothing clear, honest and helpful to contribute, what's the point?

The "Papal party" i.e the Catholic Church of 1600 years standing, did not "separate from communion" with others. It declared its position and a wide range of Protestant sects, who failed to agree even amongst themselves, seen as heretical by the Church, seperated themselves from Her. You will also know the Catholic Church believes itself free from the "possibility of error" given the commission it was given by Jesus and the protection afforded it by the Holy Spirit.

We don't agree - fine.

16 July 2011 at 15:57  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Dodo

My point was to dismiss your suggestion that Trent somehow anathematised the Gospels which you know to be nonsense.

Trent didn't anathematize the Gospels - as in the first four books of the New Testament. It anathematized the Gospel - as in the central message of the Christian Faith. The content of the Gospel is knowable and known. That is what Trent attacks.

I understand that there is no agreement between Protestant and Catholic over the definition of the Gospel. I intended only to emphasize the essential nature of the disagreement. I long for the day when Rome will repudiate Trent, and the functional deification of Mary, and the arrogance of the Papacy, and that vaporous mist of Gnosis called Sacred Tradition, and all the other errors the encrust her like carbuncles. Until that happens, we should not pretend that we are separated brothers arguing over adiaphora. The definition of the Gospel is not adiaphora.

carl

16 July 2011 at 16:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Though long overdue, R Murdoch is getting his comeuppance for interfering in UK politics. IIRC his newspapers had a role in the defeat of Conservatives at the hands of Tony Blair. I am not saying that newspapers cannot be partisan - the UK press is much more honest in its biases when compared to the supposedly neutral US press - no over what I refer to is the sudden turnaround of the Murdoch papers, cutting off the Conservatives' legs at a crucial time, the memory of which is quite hazy now. For a certainty the leftists at the BBC are having a laugh, but their day will soon come as the viewers notice that their productions are loaded with homosexuals and perverts.

Ivan

16 July 2011 at 17:02  
Anonymous MrJ said...

MrJ notes the admission at 15:57 about misreading, immediately followed by a calumny too obvious to merit further rebuttal; and gratefully acknowledges that Mr carl jacobs at 16:25 (mentioning "The definition of the Gospel is not adiaphora") has sustained his (cj's) comments at 22:30 and 23:01.

16 July 2011 at 17:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see my handful of obscure and cryptic references have gone down as well as Bred's usually do. :( :(

He and I are wasted here. Not literally of course. Though I've had my doubts at times.

16 July 2011 at 18:09  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo, I think you'll find a fair few so-called ''homophobes'' in the lists of 'MENSA' too. I just thought I'd bring that to the table. :o)

16 July 2011 at 18:51  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr J
Someone really should get you a wooden spoon for Christmas although you do quite well without one.

Carl
We disagree but is it necessary to be so offensive and abusive towards the faith of Rome Catholics?

And so hostile towards attempts at reconciliation too! You're not another fundamentalist 'born again' evangelical are you? Mind you, until 'Protestants' agree what is and what is not adiaphora what hope is there for unity?

Will you be a 'sheep' or a 'goat' when standing before Christ?

" ... and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing."

16 July 2011 at 19:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Will you be a 'sheep' or a 'goat' when standing before Christ?" Now which statue of Our Lord would that be?

" ... and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing." Shame someone didn't whisper that gem into ignatius's and the inquisition's ear, what?

Do stop it, its hurting my ribs.

Ernst

16 July 2011 at 19:49  
Anonymous MrJ said...

It looks as if the commenter at 19:30 does not wish to be taken seriously, and may be another spoofer, or attempting to be.

16 July 2011 at 19:57  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Extra Silly while Blowing Tiddles

Such a bitter memory and living in the past too!

Never mind ... once dementia sets in you'll get over it. Not too long now I would hazard a quess.

16 July 2011 at 20:01  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Just need len to join in now and maybe that weirdo Buckley III, and the full pack of goats will be here!

Oh, and not forgetting Oswin and English Viking.

16 July 2011 at 20:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The pot calls the kettle black!
Murdoch -a non-Catholic donates- and receives a papal knighthood.
Cranmer's King bribes the papal nuncio to have him made archbishop.

16 July 2011 at 20:15  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Dodo

We disagree but is it necessary to be so offensive and abusive towards the faith of Rome Catholics?

How is it offensive and abusive to speak the truth? Is it abusive to call Sacred Tradition 'gnosis?' Then define for me its content and provenance. Is it abusive to refer to the functional deification of Mary? Then explain this.

O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying. O Purest Mary, O Sweetest Mary, let thy name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, O Blessed Lady, to help me whenever I call on thee, for, in all my needs, in all my temptations I shall never cease to call on thee, ever repeating thy sacred name, Mary, Mary.

http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/prayers/perpet3.htm

How can I be reconciled to Rome when this stands in my way? What reconciliation is even possible when divine attributes are clearly assigned to a creature?

You're not another fundamentalist 'born again' evangelical are you?

You would have to define what you mean by 'fundamentalist' before I could answer. Being 'born again' is a simple fact of the Christian Life. As for 'evangelical,' the definition of the word has been blurred. I call myself a Reformed Protestant.

carl

16 July 2011 at 20:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 July 2011 at 20:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "DanJo, I think you'll find a fair few so-called ''homophobes'' in the lists of 'MENSA' too. I just thought I'd bring that to the table. :o)"

Ah, I was actually talking about BNP supporters being thick rather than homophobic people in general. Take a look at the policies area of the BNP website if you want a good laugh, it's like a group activity in GCSE politics by bored students.

I've been tempted for ages to mock up a news story to send to them about a new study showing that 50% of the population are below average intelligence because of liberals getting involved in the education system and that aptitude in maths in particular has suffered. I bet it'd fly. :)

16 July 2011 at 20:25  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

To whom it may concern

(You know who you are)

Why be opposed to tolerance if not reconciliation within Christianity?

Surely discussion offers the opportunity for persuasion and even conversion, opening us to new understandings?

Why be dismissive of this and so hateful towards Roman Catholicism? Apart that is from ‘end time’ speculations? Have you ever seriously considered these may not be divinely inspired?

16 July 2011 at 21:02  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl jacobs

It is offensive to misrepresent Catholic truths and insult them. One can engage in constructive conversations and still speak truthfully. Besides, this would be more fruitful.

The beautiful prayer you quote does not deify or attribute divine attributes to Our Lady! It represents a simple petition to her to protect us and to intervene on our behalf to her son.

Neither does it detract from Jesus Christ as the only Way to God.

A Catholic is not obliged to pray to Mary or to seek her help.

You display similar misunderstandings of the other examples you give.

I meant a fundamentalist 'born again' evangelical who views Catholicism as the ‘great whore’ and Rome as the seat of the anti-Christ. I understand many of you do.

16 July 2011 at 21:28  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Mr carl jacobs:

(16:25) "...mist of Gnosis called Sacred Tradition.."

(20:21) "Is it abusive to call Sacred Tradition 'gnosis?' Then define for me its content and provenance."

That, to my mind, is a question well put, but may I ask whether in the remarks above-quoted there is an implicit distinction between "gnosis" and "gnosticism", having regard to the article on "Gnosticism " in the online Catholic Encyclopedia "New Advent", which reads in part:

"Gnosticism: The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know.

"A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be: A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour.

"However unsatisfactory this definition may be, the obscurity, multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic systems will hardly allow of another. Many scholars, moreover, would hold that every attempt to give a generic description of Gnostic sects is labour lost.

"The beginnings of Gnosticism have long been a matter of controversy and are still largely a subject of research. The more these origins are studied, the farther they seem to recede in the past."

16 July 2011 at 22:00  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Keep it going Mr J, there's a good little soldier.

16 July 2011 at 22:41  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Well, all I have to say is the words of this great hymn :

"Lord, for the years your love has kept and guided,
urged and inspired us, cheered us on our way,
sought us and saved us, pardoned and provided:Lord for the years, we bring our thanks today!.

Lord, for that word, the word of life which fires us,
speaks to our hearts and sets our souls ablaze,
teaches and trains, rebukes us and inspires us:
Lord of the word, receive your people's praise!

Lord, for our land in this our generation,
spirits oppressed by pleasure, wealth and care:
for young and old, for commonwealth and nation,
Lord of our land, be pleased to hear our prayer!

Lord, for our world where men disown and doubt you,
loveless in strength, and comfortless in pain,
hungry and helpless, lost indeed without you:
Lord of the world, we pray that Christ may reign!

Lord for ourselves; in living power remake us-
self on the cross, and Christ upon the throne,
past put behind us, for the future take us:
Lord of our lives, to live for Christ alone!"

Copyright : Bishop Timothy Dudley Smith

16 July 2011 at 22:49  
Anonymous Christian Bible said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

16 July 2011 at 23:33  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Oh My Good Lord!

Time to summarily remove a post Mr Blogmaster.

16 July 2011 at 23:38  
Anonymous Christian Truth said...

(Un)christian Bible said ...
A unrepeatable tirade of threatening hatred and abuse.

Get thee behind me Satan!

16 July 2011 at 23:46  
Anonymous Christian Truth said...

Well done 'a blog administrator'.

16 July 2011 at 23:54  
Anonymous Christian Bible said...

A few followers of Christ have attacked the Papish Church for the unchristian anti-christ that it is . But also the Anglican Church is equally the anti-christ & therfore the likes of Paul Twigg, Ernsty& Tiddles, English Viking and the other so called christians shall rot in everlasting hell! ;

Their own Official Anglican Statement of Faith condemns them! According to the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church of Canada from The Book of Common Prayer, 1959, pg. 698-714...

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church: the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." (The 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church of Canada from The Book of Common Prayer, 1959, pg. 698-714).

Heresy! Damnable heresy! They state above, "...they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church: the promises of forgiveness of sin..." There is NOT one verse in the entire Bible that requires a person to be baptized to have their sins forgiven. When Jesus said to the man sick of palsy in Mark 2:5, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee," He didn't tell the man to get baptized. Jesus forgave and healed that sick man on the spot, without baptism! How foolish are those unscrupulous Bible teachers who fail to study the Word of God, to understand it's true meaning. Many people fail to understand Acts 2:38. If you'd like to know much more about Biblical baptism, then I highly recommend A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION OF BAPTISM, by Pastor Max D. Younce, Th.D.

17 July 2011 at 01:21  
Anonymous Christian Bible said...

Why the Anglican Church is the WORK OF SATAN PART II

Baptismal regeneration is of the Devil, i.e., the heresy that a person must be baptized to go to Heaven. Here is another helpful article, that I think really makes an excellent point concerning baptism. It is so simple folks. No one in the Old Testament was ever required to be baptized; but rather, we read in Genesis 15:6 that Abraham "believed God" and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Romans 4:5 plainly states, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." What is there not to understand? Listen my friend, you'd better forget, and forsake, the 39 articles of the Anglican faith, and rather obey the Word of God! In fact, there is a Scripture which tells us exactly that in Romans 3:4, "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar..." Men are liars, who tell you that you must be baptized in order to be saved. The entire purpose of 1st John being written, according to 1st John 5:13, was so that we could KNOW that we have eternal life ... "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life..." Carefully notice--NO MENTION is ever made of being baptized. In fact, the words "baptize," "baptism," or "baptized" is NOT mentioned in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd John. If baptism were necessary for salvation, surely the Apostle John would have mentioned it.

Just as the heretic Martin Luther, the Anglican Church teaches and rests upon the damnable demonic doctrine of baptismal regeneration. When Jesus witnessed the Gospel to Nicodemus in John Chapter 3, He never mentioned baptism. When Jesus witnessed the Gospel to the Samaritan woman, at the well, in John Chapter 4, He never mentioned baptism. In Acts 16, when a Roman prison-guard fell at Paul's feet and asked, "What must I do to be saved," Paul responded ... "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Again, no mention was made of being baptized. How ridiculous is the notion, that God would deny someone access into Heaven, simply because they failed to perform some self-righteousness religious act. Salvation is of the heart, not by religious ceremonialism. Only by believing upon Jesus Christ, because of the precious blood which He shed for us, can we be saved. Jesus said He is the Door into Heaven (John 10:9). Salvation is as simple as walking through a Door, and that Door is Jesus. Simply trust Him now, to forgive all your sins, believing upon Him as your personal Savior.

17 July 2011 at 01:22  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Dodo

I misrepresented nothing. I understand Catholic doctrine better than virtually every Catholic with whom I converse. And I do not believe that Rome is the Great Whore of Babylon from Revelation.

I shall let the reader decide for himself regarding idolatry in that Marian prayer. He can start with the assertion of Mary's 'Most Powerful Name.'

carl

17 July 2011 at 01:28  
Anonymous Christian Bible said...

I would finally conclude that the salvation of jesus christ is not fit for those like danjo, paul twigg, anabaptist and the other homosexuals who go onto this blog. they must repent or be thrown into the lake of fire. although for some there is no hope -jesus didn't come to save the niggers or the other inferior races of the earth, but for the supreme ayran race!This is Biblically true, so don't get fooled by the Anglican and papist heresies or untruths as Dodo, Paul Twigg, Anabaptist, Danjo, Bred In The Bone, English Vikng, Carl Jacobs and the other shits who think they know Christ!

17 July 2011 at 01:29  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Christian Bible

Is Matthew 28:29 not part of your bible?

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

17 July 2011 at 01:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carl Jacobs- well if that an't a quaint JEWISH NAME! CHRIST KILLER!

17 July 2011 at 01:31  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

MrJ

[M]ay I ask whether in the remarks above-quoted there is an implicit distinction between "gnosis" and "gnosticism"

I did not intend to call the RCC 'gnostic.' I merely meant to communicate the true nature of Sacred Tradition.

carl

17 July 2011 at 01:33  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Right, this is too much. I'm trying to get some sleep, yet the old blackberry is "ping, ping, ping" about post from His Grace's good blog- being called the 'antichrist' is bad enough, but the posts here degenerating into the worst kinds of nonesense.

when I foolishly decided to read some of them, I almost had a mini stroke. This "Christian Bible" fella is clearly and I do not say it lightly, the archtype anti christ, who is to my mind set on some other agenda other than that of our loving Gospel of the Loving Lord Jesus.

I can say without hesitation that I will not be burning in the lake of fire upon my death because I believe and trust in Jesus Christ (alone) to be my advocate when the judgement comes; my faith and hope is in the cruxified and risen Lord Jesus Christ.

As for the bit about 'inferior races' what a load (and English Viking will like me here) of utter shit. Jesus Christ was FOR ALL NATIONS AND ALL RACES! Got THAT TRUTH? I will even supply you with the Bible verses to prove it, but I remember Jesus saying "my temple is a place of prayer for ALL NATIONS".

I could go on, but I need to get some sleep. All I can say is that this blog is under Satanic attack and as God put his hedge of protection around Job, so too must us Christians pray than God will do the same with the 'Cranmer blog'.

Call me a 'fundy' but , you can all stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

17 July 2011 at 01:53  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl

The special status afforded Mary is open to misunderstanding. Idolatory is an unsubstantiated charge.

If, as you say, you understand Roman Catholicism you will appreciate the reasons for this special status, its biblical basis, and why she is seen as so influential as an intercessor on our behalf with Christ. There is no deification of her.

As I said earlier Catholics are not obliged to pray to Mary. Doctrines we are required to assent to are her Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity and Assumption into Heaven.

17 July 2011 at 01:54  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

To whom it may concern...

well if that an't[sic] a quaint JEWISH NAME!

There are three possible responses to your assertion.

1. The Rational, Reasoned Response. ... BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .... [Gasp] ...HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ... [Thunk, clatter] ... HA HA HA HA HA.

2. The Theologically Correct Response. The Lord Jesus was a Jew. God did not establish His Covenant with Siegfried but with Abraham.

3. The Typical American Response. America is a nation of immigrants, and so we have a curious custom that is (I suspect) almost unknown in the rest of the World. If you ask an American his nationality, he will tell you the nationality of his immigrant ancestors. We all know it, and we can generally produce percentages. For example, I am 50% German, a quarter Swede, with the rest mostly a mix of Irish and French Huguenot. But there is truth in your charge. One of my Swedish ancestors married a Spanish Moorish Jewish woman. Like I care.

carl

17 July 2011 at 02:26  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Even after post 23:33 was removed the nastiness persisted, evidently way beyond suspicion of mere spoof.

Meantime, thank you Mr carl jacobs for clarification at 01:33.

Also, 01:28 and 02:26 noted and appreciated.

17 July 2011 at 08:24  
Blogger len said...

Blimey what`s been going on here, turn your back for one minute and all hell breaks loose (literally).

Jesus said His disciples would be recognised by their love for one another.The Royal Law is to firstly love God and then your neighbour as yourself.

Their seem to be some who are recognised not by their love but by their hate for others and they call themselves Christian but their actions deny Christianity.

Error is to addressed and corrected using the Bible as a yardstick 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,'(2Timothy 3;16)
And if people can show me I am following wrong doctrine I will amend an bring it into line with scripture.
It makes me very sad to see wolves coming in to tear up the flock as evidenced by some of the remarks here.
Some of the discussions do get heated here but I would like to distance myself from some of the more outrageous remarks made by 'christians'.

Jesus`s message was one of love for Humanity and He reached out to the lost, the suffering, and the misguided,He died to save sinners and condemned no-one except the religious Pharisees.

17 July 2011 at 09:50  
Blogger English Viking said...

Christian Bible,

Now, now, that's not nice, is it?

18 July 2011 at 14:20  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 July 2011 at 16:55  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older